Humanities desk
< May 4	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 6 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 5

What happens if a nominee for U.S. President is no longer available or interested after he receives the nomination?

Let's say that in the Republican Convention, they select Trump as the nominee. After the convention, he dies or gets incapacitated or he decides not to run after all. What happens then? (Same question for Democrats and Hillary Clinton.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, the Electors will vote for a viable and willing candidate. In practice, I don't think it's happened before, but I can't say for certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the Electors will vote for a viable and willing candidate, what do you mean? They hold another convention? Or some mini-convention? Or they just do some procedural/administrative voting? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The electors" is the term used in the US Constitution for the people more commonly described as the Electoral College. They never meet as a unit. In the situation described, it is reasonable to conjecture that they would take guidance from the party leadership. --69.159.61.172 (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They never meet as a unit? I thought that was exactly what the convention is, no? Them meeting as a unit to vote? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Electors are chosen on election day in November. In December, they meet in their individual states and submit their ballots to the Congress. When the House begins its new session in early January, they review the Electoral votes and officially determine who the President is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: So, the people who are the electors at the state primaries are the same exact people who make up the Electoral College for the presidential election? That can't be? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The primaries elect delegates who are pledged to cast their initial vote at the convention for whichever candidate they're connected with on the ballot. There are thousands of delegates, but only a few hundred members of the electoral college. Presumably there could be some overlap, but these are two different processes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting totally confused. And I think you and I are talking about two different things. The Electoral College votes for the President. I am talking about selecting a nominee. Which is what I thought the state delegates did at the state primaries? How did the Electoral College electors enter this discussion? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Electoral College is the only constitutionally mandated body needed to elect the President. The matter of who gets to be in the electoral college, and how they are selected, as well as which candidates they get to vote for is left up to the individual states and the political parties. Note that 1) The states are not legally required to hold popular elections to select who their electors will vote for President (every state does, but if they wanted to, the legislature could just direct governor of the state could just appoint some electors and tell them who to vote for). 2) The states are not legally required to bind their electors to vote for who wins the popular vote (though many do; and yet faithless electors still exist and their votes, and not the popular vote results, are still official). 3) The party rules for putting forward a nominee for President are highly fluid, not consistent between parties, and do not have the force of law in any sense. The parties are private organizations that set their own rules. So asking "what happens if..." is very difficult to answer with reliability, because there is not, nor has their ever been, any consistent set of rules for solving the conundrums you post. --Jayron 32 11:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am still totally confused. Let's just stick with the GOP and ignore the Democrats for now. It is the job of the state GOP delegates to select a GOP nominee (at the state GOP primaries). (Or at least to get a GOP delegate "count".) Then, these state GOP delegates (collectively) go and select a GOP nominee at the GOP national convention. I get that. So I am asking what these state GOP delegates do when the GOP nominee they selected (let's say, Trump) is no longer available. I still don't see where the Electoral College enters the picture. Are you saying that the state GOP delegates "hand over" their task to the Electoral College? Their task being to select a GOP nominee. I thought that these were two totally different processes (selecting a GOP nominee versus selecting a US President). And I thought that these two separate processes were executed by two completely different bodies (state GOP delegates versus the Electoral College). As I said, I am totally confused now. I don't see what the Electoral College (whose job is to elect a President) has to do with selecting a GOP nominee (the job normally done by the state GOP delegates). And the question is what happens when the GOP nominee selected by the GOP delegates at the GOP convention (let's say, Trump) suddenly becomes unavailable. I imagine it is up to the GOP delegates (not the Electoral College) to do something about the problem/situation. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting the GOP Nominee is the role of the delegates to the Republican National Convention. The process is not legally binding, the mechanics of the process change from election cycle to election cycle, and the rules of the process are decided by the Convention itself. So, when you ask "What is supposed to happen when", there is only two options 1) We can direct you to the rules of the RNC. Since the 2016 rules haven't been voted on, Here are the 2012 rules. 2) We can direct you to what has been done in the past. The most important thing about this whole discussion is you aren't going to get a satisfying answer, since the rules change a lot, and it's never happened before. --Jayron 32 16:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So, I "get" all that. It's an unclear and ambiguous process with a lot of gray area and little precedent. I get that. But it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Electoral College, correct? I did not know how/why they entered the equation and/or discussion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, except, the electoral college still has to decide what to do with the popular vote should a candidate die, drop out, or be incapacitated at a point in the process where it would throw a monkey wrench into the works. Presumably, if the republican candidate left the race in August, the ability to deal with that on an ad hoc basis in terms of selecting a new candidate or setting up ballots for the popular election are quite different than if the candidate dropped out the last week of October. --Jayron 32 17:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Yes. But the Electoral College has the "job" of "picking" the President. They have nothing to do with picking the GOP nominee. Or the Democratic nominee. In other words, they select the President only after they are given the two nominees from whom to select. And those two names come from another body entirely (namely, the GOP delegates) (and the Democrat delegates). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Electors from a given state are honor-bound to cast their votes for whichever nominee won that state. If the nominee who won their state has died or is otherwise unable to serve, the Electors would have to vote for somebody else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Electoral College entered the discussion when someone changed the subject from "What if a party's nominee dies before the election?" to "What if a candidate wins on November 8 but dies before January 20?". Next perhaps we can discuss what happens when someone asks a question and someone else changes the subject but dies or retreats before either question is resolved. —Tamfang (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is... What happens if a nominee dies after being nominated at his party's convention - but before Election Day? Is there any procedure whereby the party can choose a replacement candidate for election?

