Hi. This is the thread for you to post your far-fetched “Well, could this happen?” election questions. Keeping them in one place will prevent GQ from becomeing a single-issue forum.
Far-fetched election questions posted as their own thread will be closed without comment. So please, save yourself the effort of typing twice, and place them here.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Since elucidator got his in under the wire, I’m reproducing it here rather than making him/her do it"
Try looking here for info on that topic:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=33709
Or here
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=32574
Okay, I’ve got one. Let’s say that the election gets punted to Congress and they can’t decide on a candidate. Noon on Jan. 20 rolls around. The office of President descends to Dennis Hastert, but Hastert doesn’t want the job because he cannot return to his position as Speaker. So he hands off the ball to Stom Thurmond, fifty-two years after running for president the first time.
But… doesn’t the position of President automatically devolve to Hastert? Even if he waves off, doesn’t he wave off as president? And doesn’t that mean he’s gotta pack his bags for Illinois, now an ex-president and ex-speaker?
Hastert wouldn’t be president unless he’s sworn in as such. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a Bible, you know the drill. Just like how Madeleine Albright wouldn’t have to resign since she’s not becoming President, Hastert keeps his cushy office in the Capitol.
(Side question: what would VP-elect Lieberman, if it comes to that, swear on? A Torah?)
What if, after all recounts, some Florida electors vote against “the will of the people”? Will Al challege it?
He has absolutely no recourse to challenge the vote of the Electoral College in Florida, as well as in twenty or so other states. He may not like it, but that’s the way that it will go.
Dubya might whine about it, though…
He might, but once the electors do their thing, it ceases to be a state issue, which means a trial in federal court (actually, doesn’t the SC have original jurisdiction in things like this?) and they will find no Constitutional basis for contesting rogue electoral votes.
Electoral votes are counted by the Congress and the Congress has explicit rules on how to handle challenged votes. There has to be an objection raised by at least one member of the House and from the Senate. Then each body meets separately to come to a conclusion. Only if both the House and Senate vote to reject a return, is it tossed out.
It’s 3 U.S.C. 15
You can read all the gory details at
http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/provis.html
OK, this was from a thread that I’d started, it ended up getting closed by manhattan and he told me to move it here, I can see how I should have known that, considering this thread wasn’t even on the same page when I made my thread. I guess this thread has been brought to you by manhattan thanks a lot :), here it is:
OK, I don’t actually want to know who has the better poker face, but it might come in handy if there were a tie in New Mexico. At least that is what I’ve been told. A friend of mine said that if Florida just happened to go to Gore, and the Wisconsin recounted and went for Bush along with Oregon, and then there was a tie for the election in New Mexico they’d have to break the tie by playing one hand of 5 stud poker. I was kind of surprised, I figure it’s just one of those old stupid laws that never got taken off the books. Of course it’s all hypothetical anyway, no, not because it’s impossible for all those states to change, lord knows that has happened enough, the poker match wouldn’t ever take place because the two sides would never be able to agree on a dealer.
While I got you here, anyone think Jim Lehrer would look kind of dignified with a visor?
They don’t have to play poker in New Mexico in the event of a tie. They have also had coin flips. You could also just draw a name out of a hat.
If a dealer was needed, presumably some New Mexico official would do it and nobody would get a chance to complain.
Dignan
Most localities settle tie elections by lot [pick a straw] or by chance [pick a card]. AFAIK they don’t use games of skill. Though it would be interesting if they had a duel.
Montfort, in regard to my earlier post, I believe the Senate agrees with you:
“Today, we understand that Taylor automatically became president on the fourth and could have begun to execute the duties of his office after taking the oath privately.”
So Hastert just has to refuse to take the oath. But if I were a lawyer, I would argue, “automatically became president, refused to execute.” That’s a much finer point.
[note: I fixed the link. -manhattan]
[Edited by manhattan on 11-17-2000 at 08:58 AM]
Frankly, I prefer that they break the tie by playing a game of Magic: The Gathering. Type 1 rules, Gore uses the Cadaverous Bloom/Natural Order deck and Bush uses the Arcadian Academy/Mind over Matter/Stroke of Genius deck.
