If the party nominee should die or become incapacitated

[Bobbieo]

prior to the election, will the VP candidate assume the nominee role?

Hope it never happens but just wondering!

[gateley]

1. Interesting question... I'm curious to find out, too. nt

[cali]

2. That's a really interesting question

I have no idea, but I'll bet some knowledgable DUer will chime in.

[HeraldSquare212]

3. I would imagine the party would have to pick a new nominee

doubt it would be the VP candidate, since they're not usually chosen for their top-of-the-ticket appeal. The delegates would have to vote, or the party rules might state that in that circumstance the national committee or the state party committees would vote instead - be pretty difficult to get the delegates organized on short notice.

[sunonmars]

6. I suspect if it had gone quite far the primaries route.

The next one with most delegates, or the party would just have to select.

[sallyseven]

8. I think you are right if it happened

after the convention. I think that McGovern picked Shriver.

[rubberducky]

4. Kick , don`t want this to drop before we find out the answer.

[onenote]

5. interesting question. Don't recall how it was handled in 1972

When Thomas Eagleton, who had received the vice presidential nomination (a rubber stamp process, but still a formal process) stepped down from the ticket and was replaced with Sarge Shriver. Don't recall what process was used to ratify the replacement so that Shriver was "official" (and thus would have his name, rather than Eagleton's included on the ballots ).

[yellowcanine]

12. I believe the national party polled the state delegations to get them to formally ratify McGovern's

choice - a mistake, by the way, morally and politically. Eagleton was a fine choice and the fact that he had been treated for depression should not have been an impediment. It is my one criticism of McGovern - and I suspect he would agree today - he should have stood firm and said, "Eagleton is the nominee for VP. I am sticking with him."

[yellowcanine]

7. I suspect the election would go on as before. Remember the election is not

direct - it chooses a set of electors from each state. If the dead guy won it would be up to those electors to choose. It could get very messy. What would likely happen is that the national party would poll the delegates and come up with an alternate nominee which they would then designate as the person the electors should vote for - obviously there would be much room for shenanigans, as the electors would be under no legal obligation to vote in any particular way.

[HeraldSquare212]

9. What Happens In The Event Of A Terror Attack On The 2004 Presidential Elections?

Here's an article (by John Dean, no less) talking about if a candidate were killed at different times during the process.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040719.html


-snip-


Many worry about the Democratic Convention (July 26-29, 2004) in Boston or the Republican Convention (August 30 to September 2, 2004) in New York City as likely terrorist targets. Yet these events are no more vulnerable than any large sporting event or other such gathering of people.

A "large-scale" (to use Secretary Ridge's words) terror incident at either Convention - or anywhere else, of course -- would be awful. But such an action would not, when all was said and done, strike at serious blow at our democratic process. Both parties would have ample time to reconvene and select candidates.

More serious problems will arise, should terrorists strike after the respective conventions have nominated their candidates for president and vice president. For example, suppose terrorists were to successfully attack one of the candidates close to Election Day -- November 2, 2004. In that event, neither political party has procedures to move very quickly to replace their candidates. And the closer we were to Election Day, the more difficult it would become to quickly fill the vacancy, particularly the vacancy for the presidential nominee.

Under The Charter & The Bylaws of the Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee would be responsible for filling "vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President." But the DNC is a larger body of party officials and rank and file members from throughout the country - so deliberations and decisionmaking would potentially involve over three hundred people, who would have to agree upon a replacement candidate

-snip-

[gateley]

16. Wow - interesting article.

Also interesting to note the Admin's "Intelligence" had "information" that terrorists were going to "disrupt our democratic process".

Wonder if that same intelligence will rear its head again this time around.

Thanks for posting this!!

[truedelphi]

17. Oh yeah and two weeks before Wellstone's (double pilots aboard) plane went down

The Administration said that terroristts were going to try and knock ofrf Semators.

But within the hour of his plane crashing, the public was told that terrorism was not involved.
And they never investigated for terrorism.


Quite reminiscent of the Sherlock Holmes' mystery where the dog doesn't bark. And Sherlock remarks that sometimes you can understand a crime and who committed it more by thinking about the events that don't happen that should have happened, rather than by looking at the events that happened.

[Debi]

10. The delegates to the national convention would re-convene and

noiminate their successor - unless the time for nominating a successor has passed....I think :shrug:

[CK_John]

11. The convention appoints a standing committee solely for this purpose in case it happens. n/t

[Bobbieo]

14. CK - That is an excellent idea!!! Or is it already in existence?

[CK_John]

15. As far as I know this has been standard op since '72. I've been out of the delegate level politics

for the last 2 go arounds.

[sunonmars]

13. God forbid any of the repugs dropping off, would we notice

[Hippo_Tron]

18. IMO post convention the VP candidate would probably assume the nominee role

It makes the most political sense because the VP candidate has already been out campaigning and has visibility. Plus the VP candidate is chosen on the premise that he or she is ready to assume the presidency at any moment. It would probably reflect poorly on the party if they decide that the person they have nominated for Vice President can't take the place of their presidential nominee.