What if Trump DOES drop out?

[dudalb]

I don't think Donald is going to drop out or be removed from the ticket....but I do think it very likely that he will ,as far as money goes, be abandoned by the GOP,with the cash being moved to the Congressional races to try to limit the collaterial damage.

 

[dudalb]

I absolutely like the idea of PR. It would make third parties, like the Greens and the Libertarians, more viable and able to win seats. It would also open the door to fragmenting the sometimes awkward coalitions that make up the two big parties into their constituents.

But why closed lists? Let people still vote for a candidate on that list. And if number 10 on the list gets enough votes, while the party list in total only gets enough votes for 8 seats, then number 10 is in and number 8 is out. That's the way we do it over here.

I dislike PR because it forces you to support a party...not an individual.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think Donald is going to drop out or be removed from the ticket....but I do think it very likely that he will ,as far as money goes, be abandoned by the GOP,with the cash being moved to the Congressional races to try to limit the collaterial damage.

If he's doing this poorly come September they will pull the funds by 9-14.

 

[Bob001]

No, and I would go to any length to get a case to the Supreme Court (or at least contribute to someone attempting to do so) if that kind of ******** was attempted. It's bad enough that we have the electoral college without changing my vote after the fact.

It wouldn't be "after the fact," as in, after you voted. The point is that if Trump and Clinton were the names on the ballot, and one was incapacitated or unavailable, the Republican or Democratic national committees would name a replacement before the election. There would not be a new round of primaries. The replacement would be heavily publicized and promoted. You would know when you voted that your choice, whatever it said on the ballot, was really between, say, Biden and Trump, or Clinton and Pence. There has to be a way to select and vote for a replacement candidate. Otherwise the only choice would be Clinton vs. no one, or Trump vs. no one. Nobody could want that.

 

[acbytesla]

It wouldn't be "after the fact," as in, after you voted. The point is that if Trump and Clinton were the names on the ballot, and one was incapacitated or unavailable, the Republican or Democratic national committees would name a replacement before the election. There would not be a new round of primaries. The replacement would be heavily publicized and promoted. You would know when you voted that your choice, whatever it said on the ballot, was really between, say, Biden and Trump, or Clinton and Pence. There has to be a way to select and vote for a replacement candidate. Otherwise the only choice would be Clinton vs. no one, or Trump vs. no one. Nobody could want that.

There is a deadline for names to be on the ballot. It varies widely from State to State but generally it's about 60 days before the election. One is voting for the names on the ballot. If Trump dropped out before those deadlines the GOP could change the entire tIcket. I think about 130 people would select the new ticket and the State. If Trump dropped out after the deadlines, than a vote for Trump would effectively be a vote for Pence for President.

 

[Babbylonian]

It wouldn't be "after the fact," as in, after you voted. The point is that if Trump and Clinton were the names on the ballot, and one was incapacitated or unavailable, the Republican or Democratic national committees would name a replacement before the election. There would not be a new round of primaries. The replacement would be heavily publicized and promoted. You would know when you voted that your choice, whatever it said on the ballot, was really between, say, Biden and Trump, or Clinton and Pence. There has to be a way to select and vote for a replacement candidate. Otherwise the only choice would be Clinton vs. no one, or Trump vs. no one. Nobody could want that.

This is so simple to understand that I'm shocked you don't. Ballots have names on them. Usually, those names have their party affiliations indicated. When one votes, the vote is for the person named on the ballot, not that person's party. Those votes are not transferable, nor should they ever be so. Transferring such votes would be fraud on a grand scale, and we generally don't write laws to specifically permit fraud. Once the ballots are printed (which in the absence of specific local/state silliness/stupidity would necessarily mean that the deadline for adding candidates has passed), there is nothing more that can or should be done to account for candidate problems.

 

[dudalb]

If he's doing this poorly come September they will pull the funds by 9-14.

And it might come sooner then that, given today's devlopments.
It's not so much a case of Trump doing poorly, but that is beginning to pull down the down ticket GOPers with him.

 

[ddt]

I dislike PR because it forces you to support a party...not an individual.

That's a bit of a non-sequitur to my post, as I suggested therein more power to the voter to select individual candidates from a list's slate than ChristianProgressive's original suggestion.

