# West Wing 4/9 **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 10, 2006, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016 "2006-04-10T00:56:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016/21 "2006-04-10T13:02:05Z")
> [@BobT](#): > > If there’s no majority in the Electoral College, then the House chooses the president. Not only that but each state delegation can only cast one vote. So California would have as much say as Wyoming! If a state delegation is evenly divided Democrat/Republican it could tie and therefore cast not vote. In the Senate each Senator gets 1 vote. And the House can pick from the top _3_ electoral college winners, but the Senate can only pick from the top 2. ---
**Author:** ![Sean\_Factotum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Sean\_Factotum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sean_Factotum)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016/22 "2006-04-10T13:23:09Z")
The Electoral College picks the President, not the Vice-President. There is no clear precedent for this situation. And luckily, since the political processes in the world of _The West Wing_ doesn’t always follow the real world’s processes, they can resolve this as they see fit to get to the end of the series. I think we’re gonna see some in-fighting between Dems on replacing the VP, but don’t expect it to follow what would happen out here in the same situation. I thought they handled Leo’s death well. You can tell they were all talking about John Spencer instead of a fictional character. Brad Whitford turned in one hell of a performance as someone who’s lost a guiding light in his life. And when, in his acceptance speech, Jimmy Smits said, “IU lost a friend,” it reminded me of the fact that the two of them were on _L. A. Law_ together back in '90-'91. Alan Alda said “I’ve known Leo McGarry for 20 years.” Does anyone know if the two of them worked together? I can’t find anything on IMDB, but thought they might have worked together on Broadway. I’m looking forward to next week’s show. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016/23 "2006-04-10T13:27:34Z")
> [@Sean Factotum](#): > > Brad Whitford turned in one hell of a performance as someone who’s lost a guiding light in his life. Didn’t he? I thought he was going to lose it, like Ashley Wilkes looking at the glove in _Gone With the Wind._ ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016/24 "2006-04-10T14:19:54Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Unless the Democrats can get the Supreme Court to rule the laws disallowing vote changing is unconstitutional. There is a strong argument against it (it’s clearly not what the founding fathers envisioned), but it’s not clear cut. > > Otherwise, the Democratic electors who are constrained by state law can vote for the new VP choice and just face the consequences. Or, I realize, they can all vote for Leo as VP; the constitution does not stipulate that any candidate for office be alive. 🙂 You’re right that the Constitution doesn’t say so, but there is a precedent requiring that the electors vote for a living candidate: [What if the U.S. president and vice president-elect die before being sworn in?](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_133.html) ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016/25 "2006-04-10T14:36:49Z")
> [@Sean Factotum](#): > > The Electoral College picks the President, not the Vice-President. . I thought they did. Isn’t it in the [12th Amendment](http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am12.html) > [@](#): > > \*\*The Electors \*\* shall meet in their respective states, and **vote by ballot for** President and **Vice-President** , one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; **they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President** , and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; Has this been superseded? ---
**Author:** ![Marine\_One](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/marine_one/32/3461_2.png) [@Marine\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marine_One)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016/26 "2006-04-10T14:39:13Z")
How wacko would it be if they asked Bartlett to be VP or if he volunteered? Is there any reason he couldn’t be VP? We know Mrs. B wouldn’t like it, but I get a feeling that the DNC or whoever isn’t going to be united on choosing one. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016/27 "2006-04-10T14:45:51Z")
> [@Marine\_One](#): > > Is there any reason he couldn’t be VP? Because he can’t be P. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016/28 "2006-04-10T14:48:07Z")
> [@Marine\_One](#): > > How wacko would it be if they asked Bartlett to be VP or if he volunteered? > > Is there any reason he couldn’t be VP? > We know Mrs. B wouldn’t like it, but I get a feeling that the DNC or whoever isn’t going to be united on choosing one. President Barlet is ineligible for election as vice president for the same reasons that Bill Clinton is ineligible. Earlier threads that have addressed (and pretty much exhausted) this topic: [Could Bill Clinton Run As Vice President?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=333302) [Presedential [sic] Loophole](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=316077&highlight=clinton+president) [Max no of years as President?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=287422) [American President and terms in office](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=284779) [Could Kerry choose Clinton as a running mate](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=243320) [Could Clinton become VP?