Interesting to note, but there was a time in our nation’s history when the Speaker of the House became President, even though it was just for one day. I forget the details, but basically, back in the nineteenth century, new Presidents were sworn in on March 4th. It just so happened that in one particular year, this day fell on a Sunday, and as the incoming president was a very religious man, he postponed his innauguration until Monday, March 5th. Since the previous president’s reign ended on the 3rd, our country was faced with one full day in which there was no official president. By laws of succession, the president for that day was the current Speaker of the House.
In answer to the question as to whether or not Bill Clinton could ever be VP, the answer is surprisingly yes, but only under certain conditions. It is my understanding that no one can serve as president for more than ten years. This is why Johnson was able to run for President in 1968, if he had chosen to, since he had only served a little over a year before the election of 1964.
Now I could be wrong, but should Lieberman for whatever reason resign the office of VP after serving two years, Bill Clinton could conceivable be appointed the new VP, because even if something untoward were to happen to Gore, Clinton could safely serve out the remainder of Gore’s term as President and not reach the ten year mark.
This is all very well and good in theory, but since the Congress would have to vote approval for whomever Gore picks, it is unlikely he would pick Clinton. Bill may just have to wait until President Hillary’s term, to move back into the White House.
Alzarian, neither of your scenarios works. First of all, the Speaker (what was his name) didn’t take the Oath, either, so if that’s a requirement for a person to “be President”, then there was no president on that day, period. If that’s not a requirement, then it was the incoming President.
A cursory glance at the actual Constitution shows the problem in your second scenario. It doesn’t just say “a total of ten years”, it says “two full term following up to two years holding the office having succeeded from VP” (not exact quote, I don’t have my copy handy). In other words, the two years must be before the regular terms, and Clinton’s already had his two regular terms. It is possible that Lieberman (or Cheney, as currently seems more likely) will serve ten years.
And capacitor, I like your suggestion, if only because Dubya is more likely to refuse to play, on the grounds that it’s Satanic 
Alzarian get your urban legend facts right. The acting president you speak of, David Atchison, was actually the Senate President Pro Tem, who was the next in line in 1849, when Zachary Taylor was sworn in.
Cecil has a column on this topic http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_133.html
The Speaker of the House wasn’t moved up in the batting order for presidential succession until 1946 or so, when Truman asked Congress to change the order.
Dick Cheney’s residency status is currently in question, as there is a lawsuit claiming he is a resident of Texas, and not of Wyoming. The 12th ammendment prohibits electors from voting in both a president and vice-president from the same state.
If the electors are indeed forbidden to vote in Cheney, who would GWB appoint as his replacement? Or would Lieberman have a shot at the job, since Bush is the great uniter and all.
Frankly I think that suit will go nowhere. People (well, not folks like me who can’t afford it, but other people) may own more than one piece of property.
For “legal residence” status, there’s all sorts of qualifications, like how much time they spend where (and in Cheney’s case he’s been in hotels mostly of late), and where does one work, pay taxes etc. Problem is most of those types of things (pay taxes etc) are in the past (he hasn’t filed yet this year), so he could have legally “moved” as it were. And the work etc, well, he’s been on the road mostly since he was nominated. So I doubt that anything will come of that.
Obviously, since he changed his “legal residence” in what was it June or July?, this issue was foreseen and handled. Nothing necessarily illegal or immoral or whatever in this, IMHO.
Presumably, Congress would decide whether or not to accept any disputed electoral votes from Texas. I’m betting that Congress won’t reject any votes from Texas because of any residency problem.
The residency requirement was only added to the Constitution because the Framers thought that the Electors would only vote for people from their own state. Then it would be unlikely that anyone would ever be able to claim a majority or be nationally accepted.
I don’t see any great consistutional crisis because Bush and Cheney both live in Texas.
There would be a bigger constitutional crisis if Bush were elected president and Lieberman vice-president.
It takes both Houses of Congress to reject any electoral votes.