Humanities desk
< May 19	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an 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 20

If either of the front running presidential candidates were to die or become incapacitated before the general election, what would happen?

Would the runner-ups (like Cruz or Sanders) automatically take their place? Would the elections be cancelled/delayed? If no one wants to take their place and they can't find anyone suitable, does the incumbent president get an extended term until things are sorted out? Has this situation ever occurred before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.212.30 (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on each party's policies. More information at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2016_May_5#What_happens_if_a_nominee_for_U.S._President_is_no_longer_available_or_interested_after_he_receives_the_nomination.3F. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP said "front-running candidates", not "party nominees". If the front-runners became unavailable before their party's nominating convention, the convention would simply choose a new candidate, with delegates voting according to the party's rules. If it happened after the nominating convention, see the earlier thread linked by Ian. One thing that is certain is that the election would not be canceled or delayed. Ordinary citizens in the US do not really vote for the president, but rather, for members of the Electoral College (officially known simply as "electors") who will in turn vote for the president. The system was designed on the basis that the electors would actually use their own judgement rather than voting in a predictable manner—something that hasn't actually happened since the earliest days—and therefore does not allow for delays for this sort of reason. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This happened with one of the VP candidates a while back. He died after Election Day and the Electors just voted for another person. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He died after election day? How would the electors get to vote for anyone else, after the election? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Election day" means the day when the general public votes to determine the electors (whichever of November 2–8 is a Tuesday). The electors actually cast their votes on a later date (whichever of December 13–19 is a Monday). The death was between those two dates. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that no federal law requires electors to vote a particular way. There may be various state laws which sanction electors who don't vote according to the results of the general election, so called faithless electors, but their vote stands regardless of state laws. The laws basically only have the effect of blocking them from acting as electors in future elections. Electors are, by federal law, free to vote for whomever they want, and should someone die between Election Day and the actual electoral college vote they're still allowed to vote for whomever they want, which they could do even before the election. Tradition and the threat of state sanctions are the only reasons they follow the state votes, but they're not required to vote for a dead person. It would be highly unusual, but by the Constitution, the electors would vote for someone else, and there is no requirement that they vote for the winner of the General Election in their state (by federal law), so they could (and likely would) vote for another person. Whom that person would be is entirely unpredictable as it has never happened before. But there would still be an elected President. --Jayron 32 03:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no state requires an elector to vote "according to the results of the election". The election chooses electors, each of whom has (almost always) pledged to support a given candidate. If the state election goes to Tweedledum, it's not that you have the same elector voting for Tweedledum who otherwise would have voted for Tweedledee. It's that the Tweedledum elector gets appointed and the Tweedledee elector doesn't.

Some states have laws requiring an elector to pledge. These laws were upheld in Ray v Blair, probably not surprisingly, given that states have a direct constitutional grant to choose electors as they see fit.

Some states have laws that punish electors who vote differently than they had pledged. These laws, I believe, have never been tested.

As to your claim that "their vote stands regardless of state laws", that has also never been tested, as far as I know. According to the article you linked, there are two states, Michigan and Minnesota, that have laws nullifying the vote of a faithless elector. So a test case is possible under existing laws; I wouldn't try to predict how it would come out, or even who would try it (it might not be in the jurisdiction of the courts at all; Congress has the constitutional task of judging the validity of electoral votes). --Trovatore (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We only have history as guidance. So far, we know two things 1) faithless electors exist and 2) so far, every one of their votes have been certified and accepted as official. That's the only evidence we have. Would the candidate die between the November election day and the day that the electors had to submit their votes, there is no constitutional crisis because the electors, thus far, have not yet, in 230ish years of elections, ever once had their votes nullified by congress merely for not voting for whom they were pledged to. Past performance has made it clear that, state laws notwithstanding, and subsequent consequences for violating those laws notwithstanding, the electors have never been under any federal requirement which restricts their free right to vote for whomever they wanted to. The courts have upheld the rights of states to punish those who did not vote correctly, but as yet, there has been no invalidation of those votes. The person could vote, be punished by the state, and their vote would still stand. I bring that up only to note that if a live presidential candidate can have a pledge elector refuse to vote for them and the vote still stands, then voting for a dead presidential candidate should not be any more of a requirement (from the point of view of legally electing a president). --Jayron 32 21:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there has never been a faithless elector in a state that has a law authorizing the nullification of such an elector's vote (Michigan and Minnesota, since whatever year it was they passed the law, assuming our articles are correct). So I don't see any guidance from history there.

