What the deal with time jumps?

[Harvey]

Or, heck, why not start the show in Bartlet's third year and say he was elected in '96?

That would have fundamentally changed the show much more than any other slight chronological alteration, though, since it would have been oriented around the Presidential election from the beginning. I rather like that the series spent two seasons getting to know the characters and letting them govern before jumping into the chaos of a Presidential election.

 

[TheGodBen]

Wasn't the show originally supposed to go into production in 1998, but was put on hold because of the Monica Lewinsky scandal? If so, I wonder would the show have started during Bartlet's second year in office to make it fit the real timeline, or would they have kept it during his first year.

 

[bigdaddy]

^ I have never heard that. In 1998 he was doing Sports Night and it took awhile to convince NBC to do a political show, and John Wells and I think Sports Night helped convince NBC.

 

[WillsBabe]

It's a valid story-telling method: set up a situation that is significantly different than the last you remember and then use flashbacks to show how you got there.

Done right, it can be an exciting approach to telling a story in a new way.

Is this the "48 hours earlier" type of episode? I'm afraid I really hate those.

 

[Hunter X]

The West Wing was a 90s show, it needed to start when it did.

Again, why did it "need to?" It was set in an alternate reality with a different president, it wasn't based on real current events (except for the out-of-continuity 9/11 special), so it didn't have to pretend to take place in the present day. It could've easily pretended to be set two years in the future. Plenty of shows are not set in the same year they air. Many shows are set decades or centuries in the past or future. Lost's first four seasons were all set within a period of a few months in 2004, so by the fourth season the show was at least 3 years in the past of its airdates. The "present-day" episodes of the new Doctor Who have usually been set one year in the future, and the UNIT stories of the original series were assumed at the time to be set about a decade in the future, though that was later forgotten.

Seems to me that if they had to choose between having the presidential elections occur two years off of the ones in the real world, or set the show two years in the future--or even two years in the past--Sorkin just chose to offset the election year.

I think it's a fair choice. For the odd time you want to bring up what year it is for the characters, it's just easier to make it the current year. I also imagine it'd be less confusing for a casual viewer. To watch an episode that is airing in 2000 and have a character say that it's 2002 would just be sort of strange. It could also make it a little annoying for the writers and crew to always have the offset year in mind, just in terms of props and throw away lines. On the other hand, I find it's just easier to accept that the elections occur whenever the show says that they do.

In other words, I think it's just in our television cultural lexicon that a show takes place during the year that airs, unless it is part of the plot of the show that it isn't. It is not part of the plot of the West Wing for it to be set in the future or past by any amount, so it's more acceptable to the average viewer to say that the elections are in a different year.

 

[Christopher]

Seems to me that if they had to choose between having the presidential elections occur two years off of the ones in the real world, or set the show two years in the future--or even two years in the past--Sorkin just chose to offset the election year.

But see, I don't see that as "just." I see it as a much more radical departure from reality. Postulating the election of a different president in a standard election year is a plausible, straightforward tweak to reality, requiring only that some different people ran for office in the recent past. Postulating that the cycle of presidential elections has changed requires a much more far-reaching change to history. The Constitution says that the president and vice president will be elected for a four-year term, and elections have been held every four years since 1792. So for TWW's election cycle to be offset from our own, either that world had its Constitution amended at some point to allow for an exception to the four-year cycle, or else its history had to diverge from ours more than 200 years ago.

So changing the date of the election may superficially seem like the more minor change, but if you consider the historical context, it's a far more extreme choice to make.

I also imagine it'd be less confusing for a casual viewer. To watch an episode that is airing in 2000 and have a character say that it's 2002 would just be sort of strange.

I don't see why. They already know they're watching a story about a president and administration very different from the one they hear about on the nightly news. If anything, I'd think it would be less strange to viewers if that were presented as a possible near future rather than an alternative present.

It could also make it a little annoying for the writers and crew to always have the offset year in mind, just in terms of props and throw away lines.

