A Horrible Thought: We Need An Emergency Plan

[Zorra]

Question: What would happen if John Kerry had an "accident" the day before, or close to, the November election? Like a Wellstone type "accident", or an RFK type "accident"? A "November Surprise".

Since we have just been through this "possible election cancelling circumstances" flap, I doubt that the election would be cancelled under these circumstances.

I know this is horrible to think about, but, uh, well...you know as well as I do...

Would this guarantee a Bu$h victory?

What type of emergency plan can we make?

[fearnobush]

1. Edwards.

[Zorra]

3. But, he would not be on the ballot as a Presidential Candidate. n/t

[ramblin_dave]

4. We don't elect candidates

We elect slates of electors to the electoral college. Presumably they could vote for whomever in case the candidate they are pledged to dies.

[Zorra]

8. So, if we all voted for Kerry, the electors could name Edwards?

[ramblin_dave]

9. Yes, or anyone else as far as I know.

I suspect the party would have a say.

All this needs an expert opinion though.

[Zorra]

10. Yes, this should be clarified long before the election.

It might prevent "accidents" from happening.

[Amarant]

43. An individual elector

can vote for whoever. The party would NOT have a say. (there is nothing in the constitution saying an elector must listen to a party) Though the elector would be someone who had supported kerry if the state went blue - and you could imagine they would vote edwards.

[Zorra]

45. Good point. The DNC, IMO, needs to prep electors, and make sure,

to the best of their ability, that Democrats know that their vote will still count, and should still get out and vote.

[ObaMania]

17. Gore/Edwards

... the way it should've been in '04!

[bloom]

22. I think that would actually make sense

from an appointment point of view. Since Gore has won already.

[WLKjr]

52. Edwards becomes Presidential Candidate/Wins VERY BIG

Gore/Edwards
Edwards/Dean
Edwards by himself

all of them would win in a landslide. I have confidence in that.

Funny how a friend of mine I work with was worried about the same thing, he said John Kerry/John Edwards ticket reminds him of the Kennedy brothers and brought up the idea of one of them or both having something happen to them. We both discussed this scary thought for sometime and how it wouldn't look good for Republicans, because they would try to spin a tragedy.

[Journeyman]

2. Ashcroft lost his last election to a dead man. . .

so the Bush team has some experience in this area.

[Zorra]

6. But Gov. Wilson appointed Carnahan's wife to take his seat, and Bu$h

would never do anything like this.

[hatrack]

38. That's dictated by Missouri state law

Not so with the death of a presidential candidate - though I'll be damned if I know exactly how that would work in the event.

[Virginian]

7. And that is why he is so pro-life.

I had to say that. Sorry, I just had to. I know it is really bad. Sometimes late at night, I just get that way.

[countmyvote4real]

11. Come sit by me any time of the day. eom

[Lerkfish]

24. actually, TWICE ashcroft opponents died in plane crashes...IIRC

I seem to remember hearing that.

[Zorra]

27. If this is true, it only makes it more imperative that we have a plan.

[unkachuck]

5. What does.....

.....the Partys' rules say, FEC rules say?

[Zorra]

12. Kick. Need more input. This kind of has me worried.

And I can't seem to find any info on this type of situation

[LSU_Subversive]

13. I would also appreciate an answer to this good question.

Kick!

[alilenas]

14. A plan must already exist

A presidential candidate has died between election day and the counting of the electors. In 1872, Ulysses S. Grant (R) defeated the Democratic/Northern Republican candidate Horace Greeley. Greeley lost his newspaper and his wife in rapid succession and died himself less than a month after the election. His electors scattered. Greeley had had multiple VP candidates (which would not be the case today) and the electors pretty reliably went with VP who ran in their states (Thomas Hendricks and B. Gratz Brown).

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Welcome to DU :^D

[Zorra]

21. If a plan exists, we need to know what it is ASAP, so that there will be

no confusion among Democrats if this terrible circumstance exists at the time of the election.

Or the Supreme Court will rapidly intervene and select Bu$h pResident again.

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Been thinking about that myself.

[claudiajean]

18. Ramblin Dave is correct - The Electors would decide

I'm an election administration "expert" (or at least the state certification on my wall claims as much...), so I'm gonna stick my first DU toe in the water here.

Ramblin Dave is correct when he states that as American voters, we elect a slate of electors, we do not actually cast a vote for President and Vice President.

