May 14, 2025
Detroit City Council information from Bridge Detroit
seen from South Korea
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from United States
seen from Japan
seen from China
seen from Peru
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Russia
seen from China
seen from China
seen from China
seen from China
Detroit City Council information from Bridge Detroit
As someone who actually reads the voting record and transcripts from Parliament, I’m confident in saying there is no such thing as "splitting the left vote" in Canada. If you identify as a lefty, socdem or socialist etc. don't be pressured into voting Liberal to "avoid vote-splitting" the Liberal party is not a left-wing party. Only in the eyes of our neoliberal mainstream media. Vote your values. Don’t take my word for it. Everyone should be at least skimming the voting record from Parliament at: https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/votes and transcripts at openparliament.ca to make sure they’re voting for the best party for THEM.
Civics lesson broadcast to Hagerstown schools on closed circuit television
(Peter Stackpole. 1957?)
So... what comes next?
Regardless of your political allegiances or personal feelings about Donald Trump, it is a national security concern when the president is ill. To make matters worse, the White House isn’t exactly being transparent. At times they seem more concerned with projecting a certain image than providing a timely, precise assessment of the situation. It is also a significant national security threat when a huge chunk of the senior Executive Branch, unknown numbers of White House staff, and a growing cluster of US Congressman are under quarantine or sick. It’s never good to have a government in quarantine.
So on that note, I’ve seen a lot of discussion on what happens in the event that a President or presidential candidate is incapacitated from COVID or dies during an election. I love a good thought experiment so let’s break this down. This is all based on my best understanding of current rules/regulations/precedence/ect. I try my best to be accurate but I’m only human and not a lawyer. Opinions and speculations are strictly my own.
Scenario 1: President is alive but incapacitated or unable to continue serving as President until he recovers.
So the basic idea of having a VP as a spare in case the president dies is pretty simple. In practice however, the transfer of power in the original constitution is pretty vague outside of the president suddenly dropping dead in the middle of a term. The 25th amendment was adopted a few years after the Kennedy assassination to address some of these grey areas. Fun fact, the 25th amendment contains the only means of forcefully removing a president from office other than impeachment (section 4 of the 25th amendment).
Ok, so back to our scenario. If Trump is incapacitated (say, on a ventilator) or is too unwell to continue serving, the 25th amendment can be invoked to temporarily transfer power to Vice President Pence. This can be done 2 ways. First, Trump can declare in writing that he is unable to discharge his duties (section 3, 25th amendment) and transfer power temporarily to Pence. Presidents actually invoke section 3 pretty routinely if they know they will be unavailable for a time such as undergoing a medical procedure. Trump remains in office as president but Pence becomes ‘acting president’ for the time being. Second, the Cabinet can strip Trump of his power if they believe he is unfit but he refuses to turn over power to Pence (section 4, 25th amendment). Section 4 has never before been invoked but it exists as an option.
In terms of the election, the ticket would be unchanged. A vote for Trump-Pence is still a vote for Trump-Pence. Trump is still president and Pence is only a temporary ‘acting president’. The assumption is that Trump would eventually resume his duties and his place at the top of the Republican ticket.
Scenario 2: A president running for re-election dies before the election
So if Trump dies before the election, Pence would immediately be sworn in as President. Since that would then make him the sitting president during an election year, precedence says he is automatically the GOP nominee. This close to the election, it is too late to officially withdraw a candidate and re-submit another one. Even if you could still replace a candidate, there isn’t time to re-print ballots. But since he was part of the original ticket on the ballot, I don’t see this being an issue or a source of confusion. I imagine votes already cast for Trump-Pence will simply count towards Pence alone. It is unclear how this will impact the electoral college. Likely, the votes will be allocated as normal to the Trump-Pence ticket, with Pence officially becoming President elect instead of Vice President elect once the vote is certified. The Speaker of the House is next in line should something happen to him while he does not have a VP. Assuming he wins, I speculate he would vet and select a VP for his administration before inauguration. But until there is a VP to serve under him, Speaker of the House remains next in line. A presidential candidate has never died so close to an election.
