What would happen if McCain or Obama died today?

Would the vote still be held tomorrow, or would it be delayed? Would the vice presidential candidate automatically become presidential candidate, or could the party still change candidates? What about the votes already cast? What if it's not Obama or McCain but one of the minor candidates who dies today?

I guess the same could happen in Finland, since we have a personal presidential election too (unlike the other elections in here, where your vote goes primarily for the party and only secondarily for the candidate). And I don't know what would happen in here in a situation like that either... Of course the chances of this actually happening are small, but surely it must've been taken into consideration?

When Leo died on the West Wing, they went ahead. He as VP nom, tho.

Obama and McCain were killed months ago by Karl Rove, what you see now are androids

The vote go on as planned, because one doesn't technically vote for the candidate, but instead for electors who pledge to vote for that candidate in the electoral college. Those electors would then be free to vote for who they wished, and as they are generally speaking very strong partisans, they would very likely vote for the Vice Presidential candidate for that party, as that candidate would be the only from said party who had been one the ballot.

If a VP candidate died, the newly-elected President's first move would be to submit the name of a candidate for Congressional confirmation.

None of these things will happen, you morbid, morbid Finn.

vote would

also on, not one

8th Grade civics, Y'ALL

Seriously, between the new CHI thread title and this thread, ILX is doing some serious jinxy shit that I do NOT appreciate.

Hang on, they're voting tomorrow?

The vote go on as planned, because one doesn't technically vote for the candidate, but instead for electors who pledge to vote for that candidate in the electoral college. Those electors would then be free to vote for who they wished, and as they are generally speaking very strong partisans, they would very likely vote for the Vice Presidential candidate for that party, as that candidate would be the only from said party who had been one the ballot.

Now that I think of it, this hypothetical situation would be more complicated in Finland than in the US, since Finns don't vote for electors anymore. We used to have them in presidential elections up until 1994, but ever since that it has been a direct vote. Also, Finnish president doesn't have a vice president, so there wouldn't be anyone automatically taking the place of a dead candidate. (If a Finnish president dies mid-tenure, I think the law calls for a premature presidential election.)

What if it's not Obama or McCain but one of the minor candidates who dies today?

^the tense in this sentence momentarily creeped me out

Am v worried about the Finnish presidency now.

Now that I think of it, I've never really understood why Finland used to have and USA still has this system of electors? Is it exactly to prevent this sort of hypothetical situation from happening? Or are there other reasons for it?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/noodle_vague/capitalism.jpg

It's the same reason we have a chamber of congress that assigns equal representation to each state regardless of population. The fear among the framers was that direct direct election of a President would lead to candidates campaigning to gain the votes only of the most populous areas and neglecting the interests of less populous ones.

Also, because the American founding fathers were split between people who believed in direct democracy and people who believed in (small r) republicanism.

xpost

These days, y'know, fuck the electoral college. Then again, I'll likely never live in or culturally align with a non-urban environment, so I'm biased.

I know representative democracy as a whole is a ruse of capitalism, but that still doesn't explain the internal variations, like direct vote vs. voting for electors.

(xx-post)

It's the same reason we have a chamber of congress that assigns equal representation to each state regardless of population. The fear among the framers was that direct direct election of a President would lead to candidates campaigning to gain the votes only of the most populous areas and neglecting the interests of less populous ones.

So the number of electors in a certain state isn't assigned based on its population?

Somewhat. It's equal to the number of members of Congress that state has for both houses.

So, for instance, Wyoming, the least populous state, has 3 electors, equal to it's 2 Senate members and 1 House member.

California, the most populous state, on the other hand, has 55 electors, equal to its 2 Senate members and 53 House members.

As a result, Wyoming gets one elector for every 171,668 people, but California gets one elector for every 662,865 people.

Isn't that kinda undemocratic?

How many does Puerto Rico get?

Totally, but more republican, the balance between which America is all about.

There's a thread about it, here that's more swear-y and less lol high school than my answers.

Puerto Rico isn't a state and thus gets zero.

What about the absentee votes? Where do they go?

They just count as votes in the voter's home state.

This question somehow feels more pertinent today...

So, I guess Biden got exposed to covid by being in the debate with Trump? Didn't they run tests to those two before putting them in the same room?

I don't know but my 250-1 bet on Kamala winning the election is looking pretty healthy right now