# Changing the length of the Interregnum? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 6, 2008, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445 "2008-11-06T14:11:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445/21 "2008-11-06T19:28:51Z")
> [@NineToTheSky](#): > > Correction: we have recounts frequently. When we do, the counters start the recount immediately. Logically the recount takes roughly the same amount of time as the count. So if the count took six hours, so would the recount. How can it be different in the US? And how on earth can it take a _month_? > > Sorry - I’ve just seen Freddy the Pig’s post. But I still don’t see how if a state can produce its result overnight, how it can take so long to do the same thing again. (But I am very ignorant about the machinations of the US electoral system.) Well, the problem in Florida in 2000 was essentially that the margin of victory was within the margin of error for counting, and then several competing authorities (state administration, state legislature, state courts, federal courts, political parties, etc.) moved in to try to settle the problem. So let me amend: A recount that’s _that close_ is less likely in a smaller jurisdiction, because the margin of error shrinks as well. Also, political authority is less diffused in the UK; presumably Parliament would have the only say in the resolution of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![whorfin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@whorfin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whorfin)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445/22 "2008-11-06T20:03:38Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > One of the reasons the U.K. doesn’t need as long an interregnum is because the new Prime Minister is already a member of Parliament. In the U.S. the new President could come from anywhere. A president needs time to assemble advisors, Cabinet members (who also wouldn’t necessarily already be a part of government) and physically make the move to Washington. > > As **Alive** noted above, the time between election and inauguration has already been reduced from four months to two. The new prime minister isn’t just a member of parliament-he’s \*\*the party leader. \*\* He probably already has a shadow cabinet. He has had a team together for as long as he’s been party leader. (now one might say that each primary winner in the US ought to have a “shadow cabinet” before the general election, and I might agree. But that’s just me). It’s important to remember that in the UK, the prime minister is the leader of the party which can control a majority in parliament (directly or through a coalition). Picking the leader is something that the party does internally, (generally, at an annual conference, by vote of party members/MPs, but they can in principle do it however they want). In a general election, the only people who vote for the PM are the voters in his district (Sedgefield for Blair, I dunno where for Brown). You can change prime ministers without a general election (see Margaret Thatcher—\> John Major), and you can have a general election without changing prime ministers. Now don’t get me started on the system that prevailed in the UK till the early 20th century-where the monarch picked the PM, and had a fair bit of discretion in doing so (as long as he could find a majority-but it meant that in effect, the King/Queen picked the party leader, not the party) ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445/23 "2008-11-06T22:41:14Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > Since then, two things have happened, IMO, to quash this movement. First, presidential appointments have become more contentious. Given the multiplicity of news media and a more scandal-conscious political climate, presidents need to vet their cabinet and staff appointments more carefully than ever. Could this not be solved by the candidate nominating before the election? If the candidate then wins, their team has then been approved by the electorate and would therefore not be subject to approval by the Senate? ---
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445/24 "2008-11-06T23:34:22Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Could this not be solved by the candidate nominating before the election? If the candidate then wins, their team has then been approved by the electorate and would therefore not be subject to approval by the Senate? Why would a candidate want to jeopardize his presidential bid because some people didn’t like who he nominated for Secretary of Education? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445/25 "2008-11-07T00:59:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Why would a candidate want to jeopardize his presidential bid because some people didn’t like who he nominated for Secretary of Education? Because his opponent is also jeopardizing his own bid in the same way. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445/26 "2008-11-07T01:50:00Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Could this not be solved by the candidate nominating before the election? If the candidate then wins, their team has then been approved by the electorate and would therefore not be subject to approval by the Senate? This approach would be alien to the nature of the American cabinet. In the British cabinet, every minister doubles as a member of parliament and, by definition, a party politician. The American cabinet, by contrast, can be drawn from all walks of life–academics, business, law. Some of the positions are relatively non-partisan, and potential nominees don’t necessarily want to identify themselves with a candidate and form part of a partisan office-seeking team before the election. Also, constitutionally, you cannot bypass the Senate for confirmation. