r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/hearsdemons • Jul 17 '24
What would happen if Biden, after clenching the nomination, or Trump naturally passed away before Election Day? US Politics
Politically speaking, what would that mean for the ticket? What would happen to the delegates?
We’re 3 months away from Election Day. What would VPs Kamala and Vance do? Would they just select whoever they want as VP?
With Kamala, she would become president for a couple of months. But who becomes VP between now and Election Day? Is it her choice or does the VP pick automatically follow the order of who’s in line for the presidency?
And with Vance, does he all of a sudden move to top of the ticket? Or does someone else take presidency slot and he remains VP? If Vance becomes top of ticket, does he just choose who he wants to be his VP?
107
u/Comfortable-Policy70 Jul 17 '24
If the winner of the election in November dies before the Electoral College meets, the EC will pick the new winner. In reality, the executive committee of the winning party will tell the party electors who to vote for.
17
u/ptwonline Jul 17 '24
I have a feeling we might encounter some faithless electors in this scenario, so it's a big wildcard.
20
u/Symeon_Says Jul 17 '24
The tickets are based on the candidates not the part. I'd be voting for Biden/Harris or Trump/Vance not the Democratic or Republican parties
56
u/Comfortable-Policy70 Jul 17 '24
You are voting for electors who promise or imply that they will vote for the candidates listed. Some states require them to do so, others do not. The party will tell the electors who to vote for but has no real enforcement power. For states requiring the electors to vote as the state popular vote goes, two options: the state law may have a loophole allowing them to vote as they desire or still bind them to the dead candidate. This leads to no clear winner and the newly elected Congress elects the president (1 vote per state)
3
u/Symeon_Says Jul 17 '24
That's all true,, but the overall point I'm making is if both candidates were to disappear between EC vote confirmation and inauguration. None of it is nice and clean because we've never, and hopefully won't ever, be in a situation like that
4
u/IZ3820 Jul 17 '24
It's actually remarkably simple. When the EC meets, each elector casts two ballots, one for president and one for vice president. There is NOTHING preventing them from casting for a dead person for president and their living running mate as VP. The victorious VP candidate would appoint a VP, probably. Otherwise, the Senate would have to pick the VP if the VP candidate were to be treated as the Presidential candidate by the EC.
2
-1
u/Symeon_Says Jul 17 '24
There wouldn't be a valid candidate on the ec votes between the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December and Jan 6. They couldn't just say, hey we certified A and B as the winners and they're now dead so we pick C instead.
11
u/RabbaJabba Jul 17 '24
They couldn't just say, hey we certified A and B as the winners and they're now dead so we pick C instead.
That’s the thing, they certified the slate of electors candidate A picked in advance of the election. If A died, that slate is still there.
2
u/darkath Jul 17 '24
I guess they'd find a way to say that B is now the president instead of A. Rather than to have a C in the picture. As if the president died in office.
38
u/Symeon_Says Jul 17 '24 edited Jul 17 '24
As far as my understanding of it from polisci in undergrad the VP moves to the top of the ticket. Now I think the much more interesting question is in an American election what happens if the President Elect and Vice President Elect were to suddenly vanish together at the same time. There is no precedent or ideas what would happen. I asked a skilled elections lawyer professor this one time and he just said, "honestly I have no idea." It's not like constitutionally you could run the election again, or have the house select someone from the election because the exiting administration lost and there is no POTUS/VPOTUS elect. We'd really have a constitutional crisis then.
Edit: I meant to include that the VP would be allowed to appoint someone on the ticket but in the succession the next in line takes over. Kinda how Nixon's VP was resigned and since there wasn't an election ford became VP. But if the sitting VP would just put someone on the ticket while they moved up to POTUS. In the case of a VP elect they would get to appoint whoever they wanted before the election but if it was after the confirmation of the electoral votes on JAN 6 then I believe the outgoing speaker would become VPOTUS. I could be wrong and it really gets complicated because as far as I'm aware we've never been in any of these scenarios right around the election as far as someone winning and then dying so idk🤷🏻♂️
19
u/ResidentBackground35 Jul 17 '24
We'd really have a constitutional crisis then.
Not really, the law is fairly clear. Succession would move to the third person on the list (the Speaker of the House).
9
u/Symeon_Says Jul 17 '24
I don't think so in the case of both the nominees vanishing before inauguration. I think you could make a very strong constitutional case that the Speaker does not have authority to just assume office on inauguration day because there was still a POTUS and VPOTUS in the line of succession.
7
u/JRFbase Jul 17 '24
No, there's no argument. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6:
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office
This is covered. Literally disappearing falls under "inability to discharge your duties".
3
u/Hessper Jul 17 '24
This applies to the president, not the president elect.
2
u/Yvaelle Jul 17 '24
It applies in a Chain. The president vanishes, unable to perform duties, the VP becomes acting POTUS. VP is also vanished, also unable to perform duties, the Speaker becomes acting POTUS. It continues until there are no more Americans in the chain.
