Is it a departure from objectivity to say that this has been a crazy election year? I think any objective person would agree. If you read my February article on the history of the “Secret Ballot,” you will know that, until recently, U.S. elections were often crazy, and so this year’s election style is something of a throwback, fisticuffs and all.
One exceptional aspect of the recent campaign, and assuming the selection is narrowed down to two, or three if you insist, is the advanced age of our candidates. That it has escaped being much of an issue, may result in part from the fact of our aging electorate, accompanied by changed social attitudes of the definition of “old.”
Who is the oldest president to be inaugurated? Ronald Reagan, you may be surprised to learn, at age 69 and 11 months when he assumed the presidency — let’s face it, he was pushing 70 really hard. Now we have (alphabetically), as of January 20, 2017 — Hillary Clinton will be 69 and three months; Bernie Sanders, 74 and four months; and Donald Trump, 70 and seven months. Only Sanders and Trump would beat Ronald Reagan as the oldest president, and Clinton escapes by only eight months (which seems ironic, since her husband was the second youngest president).
Has anyone thought of what would happen should a candidate die before the election? Would it be a nominated vice-presidential candidate? Either the framers of the U.S. Constitution did not consider this situation, or they may have found it too complex, as we shall soon see.
To begin with, the Constitution sets only a minimum age for the president and vice president (35), with no stated limits on a maximum age. There is no presidential forced retirement other than by death or incapacitation. If a candidate dies, the timing of this event creates several possible scenarios, only two of which are addressed in the Constitution (by virtue of the 20th Amendment):
∙Death occurs before the election. Under this circumstance, the political party would select another candidate, according to the rules of the Party.
∙Death occurs after the election, but before the Electoral College declares the winner (Dec. 15). In this situation, chaos would ensue, since it would be up to the College to decide what to do.
∙Death occurs between the vote of the Electoral College and actual inauguration. If the Electoral College has selected the winner of the election, Congress will ratify that decision by Jan. 6. If this has occurred, then the 20th Amendment kicks in, and the rules of presidential succession apply, namely, the office passes to the vice president-elect.
∙If Congress has not ratified the Electoral College results or it declines to do so, selection would be from the opposing presidential candidates, whomever came in second.
Perhaps it is obvious by now that any of these scenarios would be open to legal objections raised by the candidates, political parties and/or individual states (who choose the Electoral College). The closest we have come recently to these questions was the “hanging chad,” incident involving the State of Florida in the election of Albert Gore v. George Bush.
Another chaotic election occurred in 1872 when the incumbent President Ulysses Grant was opposed by Horace Greeley. When, after a mud-slinging campaign, Greeley lost the popular vote, he collapsed and died before the Electoral College met. As if he had not been humiliated enough, when the Electoral College did meet, three of his electoral votes were thrown out, making Grant’s victory even more decisive.
Rest assured, these conjectures are not predicting the demise of any candidate. Despite their “advanced age,” they all seem to be in good health, and may even be good for a second term. Who knows? Ronald Reagan did, although things became a little shaky there at the end.