Scenario 3: A presidential candidate dies before the election
If a candidate dies after the primary, I believe RNC and DNC rules state that the leadership meets to vote on a replacement. However, this close to an election, it is past the deadline to officially withdraw a candidate from the ballot and re-submit another candidate. Even if that were not the case, it is too late to-reprint ballots. My best guess is that the VP pick would become the top of the ticket, similar to scenario 2. This seems like the easiest thing to do. It does not require withdrawing the ticket and it minimizes confusion at the polls. It is unclear if this would create headaches for the electoral collage. I imagine electoral college votes would likely go to a Biden-Harris ticket as normal with Harris officially becoming President elect instead of Vice President elect once the vote is certified. In Congress there is also the practice of ‘widow’s succession’ where a spouse steps up to fill the void left by a Congressman’s death until the next election or until a special election can be held. This practice was actually pretty common in the early 20th century. Senators can be replaced by a Governor’s appointment, a president can be replaced by a VP. But Congressmen, who serve short 2 year terms, have no replacement strategy so widows succession made some amount of sense to prevent political infighting and ensure a smooth transition after a death. I highly doubt widow’s succession will ever be invoked or even suggested if something happens to Biden, especially with such a capable VP pick ready and able to step up on the ticket.
Scenario 4: A candidate dies after the election but before electoral college meets and the vote is certified
This scenario creates the most headaches. The rules are most murky during this scenario and things will likely get very, very messy. Elections are run by individual states and states have different rules impacting how electoral college votes must be allocated. At present, some states require that electors vote for the candidate that won the popular vote in that state. Some states don’t explicitly bind electors to the winner of the state popular vote but impose penalties on so called ‘faithless electors’. Some states have no laws on the books and voting for the winner of the state popular vote is merely precedence. In general faithless electors are not very common. There actually HAS been a candidate death between Election Day and the electoral college. In 1872, Democrat Horace Greeley (ran against President Grant) died before the electoral college met. 63 of his 66 electors voted for other people. Unfortunately, things are not as simple in 2020 as they were in 1872. There is a question about whether or not certain electors will be unbound if the candidates to which they are pledged dies before the collage meets. The courts will almost certainly have to get involved and possibly the House of Representatives. The 20th amendment of the Constitution mandates that a president MUST begin their term on January 20 and if the electoral collage remains inconclusive, the Constitution (via the 12th amendment I believe) leaves it up to the House of Representative to hold a contingent election and vote on a winner (I think the Senate votes on a VP). The House HAS previously decided an election. In 1824, neither John Quincy Adams nor Andrew Jackson secured a majority of the electoral college (there were 4 candidates that year). The matter went to the House which voted for Adams to become President. Should the election end up in the House of Representatives, the Democrats have the majority. Since someone MUST be seated as President on inauguration day (Jan 20), I am not 100% sure what happens if the election remains a total mess and the House is hopelessly deadlocked. I think under the 20th amendment, the Vice President elect becomes acting President until the matter is resolved. If there is no Vice President elect, then the Presidential Succession Act states the Speaker of the House becomes acting president.
Scenario 5: President-elect dies before inauguration but after the election is certified.
This one is actually pretty easy. In this scenario, the Vice President elect becomes the president elect and is sworn in on inauguration day. This is covered by the 20th amendment.
Whew! Well, that was quite a thought experiment. If I write any more it will be the beginnings of a book. That ends my civics discussion for the day.
“The U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy.”
The two are not mutually exclusive. Literally everyone who says the things above are an embarrassment to their civics and social studies teachers. They are walking monuments to the shameful failure of the American education system.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
The U.S. is a Democratic Republic.
We utilize Representative Democracy because there are too many of us to all get into a room to make decisions. Representative Democracies are still Democracies and are still hold and are proponents of democratic values.
To put it simply, the Democracy refers to who governs. Republic refers to how they govern.
And this is exactly how the Founding Fathers referred to the U.S.
