RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 148,512
Posts: 5,884,003
Members: 26,332
Currently online: 433
Newest member: John Matthews

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Mega Bloks
By: T'Bonz on Oct 8

Quinto To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Oct 8

Shatner Twits Salmond
By: T'Bonz on Oct 7

Star Trek Beyond Poster
By: T'Bonz on Oct 7

Two New Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 6

Klingon Bathrobe
By: T'Bonz on Oct 6

Koenig Humbled By Trek
By: T'Bonz on Oct 6

The Red Shirt Diaries: Balance of Terror
By: T'Bonz on Oct 5

Salmond: Not Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Oct 5

Star Trek Beyond Dubai Filming
By: T'Bonz on Oct 5

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > TV & Media

TV & Media Non-Trek television, movies, books, music, etc.

Thread Tools
Old September 3 2013, 01:37 AM   #31
Vice Admiral
Espašo-chica's Avatar
Location: T'Girl
Re: West Wing timeline divergence?

Dick Whitman wrote: View Post
Reagan first tried a Presidental run in 1976.
1968. In the first ballot at the Republican convention Reagan came in third place.

Espašo-chica is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2013, 02:06 AM   #32
Alidar Jarok
Everything in moderation but moderation
Alidar Jarok's Avatar
Location: Norfolk, VA
Re: West Wing timeline divergence?

the G-man wrote: View Post
Sci wrote: View Post
Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
IIRC, doesn't the series begin with Bartlet's election? And that wasn't an election year IRL so they must have been fudging the dates a bit because of that.
The pilot episode is actually set about eight or nine months into Jed's first term -- so, in other words, in about September of 1999, which is when it aired in real life. So Jed would have been elected in 1998 and taken office in January 1999.

Basically, WWverse elections are held in what are in real life the midterms as a result of Nixon.
If a US Preident resigns, his successor serves out the end of the term. There are no special elections. As such, Nixon's resignation should not have 'shifted' the election schedule, nor should anything that might have happened to Reagan.
Well, technically, the constitution doesn't say one way or the other. This was debated back when Tyler became President. Some thought he was just a President until a special election could be held. He resolved this by declaring "I am the President" and refusing to allow a special election and we've followed that since. Who knows if this would be true in an alternate history. Maybe they past a quick Constitutional amendment instead.

J.T.B. wrote: View Post
MacLeod wrote: View Post
Maybe the point of divergence is WWII, maybe the 1944 election never happened and the election was delayed until WWII over. Given that it ended in Aug 1945 allowing time for primaries etc.. perhaps 1946 would be the earliest date they could hold it.
If we could hold an election in 1864, I think we could hold one in 1944!
For what it's worth, the UK did not (they suspended elections throughout the entire war until nearly the end).
When on Romulus, Do as the Romulans
Alidar Jarok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2013, 08:55 AM   #33
Re: West Wing timeline divergence?

Alidar Jarok wrote: View Post
For what it's worth, the UK did not (they suspended elections throughout the entire war until nearly the end).
The UK does not have a written constitution which mandates an election every four years.
Ensign_Redshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2013, 09:03 AM   #34
Location: Great Britain
Re: West Wing timeline divergence?

^WHilst you are correct the UK does not have a written constitution which mandates an election every four years it does have a law which mandadtes elections every five years now. Even before the current law was passed an election was still automatically called five years after the last one. The only difference is it removes the provision that the Government of the day could call an election when it was most benefical to them.

But couldn't Congress pass a special act defering an election?
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 4 2013, 03:40 PM   #35
Vice Admiral
Gaith's Avatar
Location: Washington State
Re: West Wing timeline divergence?

^ According to this ABC news article, "The Constitution leaves the 'times, places and manner' of holding a federal election up to each state, but says that Congress may at any time make or alter such regulations." So Congress may have the power to delay an election, yes, but unless I'm much mistaken, it certainly doesn't have the power to extend a presidential term, or to extend/bypass a term limit. Even if no general presidential elections are held, the Senate would still be obliged to count whatever electoral votes arrived in the mail - remember, the Supreme Court affirmed as recently as 2000 that non-electoral voter US citizens have no Constitutional right to vote for president. So even if only one vote was sent to the Senate, that'd be the guy eligible to show up, take the oath, and become president.

In short, the Founding Fathers, mindful of how the Roman Republic devlolved into monarchy, offered no emergency provision to extend an executive term for fear of it being abused.
Gaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 5 2013, 07:04 AM   #36
Re: West Wing timeline divergence?

^ It would be interesting if Congress decided to delay the election and determine that by doing so it extend the president term it would of course be challenged in the court but that would be take time, so it may have and by that time two years had past and the two time line where set or maybe after the Civil War there was an amendment similar to 4(2) of the Canadian Charter in which a Parliament can be extended by 2/3 majority vote beyond the constitutional mandated 5 years in time of war or revolt, or may the war with Japan got alot more dangerous (a Foothold in Alaska then troop on the US mainland)
serdogthehound is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.