The makers of science fiction shows handle such offsets all the time. Like I said, Doctor Who's "present" has been set a year in the future for the past four or five years, and its producers have managed to keep it straight. And if the continuity department couldn't keep such things straight along with all the other details they have to coordinate, then they'd be slipping.

 

[Sci]

Seems to me that if they had to choose between having the presidential elections occur two years off of the ones in the real world, or set the show two years in the future--or even two years in the past--Sorkin just chose to offset the election year.

But see, I don't see that as "just." I see it as a much more radical departure from reality. Postulating the election of a different president in a standard election year is a plausible, straightforward tweak to reality, requiring only that some different people ran for office in the recent past. Postulating that the cycle of presidential elections has changed requires a much more far-reaching change to history. The Constitution says that the president and vice president will be elected for a four-year term, and elections have been held every four years since 1792. So for TWW's election cycle to be offset from our own, either that world had its Constitution amended at some point to allow for an exception to the four-year cycle, or else its history had to diverge from ours more than 200 years ago.

So changing the date of the election may superficially seem like the more minor change, but if you consider the historical context, it's a far more extreme choice to make.

Maybe? It's my understanding that the fandom tends to place the divergence at the Nixon resignation, theorizing that someone other than Ford took over from Nixon and that he and/or the Supreme Court, as the first unelected president, decided there should be a special election during the midterms, thereby off-setting every subsequent presidential term.

I also imagine it'd be less confusing for a casual viewer. To watch an episode that is airing in 2000 and have a character say that it's 2002 would just be sort of strange.

I don't see why. They already know they're watching a story about a president and administration very different from the one they hear about on the nightly news. If anything, I'd think it would be less strange to viewers if that were presented as a possible near future rather than an alternative present.

Well, you now, I think the thing here to consider is this:

You and I both know that one could quite logically categorize The West Wing as a form of speculative fiction (alternate history). But I don't think that that was the popular perception of the show -- most people just thought of it as a highbrow political drama. So for them, I imagine that they accepted the two basic conceits of the show (there's a different guy as President and elections are two years off), without necessarily processing everything that those two premises actually imply about the nature of the WWverse.

Either way, though, I think that setting it in more-or-less real time adds to the perception of it just being a contemporary political drama, and that setting it two years into the future might well prompt a larger perception of it as a form of speculative fiction. And, as I noted before, it gave the writers the option of incorporating contemporary events into the narrative if they chose; they often did not, of course, but options are not a bad thing to build into the premise. Surely it would be a bit silly, for instance, to have Hurricane Katrina take place in 2007 instead of 2005, if they were to do a story about that (since it's not like an alternate election cycle would affect the weather)?

It could also make it a little annoying for the writers and crew to always have the offset year in mind, just in terms of props and throw away lines.

The makers of science fiction shows handle such offsets all the time.

Yes, but did the writers of The West Wing think of themselves that way? Or decide they wanted to deal with those kinds of offsets?

And, again, it's not like it's up for debate. The Sorkin-era The West Wing cited the real years it aired in whenever the year came up, and it came up more than just the one time they were arguing about the Year 2000.

 

[Christopher]

^Sigh... I'm not saying it's "up for debate." I'm sane, I'm informed, I know what actually happened in the real world, so it's pointless and insulting to remind me of the obvious fact that it did happen that way. What I'm saying is that I find it odd that they did choose to do it that way, and that I'm not convinced by the argument that they somehow "needed" to. "Needed" is a gross overstatement. I don't believe the show would've failed if they'd made a few dates slightly different than what they actually used. I don't believe audiences are so stupid that they couldn't have comprehended the idea of the show being two years in the future. If they could handle Lost being four years in the past, they could've handled a version of The West Wing that was two measly years in the future.

 

[bigdaddy]

I can't believe we are still arguing over West Wing?!

No one but Chris gives a fuck, let's move on! This isn't a West Wing topic.

 

[Sci]

^Sigh... I'm not saying it's "up for debate." I'm sane, I'm informed, I know what actually happened in the real world, so it's pointless and insulting to remind me of the obvious fact that it did happen that way. What I'm saying is that I find it odd that they did choose to do it that way, and that I'm not convinced by the argument that they somehow "needed" to. "Needed" is a gross overstatement.