I believe the answer is "No... There is no procedure." Blueboar (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it happened in 1872. Grant had effectively won the election handily anyway, but the opposition electors had to vote for someone other than the deceased Greeley, so they did, splitting their votes among several new candidates. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have rules in place to handle the untimely death of a nominated candidate before the general election [1]. However, there could be a serious problem if the death occurs very close to the election - based on legal and logistical issues, it may not be possible to change the ballots in every state. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: It, actually, has happened two times with the vice presidential nominee: In 1912 Republican VP nominee (and incumbent Vice President) James S. Sherman died days before the election and was replaced by Nicholas Murray Butler. In 1972 Democratic VP nominee Senator Thomas Eagleton had to resign due to revelations concerning his mental health and was replaced by Sargent Shriver.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph A. Spadaro: A similar situation occurred in 1872, when folk hero Horace Greeley, presidential nominee of the short-lived Liberal Republican Party, died after the popular vote but before the electoral vote. Thus, all electoral votes he had won were spread among four other people (deemed his "successors", but without an official appointment: just the personal conscience of the electors) while he posthumously won 3 electoral votes. There was also a plethora of prospective vice presidential candidates, as Greeley's running mate, Benjamin Gratz Brown, was now a prospective presidential candidate.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way the Paul Wellstone situation was handled may be somewhat pertinent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruskin's List of the Best Hundred Authors

In the opening pages of the 1894 edition of Edward Lear's Nonsense Books, there is the following quote:

Surely the most beneficent and innocent of all books yet produced is the "Book of Nonsense," with its corollary carols, inimitable and refreshing, and perfect in rhythm. I really don't know any author to whom I am half so grateful for my idle self as Edward Lear. I shall put him first of my hundred authors.

—JOHN RUSKIN, In the "List of the Best Hundred Authors.

I searched a bit, but could not find any other reference of this list. All help will be appreciated.--The Traditionalist (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time just at the moment to chase this up, but from various snippet mentions when I searched Google Books, it looks (to me) like the list was sent as a letter to the Pall Mall Gazette in 1886 or 1887. I could be totally wrong, but that might help your search. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 13:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think it was actually titled "The Best Hundred Books" and published by the Pall Mall Gazette on 23 February 1886. See, for example, HathiTrust. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that seems to be it, although I can see that there are conflicts in later sources which refer to it being a list of authors, for example this which confused the issue (and me.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Flowerpotman and Sluzzelin: I suppose that the text is in the public domain, but I cannot find an online copy of it...--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the letter in The Works of John Ruskin (Volume 34) edited by E.T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn, although it is not as much as a list of books in itself rather than a response to a contribution to the Pall Mall Gazette by Sir John Lubbock. It does contain the relevant quote : "I really don’t know any author to whom I am half so grateful, for my idle self, as Edward Lear. I shall put him first of my hundred authors." The letter starts on page 582 of Volume 34, and you can find the book hosted on Lancaster University's John Ruskin Library web site here or get the PDF directly at this link. It's only a 5 Mb download. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing to add: Just altering the page number again. To clarify, page number 582 of the book, which is page 622 of the PDF. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Meynell - alleged Dowager Marchioness of Salisbury

Our article on the Sussex author Esther Meynell claims she was the dowager Marchioness of Salisbury. I am rather surprised by this claim. I can find no mention of her in our articles on any of the Marquesses of Salisbury, and the only online pages making this claim appear to be mirrors of the Wikipedia article. An edit summary on the article claims as a source "The Times 7 Feb 1955, p 8". Is anyone able to check this please? DuncanHill (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the original, but maybe here's part of the answer: The Library of Congress author control site on Esther Meynell [2] cites the Times piece from 1955, quoting the sentence fragment "page 8 (Dowager Marchioness of Salisbury, Mrs. Esther Meynell, author of many books and novels about Sussex)". However, it is not clear that the two phrases "Dowager Marchioness of Salisbury" and "Mrs Esther Meynell" are really referring to the same person. This could just as well be two entries in a list of headings of obituaries that happened to appear on that day. (In fact, wouldn't it be rather uncommon in traditional British English usage to refer to a Marchioness as "Mrs"?) – Indeed, according to our article on James Gascoyne-Cecil, 4th Marquess of Salisbury, there was one Marchioness of Salisbury who died on 5 February 1955, a day after Esther Meynell, but her name was Lady Cicely Alice Gore, wife of James Edward Hubert Gascoyne-Cecil, 4th Marquess of Salisbury and daughter of Arthur Gore, 5th Earl of Arran. Meynell and that marchioness could well have had their obituaries side by side in the same edition of the Times. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @DuncanHill: I see how the confusion arose: Esther Meynell died on 4 February 1955 and Cicely Alice Gascoyne-Cecil, Marchioness of Salisbury died on 5 February 1955. Someone mixed the two obituaries up.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems likely. I have found Meynell's article in Who's Who, and that makes no mention of any marriage to a Salisbury or Gascoyne-Cecil only to her marriage to Gerard Tuke Meynell, by whom she had two daughters. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention on the usually reliable thepeerage.com which has a number of Meynells but not Esther. Alansplodge (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]