Posted on 09/01/2004 3:26:02 PM PDT by PlushieWithTeeth
Question: What are the rules for switching out a candidate for the office of the United States President? As in, is it possible to switch out another candidate when it's apparent the current one is losing badly? What are the deadlines for doing something like this? Any help on this would be very much appreciated :)
Not entirely. It would require special exemptions to the laws of most of the 50 states depending on the timing. A majority of the states have Republican governors. Also, a majority of the states have a Republican majorities in one or both houses of the legislature. It is much harder to coordinate a plot like this in all the states rather than just one state.
It's a legitimate question. Or weren't you there for Her Thighness predicting an October Surprise?
The world will have gone completely mad before that is a legitimate question. End of story.
When George W Bush is re elected President if the Electoral College Put Kerry in office i beleive you would see more civil disobediance than you have ever witnessed in a lifetime !
It was close the last time but i dont see anything that close this time When G.W.B. wins by a landslide if the electoral college tried to pull a bait and switch there would be so much hell to pay we would run out of TAR and FEATHERS !
Where will we get the TAR and FEATHERS? Just wondering
In 1912 the Vice President of the United States, James Sherman, died on October 30. That was just three days before the election and he was running for re-election with Taft; his name was replaced on the ballot by that of Nicholas Murray Butler. Of course it was obvious by that point that Taft would be defeated (he came in third behind Wilson and Roosevelt and won only 8 electoral votes).
Interesting point. Kerry is definitely in trouble - and the Clintons may very well have their hand in his getting nominated in the first place, knowing full well what a total washout he would be.
For the reasons you mention, I seriously doubt the Hildebeast would take the risk of jumping in if Kerry drops out. They might be very pleased to put in a potential rival for her majesty's 2008 bid, though - knowing he would lose. Two birds with one stone.
You are so right. The best they would have as a country quilt of Kerry on the ballot in some states and an alternate (Hillary?) in others. Result: total confusion.
Moreover, I am convinced that the "middle of the road" voter would be profoundly turned off by shenannigans such as desribed here, and the resulting blow-out of Democrats in Congress, statehouses and even county governments would echo down through the decades. And they know it.
No, the Democrats have their horse saddled up and on the field. They have to ride him to the end.
I believe that its called the "Lautenburg-Torch Maneuver".
If Kerry dropped out could Texas reprint a ballot with no Democrat candidate electors? In essence electors for Bush are running unopposed. What about other republican controlled states?
The SCOUS did not want to take the NJ case even though IMHO it was a slam dunk. I guess they did not want any more uproar. So would the SCOUS take it? You would think they would have to, but jeez, with some of their rulings lately I just don't know. Scalia and Thomas are the only ones on the court with a lick of sense.
Elector Nullification (ie, they cast their vote for a 'replacement candidate?')? Legal, yes (except for those states that require their electors to vote by the expressed will of the people), but if it happened, the country would blow apart. And any political party that tried it would collapse for all time.
The Federal court got involved because the State court was in effect changing the rules of the election after it was held.
The Dems make it up as they go. Law means nothing to them unless it is to use it against someone they oppose.
Furthermore, if someone on this forum has a question that they feel needs to be asked because they are ignorant of the mechanisms in place that govern elections, then let the answers be made with civility. Otherwise, the response should be left unsaid.
BTW: Your profile, are we to be impressed? As the Brits would say, "bugger off!"
Illionois. Yes, GWB's name will be on the ballot. But, as others have pointed out, the voters choose party electors. Having the name of the party's candidate on the ballot is a convenice we have come to expect, but it is not a requirement. Electors cast their ballots for President in December.
LOL
You just said it nicer than me !
As pointed out above, the vote "for President" is really for Presidential electors. The electors are nominated by the respective Parties or campaigns. I seem to remember that in the '76 election when I voted via old fashioned (even then) paper ballot in a Volunteer fire department's firehouse in a small town (~450) in Nebraska, the electors names were even on the ballot, along with the name of the cannidate they were pledged to vote for. The exact details vary by state, and are set by the State Legislature, as per the Constitution for the United States.
What are the consequences of missing the deadline? Is the party "lost" as a matter of law? Or has it only lost the ability to have a candidate name on the ballot?
Why not? Starting tomorrow, thanks to CFR, no one can run ads against her...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.