In some states the electors are bound by state law to cast their ballots for the candidate they committed to when they ran (if that candidate is still qualified to serve), at least on the first ballot, in others the electors are free from the get-go to vote for whomever they wish after they are elected as an Elector. Election laws are, for the most part, a state matter, and vary widely on a state by state basis.

The poster who shared the 1872 story of Horace Greely is also right. Communication being what it was back in the day, the Electors were pretty much left to fend for themselves within their states (the electoral college actually meets in December on a state by state basis in each state Capitol) to determine who to cast their vote for after their candidate passed away.

Today, with our superb communication tools, one would expect that in the horrible event that a new candidate were needed, the DNC would take the lead in communicating a preferred replacement candidate to the Democratic members of the Electoral College. However, the Electors would not be bound by such guidance, so one would expect that the DNC leadership would take the wise course and involve Democratic rank and file as much as possible in the decision so to build grassroots support for the replacement.

If Kerry were killed, would it be Edwards? Well, sure, probably...but other prominent, qualified Democrats would also be possibilities - Hillary, Gephardt, heck, even Daschle or Pelosi....perhaps even a certain Vermont physician?

[Wind Dancer]

19. Welcome to DU, claudiajean!

I love your sig line!

:hi:

[claudiajean]

20. Gosh, thanks!

Thanks for the kind welcome!:D

[Zorra]

23. I would like to see proof. Got a link to the procedure? and, the DNC

IMO, needs to inform Democrats about the procedure so that they still all go to the polls in the case of this unfortunate event.

[claudiajean]

28. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America

This is the first piece of what I believe you are asking for. The US Constitution provides the framework for the election of the members of the Electoral College, as well as providing the qualifications of those who may be considered a candidate for President:

(This language and spelling are lifted directly from the original text of the Constitution, so please don't flame me if your don't like the spelling of "chuse". Flame the framers.)

Article. II.
Section. 1.

Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

[Zorra]

30. That is not a plan, and it may be subject to lengthy legal interpretation

battle in this case, and I don't trust the Supreme Court. There does not seem to be a clear process for the type of situation I brought up.

"The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President."

Even though Greeley lost the popular vote to Grant, the posthumous electoral vote for Greeley was consequently spread among several candidates.

We must insure that our Democratic electors are unified in whom they select as President. If Senator Kerry should meet with an unfortunate accident prior to the election, and he receives the majority of the popular vote consistent with a majority of electors in the electoral college, we must insure that these electors know what to do. They must unanimously vote for the same candidate. If electors spread votes among two or more candidates, as the electors did in the Grant-Greeley election of 1872, then Bu$h could conceivably gain a majority of electoral votes and retain power.

[claudiajean]

32. No, this is not a political "plan", this is the procedure

Zorra, your original post has a two-part answer, and I am only attempting to provide information on the procedural piece of it.

There is a "procedure" part, and a "political strategy" part.

The first part is essentially, "Is there a procedure?", and the answer is categorically, YES. You are posting fast and furious, so it's hard to get the other pieces up, but Article II is, as I noted, the first piece of the procedure. I'm putting up the next step in that procedure in a post linked to that thread.


The second question raised by your original post is essentially, "Does our Democratic national leadership have a plan to take full political and strategic advantage of the legal procedure in place, so as to assure a Democratic victory if we have enough electoral votes?"

I obviously can't answer that as a grassroots individual, nor could anyone else, except perhaps your state DNC committeepeople.

But the two pieces of the question raised by your original post are two seperate questions, and it's important not to blur them.

[claudiajean]

34. The process is clear, nevertheless, the legal battle will be lengthy...

Whenever a question comes up that has incredibly high stakes, there will be a lengthy legal battle, regardless of the clarity of the applicable procedure, law or caselaw.

But the more important question is, since the procedure exists, and actually is quite clear when taken in totality, what is the strategic plan in place to take full advantage of the existing procedure?

"How will the DNC leadership handle the political strategy situation created by the death of the candidate, if such an unfortunate event ocurred?"

My understanding is that the Kerry camp already has a plan for a local expert legal team on the ground in every state. I hope that a federal team is also being assembled for any federal questions.

[claudiajean]

33. The second part of the procedure is the individual state laws

As noted above, Article II of the Constitution provides the basic framework for the selection, activities, and responsibilities of the Electoral College.

Article II delegates the responsibility for choosing the electors in each state to the legislature in said state. Each state has adopted laws providing for the election of electors, and yes, the process is different in every single state (although there are some similarities.)

