What happens if...

[ShapeShifter]

one of the requirement for President of the United States is.. you have to be a citizen... and 35 years old...if say 99 out of 100 people voted for, through write-in, a 34 year old... citizen...and 1 vote for a 35 yeard old citizen..who is the winner of the presidential race?

[dunn]

one of the requirement for President of the United States is.. you have to be a citizen... and 35 years old...if say 99 out of 100 people voted for a 34 year old... citizen...and 1 vote for a 35 yeard old citizen..who is the winner of the presidential race?

The 34 years old can not be on the ballot

[ShapeShifter]

one of the requirement for President of the United States is.. you have to be a citizen... and 35 years old...if say 99 out of 100 people voted for a 34 year old... citizen...and 1 vote for a 35 yeard old citizen..who is the winner of the presidential race?

The 34 years old can not be on the ballot

Thank You

[dunn]

one of the requirement for President of the United States is.. you have to be a citizen... and 35 years old...if say 99 out of 100 people voted for a 34 year old... citizen...and 1 vote for a 35 yeard old citizen..who is the winner of the presidential race?

The 34 years old can not be on the ballot

Thank You

[Emsworth]

The point is, however, that you cannot vote for a 34-year old, or even a 35-year old. You would have to vote for electors for some particular individual. If the electors are qualified, but not the candidate, the electors would still be elected. Presumably they would not be allowed to then vote for the ineligible candidate.

[ShapeShifter]

What if it was a Senate seat? Do each states have different rules when it comes to this issue? For example, 99 out of 100 votes through write-in went to a person who was not a citizen - which in theory is a requirement - and 1 vote went to a person who was a citizen? Who wins the senate seat?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The point is, however, that you cannot vote for a 34-year old, or even a 35-year old. You would have to vote for electors for some particular individual. If the electors are qualified, but not the candidate, the electors would still be elected. Presumably they would not be allowed to then vote for the ineligible candidate.

My guess is that the electors could vote for an unqualified candidate.  After all, they don't HAVE to vote for anyone, as we saw in DC in 2000.

Then, if no qualified canidate has 270 electoral votes, the election would be thrown into the House, where the House would have to choose among the top 3 qualified candidates.  The House would have to pick a qualified President.

But if anything like this ever happened, it would invariably be put up to the courts to sort out.

[Blerpiez]

You can vote for whoever you want to.  If someone is ineligible to be president, they can still be elected president.  They would not be allowed to take the oath of office, and the vice president-elect would be president once he is sworn in as vice-president.  He would then be sworn in as president because there is no president, and he is second in the line of succession to the presidency

[minionofmidas]

Stephen A Douglas first ran for the House (but lost) when he was not yet 25.

[The Duke]

They could be on the ballot, sure, but the electoral college would be prohibited by the Supreme Court from actually electing the person.  Remember, popular vote doesn't matter, so technically anyone can win that.

[bullmoose88]

also depends on when the 34year old turns 35...as long as its before the inauguration...

even then the inauguration can be moved (by an act of congress)

[jimrtex]

one of the requirement for President of the United States is.. you have to be a citizen... and 35 years old...if say 99 out of 100 people voted for, through write-in, a 34 year old... citizen...and 1 vote for a 35 yeard old citizen..who is the winner of the presidential race?

How were the presidential electors in your State determined?  In Texas, a write-in candidate for President must declare themseleves to be a candidate, and name their slate of electors.  Only votes for declared write-in candidated are counted.

But let's say that the State overlooked the qualification of the candidate (since it is the electors being chosen, the nominal presidential candidates could just be considered a slogan or identification, just like the party name).  Or the State may decline to make a ruling.  So the electors meet in December and cast their vote for the 34 YO.  Or maybe the State declares the votes invalid, and appoints the 35 YO candidate's slate as electors.  The 34 YO candidate's electors might meet and cast their electoral votes and mount a challenge in Congress.

Congress counts the electoral votes.  Counting is more than the mere artithmetic process, but could also consider the validity of ballots.  In the past, Congress has considered not counting electoral votes of so-called faithless electors, but declined to act.  In 1872, Horace Greeley died between the time of the popular election and when the electors voted.  Most of the Democrat electors voted for someone else (4 candidates), but 3 went ahead and voted for Greeley.  Congress rejected those 3 votes.

If Congress rejected the electoral votes for the 34 YO, then the election would go to the House of Representatives (the elected candidate must have a majority of the electors appointed, not of the electoral votes validly cast).  They might then elect the 35 YO.

Or Congress might consider the 34 YO elected, but his age to be a temporary disablity.  The Presidency would be vacant, with the Vice President acting as President until the young President's birthday.