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=165801) The [12th amendment](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxii.html) says that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” Since President Bartlet is ineligible for reelection as president, arguably he is therefore ineligible for election as vice president. But the answer is not as clear-cut as the 12th amendment suggests. I can see three possible views: 1. A twice-elected president is ineligible for the vice-presidency under any circumstances. The 22nd amendment makes him or her ineligible for election as president, so the 12th amendment makes him or her ineligible for election as vice-president. The 25th amendment, the only other route to the vice-presidency, is silent about eligibility but implicitly imports the eligibility requirements from the 12th and 22nd amendments. (To put it another way, the 22nd amendment means that being re-elected as president exhausts one’s eligibility, not only for purposes of election but for all purposes.) 2. A twice-elected president is ineligible for the vice-presidency by election, but not necessarily by way of the 25th amendment. The 12th amendment’s eligibility clause does import the 22nd amendment’s limit on electability, but the 25th amendment does not involve an election, so a twice-elected former president can become vice-president if the incumbent president nominates and both houses of Congress confirm him or her. 3. A twice-elected president is eligible for the vice-presidency under any circumstances. The 22nd amendment’s literal terms apply only to election as president, not to election as vice-president or to succession to the presidency. Views 3 and 2 are more literal (that is, more textually defensible) than View 1, but Views 1 and 2 make more sense than View 3 in light of the 22nd amendment. The amendment says only that “no person shall be elected,” but surely its intent was to keep a demagogue (or any individual, for that matter) from monopolizing the executive branch indefinitely. If a twice-elected president is eligible for election as vice-president, and is then eligible for succession to the presidency, what would stop a popular term-limited president from running for vice-president on a ticket with a figurehead who will take office then immediately step aside? The constitutional gymnastics are a little more complicated, but the same policy question can arise in the case of a twice-elected president chosen as vice-president under the 25th amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Sean\_Factotum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Sean\_Factotum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sean_Factotum)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016/29 "2006-04-10T18:11:53Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > Has this been superseded? My mistake. I was going by the dialogue in the show, not in the real 12th. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016/30 "2006-04-11T04:12:13Z")
[Here’s](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/arts/television/10wing.html) an article from today’s New York Times about the West Wing. According to the article, the writers planned for Vinick to win the election but changed their minds after John Spencer died. I’m not sure why I’m spoiler-tagging this. Also, Aaron Sorkin and Bradley Whitford are going to do a new drama series for NBC next season. It’s called Studio 60. I hope they’re able to capture some of the same magic. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016/31 "2006-04-11T04:30:06Z")
I think there’s definitely going to be a recount controversy on the show. Vinick’s behavior on election night was almost exactly the same as Al Gore’s. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016/32 "2006-04-11T04:44:00Z")
> [@Dewey Finn](#): > > [Here’s](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/arts/television/10wing.html) an article from today’s New York Times about the West Wing. According to the article, the writers planned for Vinick to win the election but changed their minds after John Spencer died. I’m not sure why I’m spoiler-tagging this. I really wonder how things would’ve gone had that happened. Do you think it would’ve been better or worse than what we’re going to get now? ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2006, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016/33 "2006-04-11T11:32:16Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > I really wonder how things would’ve gone had that happened. Do you think it would’ve been better or worse than what we’re going to get now? Worse. We’d lose the drama of the constitutional crisis of choosing a new VP post-election pre-inauguration. It’s unprecedented and it’s not clear what the correct action is, but it’s possible in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2008, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016/34 "2008-11-04T19:07:23Z")
Yes, I know it’s a bit of a zombie thread, but Alan Alda and Jimmy Smits were on NPR last night discussing the similarities between their election showdown on _WW_ and how the men both their characters were modelled on ended up being the actual candidates for this year’s POTUS race. It was a pretty cute reunion and they were both incredibly surprised how prescient much of that season was. Here’s hoping “Santos” wins again tonight! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/west-wing-4-9/352016.md?page=1)