Is there anything in the USA constitution to decide what happens in such an event?
I suspect the Vice President would become President.
Same as when people do turn out to vote I'd think, the electoral college would elect the president. Lol
How do you think the country would feel about that?
Seeing the lol, I guess that's a joke I'd have to be American to understand.
:)
Sorry, the question wasn't, what happens if the vote is a tie (which would have been a good one to ask.)
It was what happens if NO ONE votes. Not a single person turns up on election day or casts an absentee vote.
nil, zilch, zero, naught, nada
Voting is voluntary in America. Many people seem very unhappy with both candidates, including a proportion of their party members.
I know it's unlikely, but in theory, when voting is voluntary it could happen that everyone chooses not to vote.
In that case, how would America choose its president?
It does not matter how the country feels. It is a matter settled by law and established procedure. Just as if a president dies in office the VP becomes president, regardless of qualification.
There are two scenarios here:
1) If people voted for other electected officials, particularly members of Congress, then there are procedures for the House of Representatives to determine the election of a President.
http://electoralcollegehistory.com/electoral/crs-congress.asp
2) If nobody voted for ANY elected official, then I don't believe the Constitution has any provision for that eventuality. It would cause a severe Constitutional crisis unless various factions could agree to some process for resolving the situation.
The electoral college is the institution that actually elects the president. Evidently our framers preferred that the potus be elected by those already in positions of power. I suspect they knew well this would tick off the American people, so they devised the electoral college. That way, the people get to vote and feel as if they've some skin in the game, but those in positions of power still elect the potus anyway.
The electoral college ultimately decides all of the presidential elections, sometimes even in defiance of the will of the people, for better and worse. In a way it is a joke, albeit a very sick one. But I've become so used to the whole thing that now I just laugh if off. I guess I'm among the apathetic. Sorry, didn't realize you didn't know that.
Mind if I ask where you're from?
According to the Constitution Article II Clause 3. The House of Representives will vote for the President and Senate would vote for VP but I don't think they would do the Senate part because we have political parties now and the candidate picks their VP now.
Trump would be king and every billionaire would get their own kingdom.
Australia. Over here, voting is compulsory and there is no electoral college.
Thank you, Old School, for perfect clarification. Didn't know those details about your system.
What do you think of voting being compulsory in Australia?
I wonder if it takes a different type of person to vote voluntarily,
and if, because of that, it changes the outcome. What do you think about that?
I know there's no sure way to prove it, because political polls have been proved wrong even within 24 hrs, but I can't help wondering.
Ahh, interesting. I guess the elections are decided by popular vote then? Do you have multiple parties or are you limited to a few like U.S.?
Technically, we're not totally limited, there are other parties that can run for potus, but because of the electoral process they really have no chance of winning. Not the way it is now, at least.
It does not matter who votes. The only thing that matters is who counts the votes.
We (Australia) have two major parties, several minor ones, and many individuals who stand as independants.
The two majors are Labour who are liberal and mildly left in policies, and the NLP, a coalition of the Liberal and National parties who together represent the right of the political spectrum.
Taken all together, all of Australian politics sits about 7 degrees left of the USA but has been trending erratically further right for about 12 years.
Our voting system includes the distributing of secondary, tertiary (to the 6th degree) preferences, which is intended as a means of breaking ties. Even this doesn't always work, and recently for the first time, we have seen governments crippled by inaction due to an insufficient majority.
In these situations, the minor parties and independents have a great deal of power. They can affect the outcome of legislation by voting with or against the government, and this gives them bargaining power to negotiate amendments.
Recently, because the public is disillusioned with the main parties, more and more people have been voting for the alternative choices. Among other issues, it is having the effect of forcing both of the main parties to give more thought to policies affecting the environment
But if no one voted there would be no votes to count.
Interesting, never knew anyone of that. Thanks for explaining. Sounds like that could get kinda frustrating at times. Ours is very frustrating at times.
I think our system would greatly benefit from an approval voting system or at bare minimum, revisiting the electoral college model. Our people have also become increasingly discontent with the main parties, but give they control the primaries process and third parties lack a fair shake in the electoral process, many feel as if they've no representation, much less a chance at electing representation when a rare someone comes along.
As seemingly divided as our two parties appear on the surface, they never find it difficult t work together to ram through highly contested policies regardless of who is in power at a particular time. Which many find disturbing, to say the least.
How much freedom is there in the States to lobby for change or to promote ideas and discussion about possible reforms to the democratic system?
Are there special interest groups who specialise in advocating for specific reforms?
Are there think tanks which discuss how to solve difficult problems?
Here, we can do plenty of that by internet, letters to editors and demonstrations. But the most effective shifts take place when ABC television, radio, and the more intellectual journalists begin to bring the topic to the nation as a whole. Such changes can be scores of years in the making, but they do sometimes occur.
We actually have quite a bit of power at the state level to effect changes, problem is, the methods always seemed to be used for the wrong things.
For example, we can hold ballot propositions / referendums that will force state govt. to institute a law, or perhaps overturn one and recalls of state officials who are widely opposed.
A group needs 150k petition signatures to introduce a proposition and to pass it would require a 60% vote in favor. That is probably the most useful tool of all, but recently the most popular way to use it is in an attempt to rule over certain sections of society. One group of people will attempt to punish another group of people when the intended use is the majority of the people either limiting or expanding a power of govt. through law.
We saw this with propositions to ban gay marriage. They all failed because this isn't the sort of thing propositions were purposed for. One successful use was when the people of Colorado forced their state govt. to legalize cannabis. So it can be done correctly and with positive outcomes, you just rarely see it used correctly anymore.
We do also have think tanks and special interest groups, but those often run counter to the interest of the people and serve more to reinforce the power of politicians, unfortunately.