Let's face it: you always vote for both a party and a candidate. Come November 8, you mark on your ballot a choice for either a Democratic candidate for the House, or a Republican candidate, or any of the handful other candidates. It's right behind their names which party they'll caucus with in the House if they're elected.

When I get to vote next year May in the general election, I still get to vote for a person, albeit that they're on a party list. The ballot I get will contain approx. 20 party lists with 20-50 candidates on it.

So, with hundreds of persons on that ballot, I get a much wider choice in candidates to choose from than you: I can choose from hundreds of names, while you can choose only from maybe 10 names. I can vote #15 from the party list, and if #15 gets enough votes, they'll get into Parliament, while you cannot vote for a candidate in the district-next-door who's a much better candidate than all those on your ballot.

Let's face it: most people vote for a party, not a person. They don't look into the individual candidates, they just vote for the party they always vote for. And while the party committee first makes up the candidates list, in a PR system - at least how my country runs it - a conscious voter can still vote for a down-list candidate, and that down-list candidate can still run a personal campaign and try to appeal to a certain demographic to get elected out-of-order.

 

[ddt]

This is so simple to understand that I'm shocked you don't. Ballots have names on them. Usually, those names have their party affiliations indicated. When one votes, the vote is for the person named on the ballot, not that person's party. Those votes are not transferable, nor should they ever be so. Transferring such votes would be fraud on a grand scale, and we generally don't write laws to specifically permit fraud. Once the ballots are printed (which in the absence of specific local/state silliness/stupidity would necessarily mean that the deadline for adding candidates has passed), there is nothing more that can or should be done to account for candidate problems.

Clear enough. So what happens when Trump suddenly dies on November 1st, a week before the elections? Millions of ballots have been printed around the country. They all list "Trump president - Pence VP" or some variation on that. The electors you actually vote for are pledged to vote for Trump as president, and Pence as VP, nothing more nothing less. Those ballots are stocked and packed to be shipped to the polling places on the night of the 8th. So what happens?

a) The electors are not allowed to vote for a dead man, and they're pledged to vote for Pence as VP, not as president, so the presidential election is a formality and it goes to Hillary. However, if the Republican ticket gets a majority, it'll be Hillary/Pence in the White House.

b) The electors are allowed to vote for a dead man so they still can vote for Trump and Pence. Somewhere between the election and the inauguration, Pence is automatically promoted to president-elect and he'll choose a new VP after January 20.

c) The electors are allowed to "move up" Pence and vote for him as president. So they cannot vote Pence for VP and Kaine is automatically VP.

d) The electors are freed from their pledge to vote Trump as president and may vote for whatever name the RNC comes up with; or for whatever name their conscience dictates them.

e) Otherwise, namely: < fill in >

I'm positively curious. The only two instances where a candidate died I can think of are:

First, in 2002, in the Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn was murdered. But as we have party lists, all votes cast for Fortuyn still went to the party total and thus to the number of seats the party got in parliament.

Second, in 2005, in Germany, the NPD (neo-Nazi) candidate for a district seat in one district suddenly died. The election in that one district was postponed 2 weeks with new ballots printed with a new NPD candidate. The rest of the country still voted on the regularly scheduled date.

But neither is comparable with the death of a US presidential candidate.

 

[Babbylonian]

Clear enough. So what happens when Trump suddenly dies on November 1st, a week before the elections? Millions of ballots have been printed around the country. They all list "Trump president - Pence VP" or some variation on that. The electors you actually vote for are pledged to vote for Trump as president, and Pence as VP, nothing more nothing less. Those ballots are stocked and packed to be shipped to the polling places on the night of the 8th. So what happens?

The Electoral College's decision after the vote would probably be accepted, and in the absence of a clear decision there, it would likely be up to Congress to call for a special election. For what it's worth, I would have no problem with the Electoral College casting their votes for the surviving vice presidential candidate since that person was on the ballot as well. Every voting citizen knows (or ought to know) that when they vote for a President they are accepting that the running mate will take over if the elected President is unable to serve.

What would be completely unacceptable is if votes for the Republican candidates were assigned to someone not named on the ballots.