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445/27 "2008-11-07T02:34:12Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > This approach would be alien to the nature of the American cabinet. In the British cabinet, every minister doubles as a member of parliament and, by definition, a party politician. The American cabinet, by contrast, can be drawn from all walks of life–academics, business, law. Some of the positions are relatively non-partisan, and potential nominees don’t necessarily want to identify themselves with a candidate and form part of a partisan office-seeking team before the election. > > Also, constitutionally, you cannot bypass the Senate for confirmation. Right. For example, Carter’s secretary of defense was Harold Brown. Before he was picked, he was president of Caltech. No way would he have left academia to take part in a political campaign. Ed ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445/28 "2008-11-07T02:37:30Z")
> [@](#): > > However, you can become monarch even faster than you become prime minister. The current monarch woke up one morning in a tree in Kenya to find that she had become queen overnight. The timing may have been a surprise but the title wasn’t. Princess Elizabeth knew she would become Queen when her father died. Presidents and Prime Ministers don’t know if they have an office until the votes are counted. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445/29 "2008-11-07T02:46:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Could this not be solved by the candidate nominating before the election? If the candidate then wins, their team has then been approved by the electorate and would therefore not be subject to approval by the Senate? Another problem is that many potential cabinet officials wouldn’t want to give up their day job until they were certain that their candidate was going to win the election. Suppose John McCain had asked John Sununu, for example, if he wanted to be his Attorney General. Sununu was in a tight Senate race - he was not going to publicly declare that he might resign his seat. Even somebody like Bobby Jindal, for example, who didn’t run for re-election in 2008 doesn’t want to look like he’s less than fully committed to his current office. ---
**Author:** ![PastAllReason](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f07891/32.png) [@PastAllReason](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastAllReason)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445/30 "2008-11-07T03:35:00Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > …and since we have a written constitution, things like guaranteed election dates are important. Those two don’t necessarily follow. Canada, for example, had a written constitution for over a hundred years without any sort of guaranteed election date. The same appears to be true for Australia as well. ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445/31 "2008-11-07T15:13:35Z")
> [@whorfin](#): > > (now one might say that each primary winner in the US ought to have a “shadow cabinet” before the general election, and I might agree. But that’s just me). When news reports that Obama was even beginning to think about who might possibly be in his Cabinet, that became part of the _ad hominem_ attacks. This wasn’t unique to Obama, either. Something similar seems to happen to every front-runner in a presidential election: “He’s so arrogant he’s already picking out the drapes for the Oval Office!!!” Even if you are running waaaay out in front (e.g., Reagan in 1980), why give your opponent free ammunition? ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445/32 "2008-11-07T15:22:30Z")
> [@PastAllReason](#): > > Those two don’t necessarily follow. Canada, for example, had a written constitution for over a hundred years without any sort of guaranteed election date. The same appears to be true for Australia as well. Yes – in the Australian Constitution (which is also more than 100 years old), an election can be held at any time, as long as it’s not more than 3 years since the last election. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Stafford\_Cripps](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_stafford_cripps/32/7167_2.png) [@The\_Stafford\_Cripps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Stafford_Cripps)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445/33 "2008-11-07T18:17:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright > …and since we have a written constitution, things like guaranteed election dates are important. > [@PastAllReason](#): > > Those two don’t necessarily follow. Canada, for example, had a written constitution for over a hundred years without any sort of guaranteed election date. The same appears to be true for Australia as well. Furthermore, the UK does have a guaranteed election date thanks to the Septennial Act as amended by the Parliament Act. It’s just that the Prime Minister (or I suppose under some circumstances the Queen) can, and usually does, choose to call an election before it. ---
**Author:** ![Cunctator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/43a26b/32.png) [@Cunctator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cunctator)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445/34 "2008-11-08T00:22:43Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Yes – in the Australian Constitution (which is also more than 100 years old), an election can be held at any time, as long as it’s not more than 3 years since the last election. The three year maximum actually dates from the day of the first sitting of the new Parliament, not from the day of the election. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/changing-the-length-of-the-interregnum/471445.md?page=1)