As to your claim that "[t]the courts have upheld the rights of states to punish...", I actually don't see that in our articles. Ray v Blair is not about punishment if they violate their pledge; it's about refusing to appoint them if they fail to pledge in the first place. (It should be obvious that states can do that, because they can appoint electors however they want.) There are 29 states that have "punishment" laws, but as far as I can ascertain, they have never been tested. I would be curious to learn otherwise.

But I do think you're probably right that, if the candidate dies, all bets are off. I don't remember details, but as I recall, the laws tend to make an exception for that case, and maybe for other cases such as the candidate voluntarily releasing the electors. --Trovatore (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Horace Greeley case, he had effectively lost the 1872 election to Grant already [i.e. Grant's expected electoral vote count was higher than Greeley's after the November election day], so his death didn't matter. But it's interesting that the three electors who still voted for him, had their votes rejected by the US House, as votes for a dead person obviously don't make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I was equating voters with electors. I guess that means that the public votes for their candidates but they don't elect them. I suspect about 300 million Americans would be surprised about that strange quirk of official terminology. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutionally, the electors are appointed by the several states (and the District of Columbia). There is no (federal) constitutional requirement to have a vote of the people at all, for the presidency. (There is such a requirement for the House of Representatives, and since the Seventeenth Amendment, also for the Senate.)

It so happens that every state (and DC) has chosen to defer the choice to a vote of the people. In theory, they could change their minds. Florida might have, in 2000, if the Dem-controlled state supreme court had succeeded in forcing a recount that the GOP-controlled legislature considered incorrect. --Trovatore (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Trov. As always, the truth of American politics is even stranger than the appearance. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way the electoral college is set up could be characterized as "It seemed like a good idea at the time." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vice President of the USA - Question 1

When a person is running for President (of the USA), can they select anyone they want as their Vice President running mate? (This assumes that the Vice President candidate meets the eligibility requirements to begin with.) And, specifically, can the Presidential nominee select someone from a different party as their VP running mate? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In recent cycles the Donkey and Elephant Parties have accepted their Presidential nominees' choices of Vice-Nominee, but I doubt that either has a rule requiring it. — Lincoln in 1864 ran with a Democrat, as did Anderson in 1980; both times I think they ran as the National Unity ticket or some such. — In the Libertarian Party, I believe, the two nominees are chosen independently of each other; I dimly remember meeting people who were seeking the Vice-nomination in 1992. —Tamfang (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no law one way or the other. It probably depends some on negotiations between the party leaders and the nominee. Formally, the VP Candidate is officially nominated at the party convention just like the Presidential candidate is. However, there is a lot of back-room politics that goes on. --Jayron 32 10:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to imagine what might happen if Donald Trump asked the Republican Convention to nominate Bernie Sanders as his vice-presidential running mate. Somehow I just cannot see them approving of that choice. 86.141.19.154 (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That particular scenario is extremely unlikely. A more likely option would be to find the most conservative Democrat he can, and float that idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Sanders nor any Democrat is listed Here among the most likely Trump candidates. That source lists all long-time mainline Republicans as his potential running mates. --Jayron 32 13:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 2008, John McCain (Republican) wanted Joe Lieberman (Democrat) as his running mate. Stroke of brilliance, I thought; might have made the difference in the election. But the party wouldn't go along with it; some people think his second choice of Sarah Palin was essentially a fit of pique. --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vice President of the USA - Question 2

What is the historical significance that a President and his Vice President must be from two different states? Why would this be important? And where does this idea come from? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the section Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Origin not satisfy your curiosity? --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I had read that. Which is was prompted me to come here to ask my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote the section you said you read, which then answers your questions:

