18
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
18 points (84.6% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7333 readers
281 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
So that’s something I’m curious about too. Some states were holding off on ruling since the GOP primaries are technically “private party”. It’s not till they actually submit him that he can be challenged on the general ballot. So if that pops up, I assume the GOP would need to submit an alternate or none at all, or you’re gonna see a whole rash of new lawsuits and appeals. At the point will there be enough time?
Parties can choose candidates however they want. It doesn't have to be in a primary, and the primary results don't have to matter. (See the kerfuffle over the Dem Primary in NH this year). It's not like the No Labels party is having any primaries, after all. All six people who are members will probably decide over a nice steak dinner (funded by gullible donors).
The major party nominees won't be formalized until the convention. Until that happens, the party can change rules on a whim. after the convention, though, things get a bit tricky. Remember that we don't cast votes for candidates directly here, we are casting votes for a slate of Electors to the Electoral College. Many states bind electors to vote for the candidate who won the popular vote there, but that is simply a State law and can be changed by a State law. So we could end up with a situation where a candidate is no longer eligible, yet they still get EC votes, and the State needs to decide what to do about it. They could simply release the electors, or pass a law telling them to vote for the new slate the party offers.
The SC seems determined to decide the 14th amendmentissue in a few weeks, though, so we should know that well in advance of the election. But we can't predict the timing of any trial, nor of any candidates' cardiac health.
I've often said the only person standing in the way of despotism in the US is not Joe Biden, it is his Cardiologist. That person needs to keep Joe's heart ticking until 12:05 (DC time) on Jan 20, 2025. After that, Joe can kick off whenever he likes.
Nah....he's gonna kick off like Ruth and fuck everyone with his stupid ego just like she did.
Suuuuurre she could have retired during Obama's term(s) and Joe could have put his efforts behind someone younger (or even a goddamn ham sammich) and sure I could blame Rs for the shit they have been doing but there has been Z E R O effort on the Ds side to make a difference.
Regardless, still going to vote against the shitstains until Ranked Choice voting has a chance in hell....
It's not that simple, really. There are formalized procedures now and any campaign and its candidate would be able to sue (successfully, most likely) that they reasonably relied upon the established and adopted procedures in place at the time of the contests and therefore those procedures may not be changed.
My point was that if anything happened to make Trump ineligible, even if he had amassed the most delegates up until that time, the party would have leeway to release those delegates before the convention. At no point would they be stuck with a candidate who is ineligible because he is incarcerated/insurrectionist/deceased. Trump wouldn't be able to sue over that.
But if that happened after the convention, then the GOP might not have a choice but to keep his name on the ballot anyway.
So, normally you'd be right. However, the party has changed so many rules to bind delegates to a candidate and give all delegates of a state to anyone with 51% of the vote that they are in completely uncharted territory. We're not sure what would happen if Trump dies after getting enough delegates to lock up the nomination or (worse case scenario for the GOP) he dies after becoming the nominee.
It's honestly fucking bonkers the way they've changed the rules and provided for no alternative.
What happens if he dies between election day and Jan 20?
Jan 6 is the important date, because that's when Congres counts the EC votes. That's when the next holder of the office is formally confirmed. If a President-Elect dies after that , there's nothing that can really be done about it. I would assume the Vice President-elect just cuts to the chase and takes over as President on the 20th, but it's never happened before, so who knows?
If it happens sufficiently before Jan 6, there may be time for states to direct electors to vote differently. But that might be perilous: an EC majority is required for each office. If some states leave the ticket untouched while others make changes, you run the risk of splitting the vote so nobody technically "wins". I don't think any states would direct electors to vote differently unless they all do. And it's hard enough to coordinate a single group of politicians to do anything, it would be nearly impossible to get 30+ states to all pass the same legislation at the same time.
But could Congress realistically allow EC votes to be counted for someone who can no longer take the office? There will be a big push to invalidate those votes, particularly given the GOP's tendency to piss on elections these days. I would not put it past them to use their power in the House to deny Democrats the Presidency even if Biden plainly won the EC , but bites it before Jan 6.
To make matters worse, the VP presides over the vote counting as President of the Senate, but the VP office would be vacant because whats-her-name would end up being President. They would need a vote in both houses to name a new VP, and you know the GOP Majority in the House would just sit on it and not act to confirm the new VP. So it might be the President ProTem of the Senate, and Democrats have a real chance of losing the Senate this year.
I would assume Congress would decide, and the President Pro Tempore would stand in until a replacement is chosen. I don't think the VP can switch to the President if the President didn't actually take office.
But I'm not a constitutional expert.