I don't think anyone said they "needed to" (correct me if I'm wrong); what I remember saying is that they may have chosen to go real-time-with-reversed-election-cycles in order to give them the option of doing current affairs commentary. No "need" being a part of it.

 

[Snaploud]

I liked the choice. It worked fine for me. Other options probably would have also been fine (except for the one that would have jumped the show to a time well past Bartlet's first year).

Maybe? It's my understanding that the fandom tends to place the divergence at the Nixon resignation, theorizing that someone other than Ford took over from Nixon and that he and/or the Supreme Court, as the first unelected president, decided there should be a special election during the midterms, thereby off-setting every subsequent presidential term.

I love this idea.

 

[Christopher]

It's an interesting idea, but I wonder if it would be possible, since the four-year interval between elections is specified in the Constitution. Unless the Supreme Court found some kind of loophole in the language of Article 2, Section 1, I'd think it would require a Constitutional amendment to shift the electoral cycle, and bringing that about would be a long and arduous process.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years...

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

So that's basically saying that if the prez is removed, the veep takes over until the next election, which is exactly what happened with Ford. And if for some reason Ford had stepped down or if Nixon hadn't had a veep, Congress could legally declare who the next president would be. So there's already an extant Constitutional formula for succession between election years, and thus no compelling legal reason to change the electoral cycle.

It's possible that, say, the Democrats might've raised an objection to Ford serving as an unelected president, but I doubt they could've gotten enough nationwide support to get a Constitutional amendment ratified (although that is similar to how the 2-term limit was ratified as a reaction to FDR's lengthy tenure). Maybe the Supreme Court could've ruled that the language about "until... a President shall be elected" didn't preclude a special earlier election, and that the removal of the POTUS could be seen as resetting the four-year clock. But what about the timing? Ford took office in August 1974. There would've been only three months to arrange a new presidential election, which wouldn't have been fair to rival candidates since they'd have no time to organize campaigns. And it would probably have taken longer than that to get a Supreme Court ruling anyway. And it would've taken far longer to get an amendment ratified. At best, I could see them moving the election up to '75, but not '74.

 

[Snaploud]

So that's basically saying that if the prez is removed, the veep takes over until the next election, which is exactly what happened with Ford. And if for some reason Ford had stepped down or if Nixon hadn't had a veep, Congress could legally declare who the next president would be. So there's already an extant Constitutional formula for succession between election years, and thus no compelling legal reason to change the electoral cycle.

Actually, the section you quoted was modified by the 25th amendment. It was ratified in 1967 and among other things a) declared the Speaker of the House and then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate next in line to the presidency after the vice president and b) outlined for the first time a manner in which a vice president could be replaced without a new election.

In fact, Ford was the very first appointed vice president. Previously, all vice presidential vacancies had been left vacant until after the next presidential election. His entire presidency was based upon the language of an amendment ratified in 1967.

So, let's pull the time discrepancy back a few years. They were already playing around with this stuff for the 25th amendment, so let's have them insert a line or two into the West Wing universe's 25th amendment. It would outline a shortened presidential tenure for any individual not directly elected to the presidency or vice presidency who used the line of succession to reach the highest office in the land (appointed vp, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, or anybody else listed in what would become Federal U.S. Code Title 3, Chapter 1 in regard to the line of succession).

Just think how one line addition into the 25th amendment could have changed U.S. history from Ford onward. It's interesting to speculate. I wonder what other draft language was really considered for that amendment. I'm sure it went through a few revisions.

Edit:

Regarding the three month time frame to hold an election: The UK goes through a whole national election cycle (announcement of election day through to voting) in 30 days. I think we could get ours done in 90 days. It might not be easy, but it could be done.

 

[RJDiogenes]

We could also speculate that Nixon resigned or was otherwise removed a year earlier than in the Thisverse and an election was held in 74.

 

[Snaploud]

We could also speculate that Nixon resigned or was otherwise removed a year earlier than in the Thisverse and an election was held in 74.

