Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 October 15

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 15

St Paul's Cathedral blueprint

Moved from Village Pump. Gwinva (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Where can I find a blueprint of St. Paul's Cathedral (the one in London, England)? Lucas Brown (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This [1] comes close, I guess.Leif edling (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Vincent Van Gogh quote

Moved from Village Pump. Gwinva (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an Italian wikipedia user, and I need help from English mothertongue I need to know the exactitude about this citation from Vincent Van Gogh:

"I always do what I can't do, to learn how it must be done."

I do not have found this in Wikiquote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.53.127 (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC) ]]

It is good English. (Of course he probably did not say it in English, so there is no exact English citation.) By the way, auxiliary verbs – like the have in I have found – are negated without do: thus I have not found. —Tamfang (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he is asking what it means, since from the point of view of a non-English speaker it looks kind of nonsensical. I'm not sure how to explain it any more simply than it already is, though. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I try, fail, but learn how exactly not to do it.--Radh (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In April 1882, Vincent wrote to his brother Theo, "There are two ways of thinking about painting, how not to do it and how to do it; how to do it — with much drawing and little color; how not to do it — with much color and little drawing." Of course van Gogh, who was working still in watercolors, eventually turned to oils and did it the way not to do it.--Wetman (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Archeology: Mega

Is this discovery serious? Mega. It is weird that we have nothing in wikipedia (that I could find) about it, and they also mention on this web site, in various places, "Psychic Questing", so I am very dubious about their reliability on making a fair assessment of what they find. If any archeologo-phile here has heard about it and knows the real story (as described by many other or reliable sources), please let me know. Thanks in advance! --Lgriot (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have heard about this before, although the amount of Atlantis speculation on the web does make it difficult to find reliable information online. Googling for the names of the discoverers gave me this which reproduces a 2002 article from the Washington Post, so at least the discovery was reported on by the mainstream press. -- Ferkelparade π 08:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I've done a search on scholar.google.com, the results have not been too great...it seems they did discover something in 2001, but it also seems there has not yet been any serious research into the issue (or at least, there are no publications I could find). It might be a sunken city (although that sounds extremely improbable), it might be some freak geological process leading to regular-seeming pyramid-like structures, but in the absence of serious research (or even usable photos of the discoveries) all that is just unfounded speculation. -- Ferkelparade π 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the discovery is serious, but it has nothing whatever to do with Atlantis, other lost cities, or indeed anything man-made. The structures they're referring to are natural fractures in the bedrock. Check out Bimini Road. Matt Deres (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies it. When someone goes and takes pictures, we can make our own assessment, but in the meantime, I will assume it is natural. --Lgriot (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There are tons of pictures; check out a few of these. As with conspiracy theories, these fringe thinkers have their thinking backwards; they want there to be evidence for Atlantis, so anything that looks good is accepted and anything that doesn't is ignored. If we saw structures like these on land they would accept the rational explanation (there's no evidence of buildings or any artifacts and there's an obvious geologic explanation), but because it's underwater where Atlantis must be, the fact that there are no artifacts of any kind and a much simpler explanation at hand is carefully ignored. Matt Deres (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

reagan, ronald

what is ronald reagan's middle name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momojackin (talk • contribs) 05:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer, my friend, is lurking in Ronald Reagan. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 05:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

who is this guy?

i want to know who this is,the guy who went from bar operator to lawyer,supporter of Made In America,once shot a politician,chosen as speaker of the house on the first day of his session. pleas help me.thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.213.67 (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe this [2] is where you (or whoever asked you the question) got it. The answer is Henry Clay (as per the given link).Leif edling (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Origins of a phrase: "Like ships in the night"

While wondering the origins of a Finnish proverb Kuin laivat yössä at the local reference desk, I was informed it was a liteal translation from the English "Like ships in the night", taken from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's Tales of a Wayside Inn:

"Ships that pass in the night, and speak each other in passing, /

Only a signal shown and a distant voice in the darkness; /

So on the ocean of life we pass and speak one another, /

Only a look and a voice, then darkness again and a silence."