[Niles Caulder]

Going with the hypothetical, and assuming inelligble candidates got on the ballot and 'won,' I'd say it's a bureaucratic issue to resolve--the Office of Voter Registration or whatever have you in the state would issue a statement that the candidate was inelligble, and therefore certify the candidate with the next highest support as the winner.  People could sue if they wanted to, but it would be a waste of time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Stephen A Douglas first ran for the House (but lost) when he was not yet 25.

That was also when there was thirteen long months between whan a Congressman got elected and was seated.  As long as he would have been 25 when he was sworn in, that would be fine.

[opebo]

He'll cancell the election, or stage a massive 'terrorist attack' before January 20th and declare martial law.  

[Bogart]

Each state also has to certify its electoral vote. It is doubtful that a state would do so if the candidate to which the electors were pledged was ineligible.

[jimrtex]

Each state also has to certify its electoral vote. It is doubtful that a state would do so if the candidate to which the electors were pledged was ineligible.

Such a pledge is unenforceable.  The State election officials would likely decide that the presidential electors for John "The Kid" Doe had been elected by the people and not attempt to interpret the US Constitution.

[Bogart]

Each state also has to certify its electoral vote. It is doubtful that a state would do so if the candidate to which the electors were pledged was ineligible.

Such a pledge is unenforceable.  The State election officials would likely decide that the presidential electors for John "The Kid" Doe had been elected by the people and not attempt to interpret the US Constitution.

It may be unenforceable, but in practice, electors are pledged. Each candidate has a slate of electors. When you vote for a particular candidate, you are actually voting for their slate of electors. I believe some states even list them on the ballot.

[minionofmidas]

Stephen A Douglas first ran for the House (but lost) when he was not yet 25.

That was also when there was thirteen long months between whan a Congressman got elected and was seated.  As long as he would have been 25 when he was sworn in, that would be fine.

IIRC he was 22...I'd have to check though.

[DA]

What if it was a Senate seat? Do each states have different rules when it comes to this issue? For example, 99 out of 100 votes through write-in went to a person who was not a citizen - which in theory is a requirement - and 1 vote went to a person who was a citizen? Who wins the senate seat?

I actually asked someone who studied constitutional law (while getting his B.A. in Political Science) about this because I wrote in my name on the primary this year for the House (I'm 21). I am a citizen, but not old enough. He said that I would be disqualified and whoever got the second most votes would win (although this could depend on the state), this is of course, I got enough people to write my name in in the first place. watch  http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq.html to see if my question gets posted. Additionally it should be noted that if a person were in this situation s/he'd likely be up against at least 2 opponents (my write in is up against 3 people) which makes this an unlikely event, even if someone advertises about writing her/his name in.

[jimrtex]

What if it was a Senate seat? Do each states have different rules when it comes to this issue? For example, 99 out of 100 votes through write-in went to a person who was not a citizen - which in theory is a requirement - and 1 vote went to a person who was a citizen? Who wins the senate seat?

I actually asked someone who studied constitutional law (while getting his B.A. in Political Science) about this because I wrote in my name on the primary this year for the House (I'm 21). I am a citizen, but not old enough. He said that I would be disqualified and whoever got the second most votes would win (although this could depend on the state), this is of course, I got enough people to write my name in in the first place. watch  

Ultimately, in the case of the Senate, the Senate would decide (Article I, Section 5 of the US Constitution).   They have in the past not seated someone who had not been a citizen long enough.   If the state said someone else had won, then you might be able to convince them that you had actually won.

In Texas, I don't think being a write-in winner would make any difference.  You have to file to be a write-in candidate, the only difference is that your name doesn't appear on the ballot.  If an ineligible or deceased candidate is elected, it is treated as a vacancy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A lot depends upon the State.  The Socialist Workers Party decided in all their wisdom to nominate a pair of candidates who are constitutionally ineligible. (The P isn't a citizen and the VP is too young.)  However, some States require that the candidates to whom the electors are to be pledged be eligible, so in those States the SWP is putting their 2000 candidates on this year's ballot.

[J. J.]

Stephen A Douglas first ran for the House (but lost) when he was not yet 25.

Again, I believe if he had won the House of Representatives would have refused to seat him and would have declared a vacancy. There would have been a special election. Now if he was only a few days from turning 25 at the time the new House was being sworn in, I don't really know what would happen. I don't know if there is any leeway to delay swearing in a member or not and if so how long that may be. A good question.

There actually were several cases of ineligible US Representatives being elected, one hadn't been a citizen long enough (by a few months) while the other was underage (24).  When the Representatives-elect passed that threshold, one passed the 7 year mark of citizenship, the other turned 25, they were both seated.  If the precedent holds, the House could determine that the "the Kid" becomes president on his 35th birthday. 

These precedents are included in the House rules and are on that website.