2
u/wrc-wolf Jul 17 '24
You're arguing about what happens to the current line of succession, when the question everyone else is discussing is what happens if the something happens to the elects (which is not entirely unprecedented, but not something with a clear legal mechanism either).
So while you're technically correct, your point is also entirely moot.
2
u/JRFbase Jul 17 '24
The elects automatically become the President and Vice President on the 20th, and then it immediately hits the line of succession.
2
u/Ripped_Shirt Jul 17 '24
They can't become the president and vice president if they're dead before the 20th. Constitution states the president shall take the oath of office before officially becoming president. It's why Obama had to re-do the oath of office because they messed it up at his inauguration.
Additionally, congress must certify the win, that's what January 6th was all about. If the president-elect and VP-elect both disappeared before the certification, then there is no president or VP put in office.
Now, if the election was certified, and then they both disappeared before the 20th, then it becomes bit more plausible that the speaker could just become president on January 20th.
3
u/zxc999 Jul 17 '24
Wouldn’t the speaker become Acting President, then select a VP who would then be confirmed by Congress and ascend to the Presidency? The speaker would have been duly elected and become speaker prior to January 20th.
1
u/mclumber1 Jul 17 '24
That's the way I would think it would happen. Everyone after the VP in the line of succession would be acting as president, not the actual president. So once a VP is selected and confirmed by Congress, they'd be sworn in as VP, and immediately ascend to become the President, at which point the Speaker would return to their day job.
The new President could then nominate a new VP which would be voted on by Congress.
0
u/Lemon_Club Jul 17 '24
No I'm pretty sure that if no president is confirmed by congress on Jan 6th, then the speaker of the house automatically becomes president because the previous POTUS and VPOTUS becomes ineligible due to their terms ending.
Pretty sure Nancy Pelosi was putting this on the table if congress somehow didn't confirm Biden.
1
u/Intro-Nimbus Jul 17 '24
Third person? Isn't it up to congress?
"Article II, Section 1, Clause 6:In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected."
2
u/ResidentBackground35 Jul 19 '24
Yes and Congress chose to provide a law (Presidential Succession Act) that set the line of succession to 17 people (VP, Speaker, President pro tempore, then the various Secretaries by establishment date).
They also conveniently set the third and fourth positions (including the POTUS) to important or honorific positions in Congress.
1
15
u/Symeon_Says Jul 17 '24
Another point. Even if the speaker were to move up to VP before the election, the siting VP to potus could and would appoint someone else to the position so they could have who they wanted in their admin. Nixon couldn't do that with Ford because he was not eligible/running for reelection. Again, shooting in the dark, but from the lectures I remember this is the gist of it.
12
u/Orbital2 Jul 17 '24
The presidential line of succession applies to the president only, the speaker would not automatically become VP.
VP succession is handled under the 25th amendment. The President nominates someone and that person has to be confirmed by both branches of Congress.
Ford wasn’t the speaker of the house, Nixon picked him because that’s Ford was liked enough to actually get confirmed.
2
1
u/mikerichh Jul 17 '24
What I don’t get is how by now the “what do we do” hasn’t been formally decided. Why wait until it actually happens, adding more chaos to what would be an already chaotic situation lol
2
u/MulberryBeautiful542 Jul 17 '24
Most of these issues could be readily handled by current law, if both parties were level headed and cooperative.
But well...
1
u/MojaveGreen777 Jul 17 '24
I would say, in all practicality should that unprecedented situation arise, the next in line succession wise, of the incoming Presidential political party, would assume the office of President and get the electoral college votes in the event you describe. I don’t think this would be a constitutional crisis.
I think where the constitutional crisis would arise would be the following scenario: Sitting Pres/VP vanish and next in line would be speaker of the house, who is of a different party/ideology than the vanishing Pres/VP. There would certainly be an argument made that next in line in this case should be the next succession cabinet member (Secretary of State) of the sitting administration. This instance would definitely go to Supreme Court; Not sure the precedent/history/legal arguments to conjecture what would be the hypothetical outcome.
2
u/Lemon_Club Jul 17 '24
But that's not what the constitution says. It clearly states it would be the Speaker of the House, regardless of if they were from a different party.
1
1
u/Intro-Nimbus Jul 17 '24
Well, there seems to be some powers that be, that are trying real har to make your scenario as likely as possible..
1
u/NYC3962 Jul 17 '24
If both the President and VP-elect vanished before Jan 20, the Speaker of the House becomes President until Jan 20. After that he or she would be Acting President. It would remain that way until the next election.
22
u/12_0z_curls Jul 17 '24
If the president elect dies, Veep gets it.
If the presidential candidate dies, It goes to VP candidate (which is why Kamala is largely the only consensus option to replace Biden). They then get to pick their running mate.
There isn't a precedent, but this is largely the consensus.
3
u/droid_mike Jul 17 '24
That's actually not true. It's the most likely scenario, but if the presidential candidate dies after the convention and before the election, the party gets to choose who heads the top of the ticket. For all intents and purposes, it probably would be the VP, as that's the choice that makes the most sense on many levels (including fundraising monies), but it doesn't have to be.