But although very good to know, that only actually answered a part of my question. What I'm still trying to find out is by who, when or where this prhrase was introduced to common language (or do you English-speakers even use it)? Any ideas? --Albval (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Poets are poets because they make stuff up, poesis in Hellenised Latin. Longfellow's image passed imnto cultural literacy: The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, 3rd ed. 2002, credits him: "Often said of people who meet for a brief but intense moment and then part, never to see each other again". The signal at night was with a lantern provided with a Fresnel lens.--Wetman (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the link above. Seems that I'm still a bit ignorant about the cultural literacy bit in general (although I now know probably all I need to know about lenses of short focal length): Is the question about who or where a certain quote is introduced into common use even possible to answer in this kind of case? I'm sure Longfellow himself didn't popularize the quote, if you understand what I mean. I guess what I'm also wondering here is whether the "usage history" of proverbs can be traced back or not... --Albval (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an idiom, not a proverb. It is often possible to trace the origin of an idiom by looking at its first appearance in writing, and its later incidence, which is what the quoted work and other dictionaries of idioms have done in attributing it to Longfellow. Someone, somewhere, will have data about how long it took to be commonly used. And yes, it is a common English phrase. Gwinva (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's neither an idiom nor a proverb: it's a metaphor. During his lifetime Henry Wadsworth Longfellow was one of the most widely-read, widely-memorised and widely-quoted poets in the United States. I wonder how many editions Tales of a Wayside Inn sold out before World War I. Also in the volume: "Paul Revere's Ride".--Wetman (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't deny it's a metaphor; but it's now used idiomatically. (As our own article states: "Most idioms are a colloquial metaphors".) Gwinva (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clearing things up for me. As you probably guessed, English is not my mother tongue and therefore selecting the used terms (proverb/idiom/metaphor) comes sometimes to downright guessing... --Albval (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

LAND RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO VOTE!

I would like to know why the gov't keeps trying to take more land from the Indians and why they CAN'T vote? Were they not here FIRST? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.25.71.77 (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the USA? Because Native Americans in the United States can vote. As for the "take more land bit", I'd need more information than what you've provided (a link to a news story of what you thinking of in particular would help). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you're talking about Canada, I imagine (given that your only other edit is to put a question on a photo of Stephen Harper). Weell, I don't know about Canada. This article, though, seems to indicate that legally they can vote, though I don't pretend to understand how this works in Canada. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Native Canadians can vote, just like any other citizen. It's true that they tend to vote in lower numbers than other groups, but this is not due to any legal restrictions. There were several pieces on the radio in the last few weeks where native leaders were encouraging them to turn out and vote. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the Canadian government trying to take their land, as the questioner says? And were the present population of native Canadians the first, or did they replace other earlier populations of different origin? Edison (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Aboriginal land claims are a highly contentious issue in Canada (and deserves a much better article than the one we have); for the sake of neutrality I'm not going to say much. Some native Canadians would certainly claim that governments (and others) in the past have taken land from them, and are obstructing their attempts to get it back. See also Ipperwash Crisis. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

They can vote but the new laws requiring photo ID makes it more difficult since (at least if they live on a reserve) many of them don't have driver's licenses or whatever other pieces of identification they might need. I was looking at the rules at the polling station yesterday, and they can vote if whoever is in charge of the band or reserve verifies that they actually live there, but maybe no one takes the time to get that verification. (When 40% of the rest of the country doesn't bother to vote, that shouldn't be surprising.) For land claims, see also Caledonia land dispute for another famous one. There are many other claims that don't make the news; I remember reading it would take a century to settle all the current claims, and that is only if no new ones are made. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The other thing of course is that given the FPTP system Canada uses and the fact that they are a relatively small and spreadout population, they probably have little chance of greatly influencing the outcome of the election. Is there any seat with more then say, 20% aboriginal population? Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. For one thing, the entire territory of Nunavut has a very high percentage of Inuit. Within the provinces, many of the northern areas of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, etc. have very high concentrations. According to our article on the politics of Saskatchewan, about 10% of that province's entire population is composed of "First Nations" peoples, but that's not evenly distributed. The white populations will be densely settled in the major cities (Saskatoon, Regina, etc. and the percentage of Indians will go up as you go more rural or northerly. Matt Deres (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nature of Opinions (I am not asking for an opinion about something)

Looking at the definition of opinion on Wikipedia seen here:

"An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something which it is either impossible to verify the truth of, or the truth of which is thought unimportant to the person. It is an assertion about something especially if that something lies in the future and its truth or falsity cannot be directly established e.g. induction. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. If it later becomes proven or verified, it is no longer an opinion, but a fact."

1. It makes me realize how much of life is opinionated and you will not pass through life with-out making an opinion. As we are naturely inclined to form judgements, beliefs, values, interpretations, etc. Since they will never be true nor false, why do we as humans try in life because whatever we feel in life is meaningul or beautiful or benevolent and many other things there is no standard rule of universality that gives our belief verification or meaning.

