David Lock

If a President dies in office then VP takes over instantly.

How long is it before a new President is voted in and takes over?

It won't happen now but I've had this "Palin is in charge" nightmare on the back of my mind.

dl

Leslie

Probably as long as it takes to organise another election, don't really know though to be honest.

Les

mamoon2

Correct me if i'm wrong but Palin would only be VP if McCain had of won wouldn't she?

cookstar

iTrader: (6)

That's strange, I was thinking about this very same thing earliler today.

stilover

Palin will never be VP. McCain lost.

Isn't it January he'll be sworn in?

swampster

iTrader: (1)

I think..If the VP takes over in the event of the death of the President, or the President becomes unfit to govern; the VP takes over the Presidency effectively becoming the President until the completion of the term of office, or the return of the original President (if they didnt die)...

So in this case.. if Mcain had won the election, and he entered office in January 24th then died on the 25th, it'd basically be President Palin for the next 4 years.

RobinSherwood

My understanding is that if the President dies the VP takes over for the remainder of the Presidential term of office.

HankScorpio

20th Jan

Most of the western world (and a good chunk of the east) is having a farewell party for Bush.

(farewell = good riddance)

David Lock

Thanks. Yes I know the Palin thing couldn't happen now that McCain lost.

But it's a frightening thought that she could have been in office for several years if he won and then keeled over

I assumed, wrongly it seems, that they would just have a re-election. dl

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

That's terrible, at least we could never have an unelected Prime Minister..... oh hang on

David Lock

But the other side of the coin is that under the American system we might have had John Prescott in charge

dl

jacrobat

Or an unelected, hereditary Head of State.

It is a pity George Washington turned down the role of King when he was offered it.

Wenker Man

Scary isn't it. I wouldn't have put it past her to arrange a tragic death of McCain if he did win so she could be in power. She's got a determined character to point of obsessive. And as we know obsessive needs can take over morals.

Good result though, right man won. Although it annoys me of the press's "'cos he's black stance" (he's not black anyway - technically, he's half cast, a bit of both). And that people did/did not vote because of his colour. If he was a blue eyed blond, he was the better candidate.

I just hope that this desn't make it fashionable over here (as noted by J.Vine on Radio 2 now harping on "could the UK have a black Prime minister" - sigh), because our public would likely vote for the wrong person with the wrong policies. Having the wrong leader is a hell of alot worse than their ethnic background, and that people voted in because it seemed fashionable to do so. As unfortunately I do belive the UK public has a very vain nature.

coolangatta

I assume you're joking But in case not; we don't vote for a Prime Minister but for a party (Labour/Conservative/Liberal etc).
The leader of 'said' party becomes PM.
I'm a little bit fed up of the 'non elected PM' argument as it's nonsense
Not one British PM was elected by the general public.

mamoon2

What I find interesting is that as much as you want to say he won because he was the right candidate (which i think he was). I think he was voted in because he was Black. My reasoning is that the US had record numbers of Black voters in this election, like never before! He only won by 4% and it cannot be ignored that there will have been massive numbers voting to change history and elect a Black president.

Think he won because he was black. As much as people want to say he didn't, i think he did. Look at the states that voted McCain, mostly the South and Middle America (Yokleville USA)

I think without the extra Black voters, who wouldn't and haven't voted previously he would have lost the election.

Hope he makes some good progress and changes things for the better

coolangatta

I congratulate Obama on his victory and would echo you in saying it's the right time for him.
One question in my mind is, are black Americans expecting too much of this guy. let's face it, he's not going to change things for the poor black people in the short term, is he!?

mamoon2

You've got to ask yourself how many people voted for him just because he was Black, i bet theres a lot that did and don't even know or understand his polices

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

On the other hand, there's probably quite a few white American church goers who voted republican without knowing what the republican policies were, just because their "father" told them to.

David Lock

Yeah - and I don't know why there is such a gap. Just get on with it. Might as well say to the terrorists "hey lads - you've got 6 weeks while no one is in real charge".


Obama has had plenty of time to choose his team and all he really needs is Colin Powell to run the place, Vince Cable to be seconded to sort out the economy and his VP to find a world map and do foreign affairs.

dl

Dracoro

Then again, how many did NOT vote for him because he was black? For every vote that he won due to his skin colour, a vote was probably lost too.

Personally, I think the best candidate won although I don't know that much about US politics.

McCain would probably been ok but NOT Palin. In fact you could argue that McCain lost due to Palin scaring off all the normal intelligent americans! The media has focussed on her too. I saw far more of her in the news than McCain and an anyone tell me who Obama's running mate is? No media attention on them at all!!

I think the important thing is that Sarah Palin did NOT get an handle on power, she would have been a dangerous woman and I reckon would have been far more a warmonger than Bush!.

swampster

iTrader: (1)

That's only 4% of the popular vote, which as we all know means squat in U.S Presidential Elections, just look at the present incumbent who gained office despite less people actually having voted for him. The only important figure is the Electoral College numbers, and on those Obama was way more than 4% ahead!

Actually a 4% lead in the popular vote is quite an achievement in terms of US elections.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Sorry but that is complete tosh. Yes we vote for a party but who is the leader of that party directly affects a lot of voters as to how they vote.

For instance to me voting Tory with Ken Clark as a potential PM actually almost seems plausible whereas voting Tory with Michael Howard as leader is not ever going to happen for me. Yet the party is the same. So that kind of shoots down your theory or you may decide I am the only person who thinks like that.

Frankly I think the PM is such an important post that if he.she steps down whilst in power then a general election should automatically be forced.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

That would be an effective way of making sure they did NOT step down - at least not until the general election was very close - so you'd still have Tony Blair if that rule applied. Are you still in favour?


M

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Over Gordon Brown? Yep!!

Martin2005

YES

hotsam

Correct. This is what happened when JFK was shot. Johnson took over, finished the term, and then ran on his own and won. He could have run again but chose not to.

A President can serve for 2 4 year terms or 10 years. Johnson could have served for 10 years but Vietnam killed his chances.

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

Thats why obama did'nt make Hillary his vp it would have been like signing his own death warrant..

hotsam

Ford was made VP under the 25th amendment.

Nixon's original VP (Agnew) had to resign. Ford was nominated by Nixon and approved by Congress. He was elected to the House of Representatives by the people of his state, and then he was approved by both Houses of Congress.

The US isn't a democracy, it is a republic. The government cannot call for an election whenever they feel like it.

It turns out that Ford was a better than average President.