Anybody else see a couple of problems looming for the dream ticket?
See: Wired Science
-and-
See: Threat Level
[tags]drill and pump, pump and drill, kill the whales, eat their krill[/tags]
RSS Links
Recent Comments
email me
Categories
- Anti-intellectual Thuggery
- Arts and Literature
- Best o' Sandhill
- Bidness
- Bloggers 'n blogs
- Blogging and Flogging
- Blue Left
- buh bye
- Calendar
- Cats 'n dogs
- Class Warfare
- Cloud Computing
- Communications
- corantessa
- Creative Arts
- Democracy
- Disparities
- Dogs
- Edible Audio
- Environment
- Farm Almanac
- Fashion
- Food
- Friends
- Generic Posts
- Global Concern
- Government
- Hep jive
- High Noise – Low Signal
- High Signal – Low Noise
- howBlog
- Humor
- Impeachment
- Irascible Nonsense
- Journalism
- Journo
- Math and Science
- Medical Advice
- Miscel-listics
- Miscellaneous
- Music
- Nature
- Net2
- Networks
- Patriotism
- Peace and Politics
- People
- Philosophistry and Stuff
- Politics
- Prison Reform
- Profiles and Interviews
- Public Services
- Racism
- Reflections
- Science
- Sex
- SMEBLY
- Tech Tools
- Technology
- The Proprietor
- Tools
- Travel
- Truth and Falsehood
- Verbalistics
- Video
- Web Publishing
- Worst of Sandhill
- Writing
Archives
4 Comments
Serious question, Frank :-
Help lessen my ignorance of the US system please : what happens if the P-candidate dies before the election? Does the VP-candidate then automatically become the P-candidate and get to choose a new running mate? Or do the parties go through the whole primaries rigmarole of choosing
again? Or does the primaries’ second choice become the P-candidate? Who then chooses the new VP-candidate, or does it stay the same?
Interesting question, Stu. I think there may be 50 answers, one for each state. I don’t know what would happen but here’s one way things might work out:
The state ballots are closed for the general election at a certain point, and so if a party lost its candidate after the date statutorily limited by that state for entering candidates to the ballot, then I think the state and national party would have to seek injunctive relief from the state supreme court to modify the ballot.
The national party would clearly have an interest in promoting the candidacy of a new nominee who would have a chance of winning and I suspect there would be plenty of back-room brawling before this was worked out to the satisfaction of the national party and most state parties. Consensus achieved (without new primaries which would be of dubious value and legality) the national party would coordinate an approach to meet the statutory needs of each state.
One way for this to work would be for the party to hold an electoral caucus. Since the election is not really about electing a person but rather about electing a slate of electors to vote the public’s proxies for the party’s nominee at the electoral college following the national election, perhaps the electors could caucus and put forward a new name for the state ballots.
I wonder if this has ever happened? I’m neither a lawyer nor an historian, so it would take a few hours research to pin down a better answer.
Yet another historic political first:
http://vpilf.com/
She’s come a long ways from being the GILF.