2.For instance, someone may say that abortion is wrong. Though it seems unethical, is there reallly a way to determine if abortion is right or wrong?

3.Another example I have is a "best category" so many organizatioins have competitions like (best picture,oscar competitions, beauty pageants,etcedera. But there is no "true way to evaluate these kinds of things. Also, many people feel that their name is the best name and there is no way to test that out although their name is special since the day they were born.

4. In a larger sense, there is like no true interpretation. For example say you read a book and you think it is well-written, refreshingly candor, and thought provoking; on the other hand- another person thinks it is horrible and tasteless.

I am saying is that there is no quantifiable method to anaylyze and I am wondering what people do when they realize these things in life? Is there truth to judgements, values,etc.? And in what way can we confirm this?

Once again I thank you for your time and I jsut want to know what the right approach would be. Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.45.41 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You sound like you need to read some Philosophy I would recommend starting at http://www.sqapo.com which is a 'squashed' philosophers resource (it condenses full text into much smaller, quicker to read segments without losing that much of the detail/points raised). There are no universal truths around good/bad. There are no truly universal morals or codes of ethics. Culture and society are all you have. Considering this doesn't mean that you cannot feel your values are worthwhile, or your ideas are true/correct. You are you own mind, what others say should not necessarily impact what you consider to be correct/incorrect. If you believe a painting is good that doesn't mean others must, but then how does another's opinion prove/disprove your thoughts? There may be a branch of thinking around what you mean, it sounds like it could be something to do with life/decisions being futile but not sure what it would be called. ny156uk (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Opinions can be based on better or worse reasoning, better or worse evidence. There are many reasons to "try at life" other than universality. There are lots of other reasons to value life.

2. Ethics is not the same thing as opinion. At some level though it reduces to a few core beliefs which are about shared history, empathy, religious beliefs, shared concepts (like "fairness"), and so forth. There are lots of ways to determine whether something is right or wrong according to a given ethical system. The choice of ethical system, though, is more arbitrary.

3. Awards are about the reification of opinions held by a select group. If you don't care about their opinions, then they mean nothing. If you do care about their opinions, then they mean something. Even things as apparently prestigious as the Nobel Prizes only mean something because people agree they do. (Many scientists think Nobel Prizes are highly overrated, for example.)

4. They are many true interpretations, but you are referring to a specific form of interpretation.

5. Just because something is quantifiable doesn't mean quantifying it gives the best answers; and the fact is that most people recognize that at some level fundamental differences in values mean that certain things are irreconcilable between disagreeing parties, ergo the notion that we "agree to disagree", i.e. we just acknowledge that we're not going to see eye-to-eye. I don't think it has any effect on quality of life in general. I don't think, in general, it even has an affect on how most people live their lives. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I still feel like so much is meaingless without a system to judge, so it all feels like nothing really matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.45.41 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mostly there is a system to judge, but the system is a kind of centre or reference point. In this way, the centre itself is a bias of conditioning and seeing one's position as superior, right or best (eg, see Eurocentrism). If you browse the article Post-structuralism in the section "Destabilised meaning" you find that a cultural centre or cultural reference point is such a system, but it only works if you align with it. Meaning can also be found by taking a critical position, questioning and comparing so that its agenda can be discovered. Philosophy, cultural studies and sociology would keep you busy. No need to give up when critiquing is so much fun. As the Postmodernists might say there are many "centres" and many histories – and I'd add in there, many valid "truths". In this exploration you might come to realise the centre is not such a social/cultural set of truths as a personal set of truths. And the outcome from that is to understand that context is important rather than accepting some vague authoritarian ruling on what is meaningful or important. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PS this is such a beautiful question (imo) it opens up a panorama of thinking. You might also look at Ethics, Applied ethics and applied philosophy[3]... and the Philosophy of perception where the question is "Can we ever know another point of view in the way we know our own?"  :) Julia Rossi (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Poet Gilbert Maxwell

I am looking for a poem by Gilbert Maxwell. He was born in 1910, and did do some writing for Harpers Magazine. Specifically, I am looking for the entire poem which contains the lines:

                    There are trees that seem to die at the end
                    of autumn. There are also the evergreens.