The creation of the office of vice president was a direct consequence of the creation of the Electoral College. Delegates to the Philadelphia Convention gave each state a number of presidential electors equal to that state's combined share of House and Senate seats. Yet the delegates were worried that each elector would only favor his own state's favorite son candidate, resulting in deadlocked elections that would produce no winners. To counter this potential difficulty, the delegates gave each presidential elector two votes, requiring that at least one of their votes be for a candidate from outside the elector's state; they also mandated that the winner of an election must obtain an absolute majority of the total number of electors. The delegates expected that each elector's second vote would go to a statesman of national character.[11]
Fearing that electors might throw away their second vote to bolster their favorite son's chance of winning, however, the Philadelphia delegates specified that the runner-up would become vice president. Creating this new office imposed a political cost on discarded votes and forced electors to cast their second ballot.[11]

If you can tell us which statements from that paragraph don't make sense, perhaps we can find other sources that explain them to you. --Jayron 32 15:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is highly confusing, but the same article gives a more helpful explanation:

While it is commonly held that the president and vice president must be residents of different states, this is not actually the case. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits both candidates being from a single state. Instead, the limitation imposed is on the members of the Electoral College, who must cast a ballot for at least one candidate who is not from their own state.
In theory, the candidates elected could both be from one state, but the electors of that state would, in a close electoral contest, run the risk of denying their vice presidential candidate the absolute majority required to secure the election, even if the presidential candidate is elected. This would then place the vice presidential election in the hands of the Senate.

It goes on to give examples of how the residency is easily changed if need be, so there is no particular reason to run even this very unlikely risk. Wnt (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of August Natterer

Are there any photos or at least portraits of August Natterer? The only thing I found is his painting of his own eyes. Thanks.93.174.25.12 (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who was W.G?

Laurie Lee's 1955 collection of poems, My Many-coated Man, is dedicated "To W.G." Who was W.G? DuncanHill (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilma Gregory. [1]. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a lot more out there about her; quick example from the Independent here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(and in the Telegraph here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent, thank you - I really must buy Valerie Grove. I hadn't realised that the director Jack Lee was Laurie's brother until I read the link you supplied! DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I presume the sentence in the Laurie Lee article, "During this period, he met a woman who supported him financially.", refers to Wilma Gregory; she seems to have given him financial support in the relevant period, after he was evacuated from Gibraltar and before he returned to Spain, according to this from the British Library blog for example. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently not W. G. Grace? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Execution vs. suicide

After having read the article about Hermann Göring in both English and Finnish, I began to wonder. Göring was sentenced to death. The prison staff went to great lengths to prevent Göring from committing suicide, so he would be executed. In the end, Göring managed to commit suicide anyway.

Why all the hassle? The end result would anyway have been the same: Göring would be dead. Why is it such a difference who killed him? JIP | Talk 19:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard practice. The choice to kill is made by the judicial system. It's not the condemned prisoner's choice to make. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand. If the end result is going to be the same anyway, what difference does it make who actually performs the kill? JIP | Talk 20:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if he botches the suicide and ends up in some condition where he can't be legally executed? But again I say, it is the state's choice to make, not the individual's. He has forfeited his rights. And keep in mind that suicide attempts are or were typically illegal, and the justice system can't knowingly allow illegal activities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In either instance Göring would be dead, but in only one instance would he have been executed. The state must take his life for it to be seen as justice; if he thwarts the state, he thwarts justice.- Nunh-huh 00:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking about this case specifically, or similar cases in the Third Reich, then read: The willingness to commit suicide before accepting defeat was a key Nazi idea during the Second World War.

If you are asking about the general situation: authorities have an obligation of preventing suicide in jails and prisons, along other measures protecting prisoners integrity. That includes death row inmates, since any prisoner there could be deemed to be innocent at some point. In the US they even rub a swab with alcohol on the arm of the convicted, just moments before injecting them with a deadly cocktail of drugs.Llaanngg (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's often the lesser of two evils principle. Göring might have preferred to commit suicide to avoid potentially humiliating public hanging, roughly the same mindset lies behind sepukku. If the death is unavoidable, one might prefer to die in a less humiliating way. Brandmeister^talk 21:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