John Adams in 1794
No determinations are carried, it is true, in a simple or representative democracy, but by the consent of the majority of the people or their representatives.
Noah Webster in 1795
In large communities the individuals are too numerous to assemble for the purpose of legislation: for which reason, the people appear by substituted or agents, - persons of their own choice. A representative democracy seems, therefore, to be the most perfect system of government that is practicable on earth. America, just beginning to exist, has the science and the experience of all nations to direct her in forming plans of government.
St George Tucker in 1803
That, in a democracy, the people ought to do, themselves, whatever they conveniently can; that, what they can not do of themselves, must be committed to the management of ministers chosen by themselves; that they are their trustees and agents; and that a government thus formed and organized, may be stiled a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. That, the choice of ministers may be made, either, personally, by the whole body of the people; or by their deputies, chosen for that especial purpose, and in whom they can repose a proper confidence.
...
With regard to the principles of the organization, and structure of the federal government, whenever it departs from those of a confederate republic, it appears to conform to those of a representative democracy. The representatives in congress are chosen immediately by the people: the president may be chosen in a manner very nearly approaching a popular election, as in this state; though in some others, the election is farther removed from the people; or rather, may be considered as taken away from them by their own legislatures, as in some of the northern states. All officers of the government, including the president, are impeachable for misconduct in office, and on conviction may be removed, and otherwise punished. These are prominent features of a representative democracy.
Thomas Jefferson in 1815 (p. 252 to Mr. Wendover)
[War] has planted and invigorated among us arts of urgent necessity, has manifested the strong and the weak parts of our republican institutions, and the excellence of a representative democracy compared with the misrule of Kings, has rallied the opinion of mankind to the natural right of expatriations...
(Jefferson was known for obnoxiously long sentences that we’d call run-ons now)
Even the right-wing Mises Institute has waded into the muck and dismissed, refuted, and debunked this claim.
Stop Saying "We're a Republic, Not a Democracy"
In practice, the arguments boils down to this: "you can be for republican government, or you can be for mob rule, otherwise known as democracy."
Now, there are many good reasons to support the electoral college, and I have written about some of them myself. But, the claim that one must support the "republican" electoral college on the one hand, or be an advocate for "mob rule" on the other, is not one of them.
Voss's use of the republic-not-a-democracy claim here also illustrates the laziness that is typically employed in its usage.
Like almost everyone who denounces democracy of favor in republican government in this context, Voss invokes James Madison, who warned against "pure democracy" and "mob rule" in favor of republican government.
The problem for Voss here is that even if the US abolished the electoral college — and many other "republican" institutions as well — it would still be nowhere near being a democracy as defined by Madison.
If one is going to invoke James Madison as a supporter of one's anti-democratic positions, one should at least be aware of how Madison defines democracy. He defines it this way in Fedealist No. 10:
a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person
...
It turns out that Madison's definition of democracy describes a sort of regime that exists nowhere on earth. No country and no regime actually has democracy or "mob rule" as described by Madison, nor is any regime — including that of the United States — in danger of becoming that way. In fact, using Madison's republican criteria of having a small number of representatives represent a large number of people, the United states is far more republican than nearly every other modern republic. And, the US is becoming more republican as time goes on.
Moreover, virtually no one argues for the sort of democracy denounced by Madison. Wanting to abolish the electoral college, or even abolishing the Senate, does not make one into an advocate of Madison's version of a democracy.
In fact, every single regime on earth today that calls itself "a democracy" clearly qualifies as a republic according to Madison's definition. All the countries that are described as democracies in contemporary discourse use representative schemes of government, and all have a system which at least in part "derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people." They also all elect representatives instead of employing direct lawmaking.
Consequently, in contemporary usage, there is no relevant difference between the words "republic" and "democracy." Thus, claiming a preference for a republic over a democracy communicates essentially zero information unless one precisely defines the two terms in a way that departs significantly from Madison's definitions.
The U.S. is a Republic and a Democracy. Stop lying.