This quote is found in the Daily Meditation book, Color of Light. I have used it for many years in my nonprofit organization. I am looking for the entire tet but have had no luck at all. 69.40.161.115 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There are several of Maxwell's poems at http://harpers.org/subjects/GilbertMaxwell, but you have to subscribe to Harper's to see the pages. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

1920's Marriage Laws

I have been searching both Wikipedia and elsewhere, but I can't find anything on this subject. I'm a writer, and this research is fairly critical (although not time sensitive) to my work. What were the marriage and age of consent laws of the 1920's, specifically in Chicago and Massachusetts? Missouri would be nice too, if you know. Starlingswings (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Law libraries in the relevant jurisdictions might be able to help you out. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• c. 1925 the minimum marriageable age for girls w/ parental consent: Illinois 16, Massachusetts 16, Missouri 15. Richmond, M. E., & Hall, F. S. (1925). Child Marriages. footnotes 3&4, p. 45.
• Missouri and Massachusetts law allowed for exceptions in some circumstances (pregnancy) at the discretion of a designate of the court. Ibid p. 75.
• A 1913 opinion of the Attorney General of Illinois held that county clerks should issue licenses in rape or bastardy cases, and following the marriage "any prosecution for rape or bastardy will abate." Ibid p. 76.
• 1920 age of consent: Illinois 16, Massachusetts 16, Missouri 18. Odem, M. E. (1995). Delinquent Daughters. Table 1, p. 14-5.

—eric 22:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few details in Richmond & Hall (OCLC 368240) relevant to the states in question (which of parents, groom, bride had to appear to get a license; chance of being able to falsify ages; etc.) I'll list 'em here when i get a bit more time, but you might try picking up a copy at your library.—eric 22:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know if there was a waiting period. Blood tests. In 1920. Or could you get the license one day and get married the same day.

If the President and Vice -President are dead...

Who takes over as the president if both the president and vice-president are killed? Does anyone know? Starlingswings (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The speaker of the house. See United States presidential line of succession. --Tango (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Darn, Tango, you beat me to it. bibliomaniac15 21:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

More precisely, the speaker of the house takes over if eligible (as the current one would be). See the article for more on eligibility. Of course, we're talking about the case were the president and VP are killed at the same time, or close enough together that there isn't time for a new VP to be nominated and confirmed in between. If there is a new VP, obviously that person becomes president.

I assume we're talking about the US in all this. Presuambly there are other countries with a president and vice-president, and they will have their own rules! --Anonymous, 21:49 UTC, October 15, 2008.

Generally if someone doesn't think to say what country they're talking about it's safe to assume they're American. The fact that there is a US presidential election coming up reinforces that. --Tango (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On the basis that only Americans would assume the world assumes they're American? Gwinva (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How can they forget something that they never learned in the first place? -- kainaw™ 01:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. --Tango (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Either that, or they just forget the rest of the world exists... --Tango (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably on the basis that this is the English WP and USA is the only major English-speaking country I can think of that's ruled by a president and not a prime minister. APL (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

But that would mean attributing good sense rather than ignorant provincialism to Americans. Not at all in the agenda. - Nunh-huh 19:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

But would it not also mean attributing arrogant superiority complex towards all people who aren't Americans, simply on the basis that they aren't Americans? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't see why it would. - Nunh-huh 21:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because someone isn't American doesn't mean there isn't something else wrong with them. --Tango (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it good sense to rely on people knowing that the US is the only major English-speaking nation with a president? I think good sense would be to specifically state what you're talking about from the start. Also, both India and Zimbabwe use English a lot and have presidents, there may be others I've missed as well. --Tango (talk) 22:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland. Although it doesn't have a vice-president... 80.254.147.52 (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Is it good sense to rely on people knowing that the US..." That's not the question at hand. The issue is that, given that the vast majority of the Internet's native English speakers come from either USA, Canada, Australia or UK, can we assume that a given question about an unnamed "president" is referring to the USA? I think we can make that assumption, by simple logic, No need to hijack the guy's question for ugly nationalism, whether intended as humor or not. (Also providing the correct answer for other nations like Zimbabwe is, of course, a bonus.)APL (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's a safe assumption for us to make and we've answered the OP's question based on it. We've now gone off-topic (no harm there, since the question is answered) and are discussing (somewhat in jest) whether it is appropriate for the OP to assume that we would assume he's talking about the US. It's not relevant to the OP's question, but it's an interesting point. --Tango (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It also works in reverse. If 2 Americans are talking about politics and government, and one of them refers to "the Queen", it'd be a pretty safe bet he's referring to the Queen of the UK (although if the other person asked which queen he was talking about, he'd probably answer "the Queen of England"). -- JackofOz (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Why not assume they're referring to the Queen of Australia? Or the Queen of Canada, for that matter? Hmmmm?????  :-) --Anonymous, 22:10 UTC, October 17, 2008.