I could see Nixon resigning a few months earlier to facilitate the new election.

 

[Christopher]

In fact, Ford was the very first appointed vice president. Previously, all vice presidential vacancies had been left vacant until after the next presidential election. His entire presidency was based upon the language of an amendment ratified in 1967.

So, let's pull the time discrepancy back a few years. They were already playing around with this stuff for the 25th amendment, so let's have them insert a line or two into the West Wing universe's 25th amendment. It would outline a shortened presidential tenure for any individual not directly elected to the presidency or vice presidency who used the line of succession to reach the highest office in the land (appointed vp, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, or anybody else listed in what would become Federal U.S. Code Title 3, Chapter 1 in regard to the line of succession).

Hmm. Alternatively, what if there was no 25th Amendment? Then, with no clear procedure in place for succession, Nixon's resignation could've sparked a constitutional crisis and required some fast and furious work to find a remedy, which might end up being a provision that would move the date of the election. That seems a simpler way to go.

However, I'd consider it more likely that they'd just add a special election in '74 and then just go ahead with the normal election in '76 -- partly because people are reluctant to break with long-established traditions, and also because I very much doubt that anyone would've wanted to pass up the opportunity to align the next presidential election with the Bicentennial. But I suppose it's vaguely possible.

Regarding the three month time frame to hold an election: The UK goes through a whole national election cycle (announcement of election day through to voting) in 30 days. I think we could get ours done in 90 days. It might not be easy, but it could be done.

Yeah, it could be done logistically, but my point was about whether it would be fair. If alternative candidates aren't given sufficient time to organize campaigns, develop platforms, raise funds, and publicize themselves and their messages, that gives an unfair advantage to the incumbent. America's a much bigger country than the UK, and it takes commensurately more time, money, and effort to mount a nationwide campaign.

We could also speculate that Nixon resigned or was otherwise removed a year earlier than in the Thisverse and an election was held in 74.

Let's see, how many fictional presidents did TWW postulate? In the Sorkin years, they didn't really establish anyone beyond Bartlet, but in the post-Sorkin incarnation of the show (arguably a different show with the same name), they established a couple of earlier ones in the episode "The Stormy Present": Owen Lassiter, a Reagan-like Republican, and D. Wire Newman, a Carter-like Democrat. Newman was the last Democrat in the White House before Bartlet, and Bartlet followed a 2-term Republican. That suggests:

D. Wire Newman (D): 1979-83
Owen Lassiter (R): 1983-91
Unnamed (R): 1991-99
Josiah Bartlet (D): 1999-2007
Matthew Santos (D): 2007-?

(Going by inauguration dates, of course, not election dates. And I don't count Glen Allen Walken since his term lasted, what, two or three days?)

If the electoral schedule was changed in 1974, then there's room for one more single-termer in the list, and that might've been Gerald Ford.

Alternatively, there could've been a GHW Bush-esque president between Lassiter and Unnamed, making Newman the winner of the '74 election, but I'd rather not posit a single party having a stranglehold on the White House for that long. It's also possible that Newman followed Lassiter, if you ignore the Carter/Reagan parallels.

I think Nixon is the most recent real president mentioned by name in the show.

Hmm. If Newman =~ Carter, Lassiter =~ Reagan, Bartlet =~ Clinton, and Santos =~ Obama, then Unnamed would probably be akin to a Bush.

 

[Snaploud]

Hmm. Alternatively, what if there was no 25th Amendment? Then, with no clear procedure in place for succession, Nixon's resignation could've sparked a constitutional crisis and required some fast and furious work to find a remedy, which might end up being a provision that would move the date of the election. That seems a simpler way to go.

Congress had federal law outlining the line of succession (as stipulated per the Constitution) prior to the 25th amendment. The line of succession has actually gone through a number of revisions over the years. The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 would have just been followed had the 25th amendment not been ratified.

Carl Albert, the Speaker of the House, would have been next in line for the presidency (had the resignations still happened in the order they did--vp then president).