 

[Trebuchet]

In most states, Electors can vote for anyone they damn well please. The candidate names on the ballot are who the electors are nominally pledged to vote for.

 

[Babbylonian]

In most states, Electors can vote for anyone they damn well please. The candidate names on the ballot are who the electors are nominally pledged to vote for.

What they can do and what they have done and what would be acceptable for them to do are three different things (among a multitude of other things of course). If you're implying that the US election system needs an overhaul, particularly as regards the EC, you won't get a bit of argument from me.

 

[ddt]

The Electoral College's decision after the vote would probably be accepted, and in the absence of a clear decision there, it would likely be up to Congress to call for a special election. For what it's worth, I would have no problem with the Electoral College casting their votes for the surviving vice presidential candidate since that person was on the ballot as well. Every voting citizen knows (or ought to know) that when they vote for a President they are accepting that the running mate will take over if the elected President is unable to serve.

What would be completely unacceptable is if votes for the Republican candidates were assigned to someone not named on the ballots.

I see I made an error in the possibilities I listed above. If no candidate gets the required 270 votes in the EC, the decision for president is kicked to the House - which gets to choose from the top-3 - and the decision for VP to the Senate - which gets to choose from the top-2. But the end result would be the same, at least in the most likely scenario that third-party tickets don't get EC votes - the House resp. the Senate can only choose for the Democratic candidate.

I agree with you that in spirit, the electors could choose Pence as president as that's his function as VP - to succeed the president.

In most states, Electors can vote for anyone they damn well please. The candidate names on the ballot are who the electors are nominally pledged to vote for.

Most states actually have laws against that, and electors can risk fines up to 1,000 dollars or even jail time up to a year, depending on the state. Some states even have laws to nullify your vote, but I'm utterly confused how they could do that. Of course, the fines are a pittance if you're a party faithful.

 

[iknownothing]

I'm positively curious. The only two instances where a candidate died I can think of are:

First, in 2002, in the Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn was murdered. But as we have party lists, all votes cast for Fortuyn still went to the party total and thus to the number of seats the party got in parliament.

Second, in 2005, in Germany, the NPD (neo-Nazi) candidate for a district seat in one district suddenly died. The election in that one district was postponed 2 weeks with new ballots printed with a new NPD candidate. The rest of the country still voted on the regularly scheduled date.

Mel Carnahan died in October 2000 while running for the Senate. His name was still on the ballot on election day (and he beat John Ashcroft) but his wife was named to take his place if he was elected. (Which he was.)

No bearing on a US Presidential election. Just adding another example to your list.

 

[ddt]

Mel Carnahan died in October 2000 while running for the Senate. His name was still on the ballot on election day (and he beat John Ashcroft) but his wife was named to take his place if he was elected. (Which he was.)

No bearing on a US Presidential election. Just adding another example to your list.

Yes, the difference is that a vacated Senate seat is filled by an appointment by the governor. There's no such governor position in case of a presidential election. It does have bearing on the US presidential election insofar that it shows that you're fine with voting for dead people.

(and it must have helped that Carnahan was the governor until his death, and so it was his lieutenant governor who promised to appoint Carnahan's wife in case he won).

 

[acbytesla]

Clear enough. So what happens when Trump suddenly dies on November 1st, a week before the elections? Millions of ballots have been printed around the country. They all list "Trump president - Pence VP" or some variation on that. The electors you actually vote for are pledged to vote for Trump as president, and Pence as VP, nothing more nothing less. Those ballots are stocked and packed to be shipped to the polling places on the night of the 8th. So what happens?

a) The electors are not allowed to vote for a dead man, and they're pledged to vote for Pence as VP, not as president, so the presidential election is a formality and it goes to Hillary. However, if the Republican ticket gets a majority, it'll be Hillary/Pence in the White House.

b) The electors are allowed to vote for a dead man so they still can vote for Trump and Pence. Somewhere between the election and the inauguration, Pence is automatically promoted to president-elect and he'll choose a new VP after January 20.

c) The electors are allowed to "move up" Pence and vote for him as president. So they cannot vote Pence for VP and Kaine is automatically VP.

d) The electors are freed from their pledge to vote Trump as president and may vote for whatever name the RNC comes up with; or for whatever name their conscience dictates them.

e) Otherwise, namely: < fill in >

I'm positively curious. The only two instances where a candidate died I can think of are:

First, in 2002, in the Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn was murdered. But as we have party lists, all votes cast for Fortuyn still went to the party total and thus to the number of seats the party got in parliament.

