Probably impossible. But what if the American people just decided we did'nt want any of them and not a single vote was cast. I wish we could just not vote at all 'till we had someone worth voting for. Silly question I guess, but i was pondering it.
2007-09-15 09:51:48 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I don't know if the Constitution even addresses the problem, but I know what happened when (I think) Garfield refused to be inaugurated on a Sunday. Since according to the Constitution the other president's term ended at noon on Sunday, for twenty-four hours the Speaker of the House (I can't remember his name) was president. So probably that's what would happen. If no one voted, Nancy Pelosi would be President.
2007-09-15 09:59:16 · answer #1 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They would probably make the speaker of the house the president until another election could be organized. As it is so few Americans turn out to vote in the first place that it is a slap in the face to all people in other countries who don't have the right to vote. However, if the only candidates we are given to vote for are lame, what can you do? If you don't vote because you don't like the candidates, then you shouldn't complain about the result of the election. Go and vote for the lesser of the two evils and then vote in the next primary so that you might get a better candidate next time.
2007-09-15 10:12:40 · answer #2 · answered by kcpaull 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would never happen because the candidates themselves would vote, as well as their operatives.
Hypothetically, then the rules of the individual states would apply. For example, I think, in some states if an election ends in a tie even after so many recounts (and 0 to 0 is a tie), then the head of the local election board tosses a coin and the candidate that wins the toss wins the election. Probably something like that would happen on the state and national levels, too.
2007-09-15 15:23:58 · answer #3 · answered by Mister J 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "Republicrats" wouldn't even notice. They'd do what they always do: let the media tally up some 'numbers', take it to the Electoral College, and select the candidate(s) they want.
Voting is a freedom and a privilege in this country. So is the right not to vote. The reason so few people vote today is because they would prefer not to have to choose between the 'lesser of two evils'. Give them a good candidate with moral fiber, honor and integrity - and they'll come out in swarms (look what happened in 1992 - a non-political diminutive billionaire captured 19% of the popular vote and scared the beJesus out of all our 'career politicians'). -RKO- 09/15/07
2007-09-15 10:46:33 · answer #4 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Then I would cast the first vote and elect someone good.
2007-09-15 09:57:12 · answer #5 · answered by bullet_to_the_brain 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not a cleaver solution. And there are people who are worth voting for: Kucinich and Ron Paul.
2007-09-15 10:04:47 · answer #6 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You forget the electroal college. They would vote on the canidates. Even though, historically, they go with the popular vote, they could go against it and vote for another.
2007-09-15 10:02:28 · answer #7 · answered by im here 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I never thought about it, but I guess they would be forced to have another election until at least one person voted.
2007-09-15 09:57:37 · answer #8 · answered by midnitrondavu 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one would be elected if no one voted. Those still in office would probably then appoint people to the vacant legislative positions.
2007-09-15 11:55:12 · answer #9 · answered by DrIG 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Stop smoking pot. You MUST vote! Just vote for the lesser of two evils.
2007-09-15 10:05:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