The Presidential Election 2016: What if...

...neither candidate is able to be President?

I can hardly believe I typed that out since it's been the preeminent crackpot CT theory for several years. You know, Obama canceling the election, staying in power...

But damn if it doesn't seem more possible each day. Trump and Clinton both are so wholly questionable and seem incapable of rising to the moment. One scandal or controversy or misstep after the other. One leak after the other. Then there is the loony Russian angle.

All politics aside, just rubbernecking events, do you see this as a feasible scenario? And, if so, how will it happen? What will the fall out be? Have I just been on the internet too long?

a reply to: JetBlackStare

I don't even want to speculate what kind of revolt would take place if the elections were suspended.

Then there is the loony Russian angle.

It is loony, isn't it?

Have I just been on the internet too long?

Probably. If the weather is nice, try going outside for a few minutes. Then when you come back, maybe you won't feel so noir.

originally posted by: JetBlackStare
...neither candidate is able to be President?

Then both parties would select new ones as per their rules.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well there ya go!..........


Ruining a perfectly good potentionally tangent riddled forum with one simple factual statement!!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JetBlackStare
...neither candidate is able to be President?

Then both parties would select new ones as per their rules.

I believe the OP was leading up to the election being suspended and asking what would happen then.

a reply to: grubblesnert

Sorry man.

originally posted by: LSU0408
I believe the OP was leading up to the election being suspended and asking what would happen then.

Dear Leader cannot just willy-nilly suspend the elections because the candidates suck (which they do), there are procedures available to replace them if they are unable to fulfill their obligations from the nominating process.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Is it that simple? Isn't there both a process and a time limit to get on each state's ballot? Wouldn't that almoat automatically ensure that Sanders and either Cruz or Kasich are the replacement? If there would be a need for a replacement.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JetBlackStare
...neither candidate is able to be President?

Then both parties would select new ones as per their rules.

I believe the OP was leading up to the election being suspended and asking what would happen then.

Exactly. It would, at the very least, screw with the timeline for the transition of power in January. And, even if the reasons for suspension seem legit on the surface, there is so much uncertainty and mistrust among the people toward the government, many still may not buy it. It could be very destabilizing. There are some who assert this has always been the plan of the Russians.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JetBlackStare
...neither candidate is able to be President?

Then both parties would select new ones as per their rules.

True, but here's the rub. How could we possibly expect a fair election if this were to happen? The "chosen ones" were not voted for by the people. I would take the election as a sham. Or am I looking at this wrong?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, not because "they suck" because they might be rendered in ineligible. Either dead or charged criminally or proven to be an asset of our foes.

a reply to: Chance321

Exactly. It's bad either way.

it appears there's some wiggle room for some nefarious dealing whether or not the candidate is to be considered “President elect” and any House resolutions passed on the matter.

What happens if a candidate dies or becomes incapacitated?

If a candidate dies or becomes incapacitated between the general election and the meeting of electoral college, under federal law, the electors pledged to the deceased candidate may vote for the candidate of their choice at the meeting of electors. Individual states may pass laws on the subject, but no federal law proscribes how electors must vote when a candidate dies or becomes incapacitated.

In 1872, when Horace Greeley passed away between election day and the meeting of electoral college, the electors who were slated to vote for Greeley voted for various candidates, including Greeley. The votes cast for Greeley were not counted due to a House resolution passed regarding the matter.

As to a candidate who dies or becomes incapacitated between the meeting of electors and the counting of electoral votes in Congress, the Constitution is silent on whether this candidate meets the definition of “President elect” or “Vice President elect.”

If the candidate with a majority of the electoral votes is considered “President elect,” even before the counting of electoral votes in Congress, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment applies. Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President elect will become President if the President elect dies or becomes incapacitated.

If a winning Presidential candidate dies or becomes incapacitated between the counting of electoral votes in Congress and the inauguration, the Vice President elect will become President

I think what we are going to see is a bit different, but with the same results.

Shillary uses an unsecure server. Chump claims the hacks were by the Russians. Shobama feels he is being evicted from the White House.

Then the elections come. Which ever candidate loses, can turn around and say that the Russians hacked the election results and tampered with them. Shobama comes out and declares a miss vote, nulls the elections, all hell breaks lose, marshall law is declared with a suspension of constitutional rights, and dictator stays in office.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
Is it that simple? Isn't there both a process and a time limit to get on each state's ballot? Wouldn't that almoat automatically ensure that Sanders and either Cruz or Kasich are the replacement? If there would be a need for a replacement.

Both parties are already on each state's ballot. They can put any candidate they want any time they want on their tickets without regard to the primary election results.

originally posted by: Chance321
True, but here's the rub. How could we possibly expect a fair election if this were to happen? The "chosen ones" were not voted for by the people. I would take the election as a sham. Or am I looking at this wrong?

Both the Democrat and Republican parties are private entities and can chose to address election results for their candidates any way that they want. It has always 'been a sham'.

originally posted by: JetBlackStare
No, not because "they suck" because they might be rendered in illegible. Either dead or charged criminally or proven to be an asset of our foes.

It still does not matter. Both parties would put a new nominee in place and continue with the elections. The President is irrelevant.

Well Hillary's health could render her ineligible, however Trump's health so far as we know is fine, and if they had anything criminal on him Obama would have exposed it already to support Hillary.

We should just archive this thread so we can cut-and-paste it every election cycle. Each election someone post the same frigging thing so why not save ourselves the trouble and have it auto-post every September or so?

a reply to: JetBlackStare

The U.S. Constitution would need to change or be amended for President Obama to remain in office past this term -- and the U.S. Constitution is not easy to change, and isn't easy to change quickly. He would have a incredibly difficult time trying to change the constitutiuon in a manner that would give him the power to cancel the election.

I'm not even sure that the U.S. Constitution could ever include such a provision of having the President unilaterally canceling the election and still look anything like the U.S. Constitution, given that the hallmark of the constitution is that there are three equal branches of government, each one being checked and balanced by the other two.

It's like a game of rock-paper-scissors; no matter what you try throw out, there is another that can counteract it. The President does not have any powers that can't be counteracted by another branch of the three-branch government.


Besides, there are plenty of candidates who would be on the ballot -- not just two. So it would be virtually impossible that NONE of them would be able to be president. "Rising to the moment of being an effective president" is another argument, but it's not up to the sitting president to decide if the candidates are capable of being an effective president. The president could think that 100% of the candidates are complete idiots, but he has no official say-so, other than the single vote that he has as a voting citizen.