Political parties that wish to substitute a new presidential or vice-presidential candidate are free to do that, thanks to the existence of the Electoral College, even if it is too late to reprint ballots.
In all states, the election laws say that presidential and vice-presidential candidates’ names appear on the November ballot, not as candidates, but as markers for competing slates of presidential electors. In most states, but not all, the ballot says “Vote for Presidential Electors”. And then the list of presidential and vice-presidential candidates follows.
In 1968, George Wallace had a stand-in vice-presidential nominee, Marvin Griffin (former Governor of Georgia). On October 5, Wallace chose his actual running mate, Curtis LeMay. Only five states printed LeMay’s name on the ballot; 43 states printed Griffin’s name; and there were three states that didn’t print vice-presidential candidates on the ballot for any ticket (Alabama, Arizona, and North Dakota). But Wallace told the nation that his presidential elector candidates, if elected, would vote for LeMay. Wallace carried five states and all of Wallace’s electors did vote for LeMay in the electoral college. Of those five states, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Georgia November ballots had listed Griffin, but it didn’t matter; LeMay received the electoral votes.
In 1912, the Republican nominee for Vice-President, James Sherman (who was the incumbent vice-president) died before the November election. His name was on the November ballots, but in December, the Republican presidential electors voted for Nicholas Murray Butler, the new vice-presidential nominee for the Republican Party. The party’s national committee had met late in October and chosen him.
This article has the Democratic Party’s rules for replacing a presidential or vice-presidential nominee.
ABOLISH the super time bomb Electoral College — a LATE DARK AGE machination in 1787.
—
NONPARTISAN App.V. for all elected executive officers and all judges — vote for 1 or more, highest win.
Just might get some *moderate* officers and NOT the EVIL rotted power mad robot party hacks in such offices currently.
Interesting article. It’s good that there is precedent–from the reactionary right even–to cut around legal and cultural deference to an otherwise all controlling process. It seems that some thoughtful party ought to intentionally commit to practice of having their electors vote for candidates apart from those indicated on ballots to undersscore, highlight the awful political process while offering some purposeful escape from arbitrary ballot access regulation tyranny.
That keeps happening, but no one seems to care. In 2004 one Minnesota Democratic presidential elector voted for John Edwards for president, instead of John Kerry.
In 2000 one Democratic presidential elector voted a blank ballot, costing Al Gore an electoral vote. Again, no one seemed to care. The nation barely noticed.
Congress always counts disobedient electoral votes.
You also forgot 1872 when Liberal Republican nominee Horace Greeley died in between the election and the casting of Electoral College ballots. Greeley won 66 electoral votes. Greeley still received 3 ballots cast for him but these were disqualified because of his death. 42 went to Democrat Thomas Hendricks, 18 to Greeley’s vice presidential nominee Benjamin Gratz Brown, 2 to Charles Jenkins, and 1 to David Davis.
I’m working on a thing looking at different electoral systems and the results of presidential elections going back to Reconstruction. I strongly and firmly believe that the winners of elections should have the support of 50% plus one. The one thing in the Electoral College’s favor is that it takes very tight elections and gives a definitive winner. For example, the 1992 election in every method I’ve looked at so far result in Ross Perot picking the president, the Electoral College is the only one that produces a majority. The 1960 election under a couple methods would’ve resulted in the Unpledged Electors of Alabama choosing the winner between Kennedy and Nixon. Not gotten through all methods yet, but I’m very interested to see how 1912, 1948, 1968, and 1980 turn out.