So there is no one single link to the procedure to be followed by electors, as it is different in each state. In most states, the statutes will be found in a separate "Elections" title within the state code, and a chapter within that title headed "Electors" or "Electoral College". This information on a state-by-state basis can be found on-line on the state legislative website for most states. But it is 50 seperate references.

Keep in mind, these laws, taken together, only provide the procedure to be followed. As to the other question of "Is there a strategic plan?", that is still a question to be answered by the Democratic leadership...

[Zorra]

35. Thanks. A strategic plan is in order ASAP, IMO.

When a tragedy occurs, confusion often ensues. We saw what happened in the 2000 election. If a contingency plan had already been adopted by the DNC by that time, perhaps Al Gore would be in the WH today.

Republicans have demonstrated that they are intent on stealing the next election. How far they will go to steal it...I do not see the neocons as having any regard for ethics, morality, or human life.

[claudiajean]

36. Thank you for posing the question for all of us...

...the political strategy piece is incredibly important. And it desrves an answer from the leadership folks who can provide an answer.

If the DNC, or Kerry/Edwards, for that matter, have such a plan sitting in a drawer poised for the worst, then it would be good for the grassroots to be informed of at least the basics.

And if not, well, then someone better get crackin'!:)

[Zorra]

37. De nada.

Thank you for the information.

Love your avatar.

[claudiajean]

39. It seems particularly apropos...

...considering that neither of us, were we alive in 1872, would have needed to worry our pretty little heads about voting, anyhow, and could have just left it up to the big, strong men to figure out.

In 1876, she went ahead and voted. And was promptly arrested.

[Zorra]

40. LOL., btw,

Welcome to DU!!!
:hi:
:hug:

[claudiajean]

44. Thanks!

;)

[Zorra]

26. Hold on - that election was really screwed up:

In November, Grant won an overwhelming victory. The Democratic/Liberal Republican results were muddled, however: Greeley died after the election, but before the electoral votes were counted.* Only three electors remained loyal to the deceased candidate; the remainder scattered their votes among a number of candidates. The electoral votes of Louisiana and Arkansas were rejected because of Reconstruction irregularities.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h215.html

We need complete clarification and a plan.

[claudiajean]

29. This is a good example of ...

...how two historical accounts saying the same thing can be phrased to emphasize different aspects of a situation and imply different outcomes, when in fact, the same information is being used.

As alilenas noted in her first post about the 1872 election, there were different Vice Presidential candidates running with Greeley in different states.

The electors that ran committed to Greeley largely remained true to the ticket, as she said, and cast their Presidential vote for Greeley's Vice Presidential candidate in their state. But this did have the effect of scattering Greeley's votes amongst several individuals.

Keep in mind that in 1872 the DNC could hardly send out a blast e-mail informing the Democratic members of the Electoral College committed to Greeley as to the recommended replacement candidate. The Electors had to make the best decision they could under the circumstances, which generally were - at the last minute, they knew their candidate was dead, and they knew they were tasked with an important choice to make, largely within a complete information vacuum due to the lack of time and slow communication methods.

The 1872 election did have challenges, but they were largely as a result of the lingering effects of the war, reconstruction and the resultant chaos that created. The Greeley Electors were hardly the screwed-up mess as implied by the article.

[Zorra]

31. IMO, these circumstances need to be addressed and clarified by the

DNC ASAP.

Also, Democrats must know that their vote will still count under these circumstances.

If something were to happen to Senator Kerry just prior to the election, it could confuse people and keep Democrats from going to the polls.

[Blue Wally]

41. I think that.......

A more recent example is Shriver replacing Eagleton as VP candidate in 1972. The decision was made by the DNC. The party should dictate who the candidate will be if the convention selectee must be replaced. Electors of course are on their own after the election.

[WilliamPitt]

60. Great post

Thanks.

[claudiajean]

62. Coming from you...

...that is high praise, indeed.

(Reading your post gave me a little omigosh! moment) :)

I may be new to posting, but I've been lurking for over a year. Your writings are some of the finest I've read, so I'm just flabbergasted that you liked mine.

Thanks!

[tom_paine]

25. To paraphrase the words of Don Corleone in "The Godfather"

If Kerry should be shot in the head by a police officer, or his plane should mysteriously go down, or if he should mistakenly inhale an envelope full of Bushevik anthrax spores, then I will hold YOU responsible.

And THIS I will NOT forgive...

[doctorbombeigh]

42. Exactly so. Emergency plan = go to the mattresses. n/t

[tom_paine]

46. Not a big GF fan. What does that reference?

[Zorra]

47. I believe it is a mafia term that means "to go into hiding".

[dflprincess]

55. If I recall my "Godfather" correctly

it has to do with going to war.