Second, in 2005, in Germany, the NPD (neo-Nazi) candidate for a district seat in one district suddenly died. The election in that one district was postponed 2 weeks with new ballots printed with a new NPD candidate. The rest of the country still voted on the regularly scheduled date.

But neither is comparable with the death of a US presidential candidate.

One, you can't split the vote for the President and the Vice President. If you are voting for Trump for you are voting for Pence as VP. (But in reality, you are voting for a slate of electors that are chosen by the candidates ahead of time.)

So, if Trump Pence win Texas by a single vote, 38 Trump Pence electors will be selected to vote in the Electoral College. But they are NOT legally bound to vote for anyone. If Trump died of a heart attack, all of the electors could vote for Pence as President and select anybody they want as Vice President. Or they could vote for totally different people for both positions.

Electors have voted for candidates other than the one they are expected to, but it's always been inconsequential.

 

[Babbylonian]

Yes, the difference is that a vacated Senate seat is filled by an appointment by the governor. There's no such governor position in case of a presidential election. It does have bearing on the US presidential election insofar that it shows that you're fine with voting for dead people.

(and it must have helped that Carnahan was the governor until his death, and so it was his lieutenant governor who promised to appoint Carnahan's wife in case he won).

It's also another archaic law that was created at least partially on the assumption that putting together another election would be a difficult, time-consuming process.

It's the 21st century and there's no excuse for putting representatives into office without election. The only reason the extended dance remix of presidential succession continues to make sense is that someone (a civilian) has to be in charge of the military at any given moment. Other than that, we should have no problem with the idea of holding special elections when circumstances warrant.

 

[ddt]

It's also another archaic law that was created at least partially on the assumption that putting together another election would be a difficult, time-consuming process.

It's the 21st century and there's no excuse for putting representatives into office without election. The only reason the extended dance remix of presidential succession continues to make sense is that someone (a civilian) has to be in charge of the military at any given moment. Other than that, we should have no problem with the idea of holding special elections when circumstances warrant.

Oh, I agree with that. And you have special elections: Ms. Carnahan was installed early 2001, but there was a special election for her Senate seat a year later where she was defeated. IIRC, there was also a special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat after he died mid-term.

There´s still need, IMHO, for the appointment of an immediate successor. You can't organize elections on a whim, that takes some time. Parties must be able to select candidates, to collect signatures to get registered etc., and then ballots must be printed. In any reasonable scenario, that takes at least 1-2 months, and you can't leave the office of president vacant for so long or shouldn't leave the office of senator vacant for so long.

But in case of an unexpected death of a candidate, like with Mr. Carnahan or in our hypothetical of dead-Trump, you should be able to short-circuit that - no need for new parties to register, only for one party to name a new candidate - and just postpone the regular elections for, say, two weeks, just like the Germans did in 2005.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh, I agree with that. And you have special elections: Ms. Carnahan was installed early 2001, but there was a special election for her Senate seat a year later where she was defeated. IIRC, there was also a special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat after he died mid-term.

There´s still need, IMHO, for the appointment of an immediate successor. You can't organize elections on a whim, that takes some time. Parties must be able to select candidates, to collect signatures to get registered etc., and then ballots must be printed. In any reasonable scenario, that takes at least 1-2 months, and you can't leave the office of president vacant for so long or shouldn't leave the office of senator vacant for so long.

But in case of an unexpected death of a candidate, like with Mr. Carnahan or in our hypothetical of dead-Trump, you should be able to short-circuit that - no need for new parties to register, only for one party to name a new candidate - and just postpone the regular elections for, say, two weeks, just like the Germans did in 2005.

The process is spelled out although it has never happened before. The electoral college chooses the President and the Vice President. They can vote for whomever they want. PERIOD, END OF STORY. If and only if there is a tie does the election move to the House of Representatives.

 

[Tero]

If some complicated issue, say a Bush type of recount or say a death (Hillary has seizure?), came up and there still was no decision at the end of December, who is president till they resolve it?