Because chances are they don't realise those places have a Queen? (I heard about a survey recently that showed a large proportion of Australians don't know Australia has a Queen, so what chance do Americans have?) --Tango (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I take your point, Anonymous. She is queen of all 16 realms, not just of the UK. But when non-realmers talk about her, unless they're specifically discussing Canadian, Jamaican or wherever governance arrangements, they think of her as a British person who reigns in Britain only. Heck, we in Australia generally think of her as a British person, which she is. Many Aussies are not aware of any such office as "Queen of Australia", nor are they aware we even have a constitution, much less know what's in it. Americans are generally even further behind the 8-ball. Any way, my point was that "the Queen" is generally enough to identify Elizabeth II among Americans. They wouldn't assume their interlocutor was speaking about the Queen of Denmark or the Queen of the Netherlands, for example, unless they were talking about those places. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no point; I was just funnin'. As indicated by the smiley. --Anon, 07:09 UTC, Oct. 18.

Presidential "Candidate" or "President Elect" Succession

Are there any formal rules such as the United States presidential line of succession to deal with incapacity, death or resignation of the candidate of a major party or perhaps more importantly the President-elect either before or after being chosen by the Electoral College? -hydnjo talk 22:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it's in our article on the succession. If the President-elect (which I believe means after the Electoral College's decision) dies prior to the inauguration, the Vice-President-elect is inaugurated as President and serves the term. If they died before the Electoral College's decision, then I guess the Electoral College would elect the vice-presidential candidate as president (no idea what they'd do about vice president). --Tango (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tango, I missed that part about the post-Electoral College situation which is clearly addressed in our succession article. I guess prior to the EC vote ("...unofficially the person chosen in the November popular election is called the President-elect even before the Electoral College meets") or even prior to the national vote things could get pretty dicey :( -hydnjo talk 22:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we discussed it on the ref desk a few weeks ago, if memory serves. You may wish to check the archives. --Tango (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He's not the President elect until the electors have made him so. There are four separate situations to consider:

• [1] death of a presidential candidate before the popular elections
• [2] death of a presidential candidate after the popular election and before the electors have voted, and
• [3] death of the president elect, after the electors have voted, and before Congress has counted the electoral votes
• [4] death of the president elect, after Congress has counted the electoral votes, but before assuming office

For [1], the party simply chooses another candidate according to its rules. Both Democratic and Republican parties have rules to cover this contingency: basically the party's national committee chooses the candidate. In most instances they'd be expected to choose the VP candidate, and name a new VP candidate, but there's no requirement that that happen. [1] has never happened (though a VP candidate did die in 1912 before election, and a VP candidate resigned in 1972 after the nomination and before the election)

The only instance of [2] was the death of Horace Greeley in the 1872 election. He was the loser in the election, and several of his electors voted for him. The congressional joint meeting declined to count his votes, reasoning that a dead man can't be president. So I think we can state on the basis of precedent, a well as good sense, that death of a candidate frees his electors to vote for someone else. Theoretically, the electors of a dead candidate would be free to vote for whomever they please; in all likelihood, the candidate's party would select a new candidate (as in situation [1]) and ask that the electors vote for him, and in all likelihood the electors would do so.

In situation [3], there is some question, but as most people interpret the 12th Amendment, all elector's votes would have to count, even those for a dead candidate, in which instance it's the same as situation [4], and the 12th Amendment would govern: the VP elect would become president, and after assuming office, could appoint a VP under the 25th amendment.

If neither a president nor a vice president qualifies on January 20, then the 20th Amendment governs and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 would make the Speaker of the House, the president pro tempore of the Senate and the various cabinet members, in order, and if qualified, and if they accept, the president. Congress was authorized under the 20th Amendment to pass a law with reference to the death of any of the persons from whom the House might choose a president, or the Senate choose a vice president, but Congress has not done so. - Nunh-huh 22:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nunh-huh for your comprehensive response and for addressing even those unlikely scenarios that I forgot about. -hydnjo talk 23:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting - and hopefully hypothetical - question. :) - Nunh-huh 23:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! :) hydnjo talk 23:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)