[tom_paine]

65. Not speaking of violence. Think Yugoslavia stopping Milosevic

or Russia stopping the Commie Coup of '92 (?)

[Zorra]

48. Kick for more input. Thanks.

[Zorra]

49. Last call.

:beer:

[Cascadian]

50. Edwards/Dean

That would be my choice. Forget Dean's scream overblown by the media.

It would be a great ticket!


John

[Zorra]

51. But the electors would have to know way in advance

to make sure that they were united in their choice. Otherwise, if they split their choices among candidates Bu$h could win even if Kerry took a popular and electoral state majority.

[claudiajean]

59. That is correct - the electors would have to be informed and supportive

If the Democratic Electors were united on a replacement, and we had the electoral votes, despite the tragedy, the Dems would still be the victors.

But Zorra raises an important point - with no clear substitute, if the DNC failed to communicate OR to generate grassroots support for the recommended candidate, there remains the possibility the the Democratic electors could split their vote among several candidates, drop any Democratic candidate below a simple mojority of the electors, and manage to send the election to the House of Representatives for decision.

And Dems don't control the House currently...so we know how that would turn out.

[Zorra]

64. It is very sad that we even have to consider such things.

I have a friend from Norway that tells me, gloatingly, that the Prime Minister of Norway can walk the streets freely with no "secret service" agents necessary for protection.

We need to take our country back, and try to make it a place where our President can walk the streets and talk to people over a beer without having to worry about some crazy factionalist shooting her or him.

I guess maybe this is idealistic. That's kind of sad.

[latebloomer]

53. I recently had a dream that this happened

Kerry died before the election. And I knew it wasn't an "accident".

Let's hope it was not prophetic.

[dflprincess]

54. Wouldn't it depend on when it happened?

One more day and Wellstone's name would have stayed on the ballot. Anyone know how laws like that apply to the presidential race?

And, speaking of emergency plans. I've been thinking we need them in the evident that a) the election is suspended - when and where do we gather? and b) they shut down the internet (I know, I'm really paranoid) how do we contact each other?

[claudiajean]

61. The voters don't cast votes for the candidates...

...they cast votes for the electors.

Many states phrase their ballots for maximum clarity, so you see "Jane Doe, Elector committed to:" or "Democratic Elector for", or such language in small print before the big names of the nominees for each party. This is so voters understand that this is their opportunity to vote in the Presidential election process. But the simple fact is that you are voting for your representatives in the Electoral College, not the President and Vice President directly.

The only voters in the country who have ever truly cast a vote for President fall into two groups:

1) If you have ever been a credentialed, voting delegate to the Democratic National Convention (or Republican National Convention, or Green Party national convention, etc.), and you participated in your state roll call vote.

2) If you have ever been a member of the Electoral College, e.g. the Elector from your state and district, and went to your state capitol in December of a Presidential year to cast your Electoral vote.

If you don't fall into one or both of these two categories, then you have never directly voted for President.

[area51]

66. internet

It would be difficult to shut down the internet, because not all the root name servers are located in the USA. The root name servers are how you can enter a domain name, say, democraticunderground.com, and get it resolved so you can go to a website.

[spanone]

56. I'd say put in the last democratic president: Bill Clinton

[PaDem]

57. We take to the streets......

it'd be time for an aggressive response.

[walldude]

58. Well he could run anyway

Ashcroft lost an election to a dead guy why not Bush???

[claudiajean]

63. Because the process for electing the President is different...

..than the process for electing US Senators.

We don't directly elect the President. The Electoral College elects the President. We elect the members of the electoral college.

Members of Congress are directly elected. Each state has different rules for the procedure for removing a Representative or Senate candidate from the ballot due to disqualification prior to the election (and death is a pretty concrete disqualification), however, there is a point in the process where, for administrative reasons, the ballots cannot be reprinted, the candidate must remain on the November ballot, and the procedure for filling a vacancy must be followed post-election.

[Rabid]

67. Realistically

This election is going to depend on which way the moderates swing. The polars will vote polarity.

If something happens to Kerry (and you must consider that it MAY happen to Edwards, also ... they will often be close together until the election)a day or two before the election, won't most moderates a) cast their vote for Republicans (being their second choice, but the only one now available) or b) NOT VOTE?

More than 50% of the USA are 'herd mentality'. So, realistically, if something happens to JK, the current administration will publically mourn and privately celebrate ... and accept "graciously" a second term in office.

The way I see it.