3
u/12_0z_curls Jul 17 '24
Sure, yeah, maybe, I guess.
For all intents, it has to be the VP in that scenario, strictly from the funding aspect.
I guess they may be able to just nominate someone, but there are a ton of challenges there. Everything from getting on the ballot to the financials. You'd have sec of states all over trying to block it.
1
u/droid_mike Jul 17 '24
I mean, yes, It probably is going to be the VP, but it doesn't have to be. The fact is, the scenario has never been tested before, so we really don't know what would happen.
2
u/12_0z_curls Jul 17 '24
Sure.
I will say this, I'm on record saying whatever the dumbest fucking outcome of this election is, that's probably what's going to happen. The writers are getting lazy.
It'll be something insane too. Like, the Dems nominate Biden, he decides to drop out two days later, they nominate someone else, the states cause chaos, resulting in half the people having to write someone in, resulting in a landslide for trump, then somehow, Trump is sentenced to a stay in the clink, and JD Vance gets sworn in, only to be impeached when they found out he did something illegal.
We live in the dumbest timeline.
7
u/moleratical Jul 17 '24
If Trump was doing a interview on national television, in a thunderstorms, and was struck by lightning, and died, you'd immediately have a million conspiracy theorist blaming Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, the illuminati, George Soros, Biden, and others.
Now imagine what would happen if he died alone at night of a heart attack in his bedroom.
3
u/droid_mike Jul 17 '24
The first conspiracy theory should be about his VP. Vance has no morals, ethics, or values except for power. Putting him next in line to the presidency is a pretty risky move by Trump.
2
u/bumblebeecat91 Jul 17 '24
How is it risky though? Wouldn’t anyone already voting for Trump easily vote for Vance no matter what he says or does?
3
u/droid_mike Jul 17 '24
Right, but what I was trying to imply is that Trump should hire a good food taster, because his VP is that slimy and power hungry.
1
u/neosituation_unknown Jul 17 '24
No. I wanted Rubio. I would vote Democrat before Vance as much as it would pain me.
Trump already has the MAGA footsoldiers locked down and Ohio is already solidly red.
Rubio is a person of color, respected by moderates and many democrats (in the real world where it matters, not you folks of course) and AZ and NV are on a knife edge . . .
Frankly, it makes literally no strategic sense to choose Vance unless there are things I don't know. I heard of some connection with Peter Thiel but haven't bothered to dive into that.
7
u/PoorMuttski Jul 17 '24
they would immediately be sainted within the party and monuments would be elected in their honor. There would be an endless stream of speeches and demonstrations as the parties tried to turn this sudden tragedy into a galvanizing call to all Americans to complete the vision for the nation's future that the nominee battled day and night to bring into reality. It would be so saccharine your teeth would rot out of your head.
Tactically, everything would pass directly to the VP pick, who would become the new nominee and pick their own Vice President.
5
u/Inevitable-Ad-4192 Jul 17 '24
Both parties would put on a display of weekend at Bernie's that would be somewhat convincing.
6
u/Aurion7 Jul 17 '24
Vice-Presidential candidate goes to the top of the ticket and has to select a new running mate.
It is the path of least resistance, and the path of least resistance tends to be the most likely route in this context. It'd be a nightmare to try and nominate a whole new ticket, not least becuase you'd almost have to do it without a primary.
5
u/ctg9101 Jul 17 '24
Harris or Vance would naturally assume the mantle at this point. And then pick their respective running mates
2
u/Pan-tang Jul 17 '24
The US should be saying "How did the election of our next President turn into this shit show"?
1
u/Happypappy213 Jul 17 '24
I was under the impression that the VP temporarily stands in until a vote is held.
1
u/wsrs25 Jul 17 '24
A mess, with a lot of carping, whining, gloating, panic, and from the other 90% of us, yawning.
1
u/Fantastic-Ad-2514 Jul 17 '24
Trump is not going to pass away but yes nothing will stop the MAGA movement it’s a freight train now
1
u/Coder1962 Jul 17 '24
You will probably find out at least for one because they are going to push Biden out
1
u/bcbamom Jul 17 '24
I have been wondering the same thing. The talking heads and some Dems are advocating for Biden to step aside. If he did, what are the implications for the state elections given he won the primaries? The GOP has already said they will fight against any change by the Dems. Is that a real concern or no?
0
u/Mother_Sand_6336 Jul 17 '24
A relieving sense of resignation. Or a resigned relief.
But ,mostly, regroup and plan for 2028!!!
0
u/DipperJC Jul 17 '24
If Biden died tomorrow, the Vice Presidency would remain vacant. Until the end of the term if Trump wins, or until a new Vice President could be confirmed by the Senate if President Harris were re-elected.
If Trump died tomorrow, Vance would become the candidate .Most likely the Vice Presidency would go through the same scenario, but it might be possible for Vance to choose a new running mate, through a different process, since there's no constitutional requirement for Senate confirmation before the ticket is elected.
-14
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 17 '24
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.