as Baseball Bugs says above, the power of justice, state and people must prevail, not the will of the criminal. Akseli9 (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the concept of the Monopoly on violence, which only the state has legitimate monopoly on violence. According to many political theorists, going back to Hobbes, only the state may commit legitimate acts of violence in the name of justice, and suicide (not being the act of The State) is thus not a legitimate act of violence, but execution in the name of justice is. --Jayron 32 21:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Göring thought it was a victory to commit suicide is enough to make those who sentenced him to be executed think it a defeat. Suicide vs. execution, and suicide as execution, is a dynamic recognizable throughout history: Socrates, Ancient Romans who thought it a boon to be allowed to commit suicide rather than be executed; Nazi Germany where it was a favor to be allowed to kill yourself rather than be executed. Often the status of the family left behind plays some part. - Nunh-huh 00:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV Tropes has a page on this: Better to Die than be Killed. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of gambling

Can psychology explain why an average, or even above average person, would buy a lottery ticket? The articles that I find is more concerned with the most pathological cases of gambling addiction, and not with trivial non-dysfunctional players. --Llaanngg (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does our lottery article not adequately discuss this, in your view? --71.110.8.102 (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want information about the psychological aspects of such an irrational decision by, in general, rational people. Not history of lottery, rules, how it's organized, what happened to lottery winners, happiness and lottery. Maybe this could become a new section in this article. --Llaanngg (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Gambler's fallacy, Gambler's ruin, Gambler's conceit, Escalation of commitment, sunk costs, etc. --Jayron 32 21:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fine references. Although they seem to deal more with something that has a probability of 1 / something between 2 and some hundreds. Horse races, roulette, sports are more inviting, since you can get the feeling that you can get lucky and win more than you lose. They also give you the impression that thinking could help you get a best result. In lottery, however, you have a chance in 1,000,000, and it does not matter what you choose.--Llaanngg (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the lottery article already linked, see the last paragraph of the lead section. The decision to buy a ticket is only irrational if one insists on expected-value maximization; this idea ignores expected-utility maximization (or in plain English, and to quote the ads for at least one lottery, "You can't win if you don't buy a ticket"), as well as entertainment value for some buyers. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the enjoy the fantasy of maybe being able to win?Llaanngg (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the typical person is buying a chance to more vividly fantasize/daydream...it is entertainment..68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's often put forth by the "gaming" industry, but I don't buy the "entertainment" argument. How many people, after losing, would say "Wow, that was so much fun I'm glad I spent the money !" ? StuRat (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Research has shown that for slot machine players, the peak moment happens at the moment the commitment is made (the "lever pulled" or some equivalent.) I suspect it's similar with lotto; the moments of fantasizing the possible wealth give a sufficient buzz that the sorrow caused by losing isn't discouraging. That's certainly the case with me; I spend $20 every few months more for the pleasure of fantasy than for any realistic hope of winning. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 11:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you feel after you lose your $20 ? Do you think it was money well spent for the "thrill", or do you think "What a waste" ? StuRat (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've knowingly played for the pleasure of the fantasy. So, "well spent"? No. "A waste"? Not that either; I value my pleasure. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 01:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not "money well spent" ? After I make a good purchase, that's how I feel. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a combination -- I seem to occasionally enjoy wasting money, so maybe a better answer would have been "both". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My dad played $20 every 4 days ($50K). He wanted to win! (~$50K or 1-2 years of wages. That's the entire jackpot (after taxes & lump sum) (He's not good at math)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the appeal may be that it is sanctioned by the state. This suggests a level playing field. Also what may be appealing is that it is pure chance. There is therefore no barrier to entry. Any number is as good as any other number. No matter how bad the odds are—your likelihood of winning is no worse than any other citizen of your society. Bus stop (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most people are aware that they are unlikely to achieve vast wealth. However, poor people win large amounts in the lottery with some frequency. Players may think that this is their only chance to become extremely rich – a lottery may be an unlikely path to wealth, but all the other paths are even less likely. For someone who is desperatel to become rich but accurately believes that they have no other chance to do so, buying a lottery ticket could even be seen as a rational decision. John M Baker (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've known people who went to Las Vegas with the intent of spending no more than a certain amount on slots. If they think of it as entertainment, then it's not much different from spending that amount on other stuff, like shows or meals. But sticking with that self-imposed limit requires an iron discipline which many people lack. See gambling addiction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]