Talk:-elect

message: I'm curious as to how that whole "transistion team" and the process in general works exactly.  I think it'd be quite interesting!76.182.144.118 (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs more info on the "transition team"

message: Some of this looks as if it applies to only one country.  If so, that should be noted here. Michael Hardy 21:18, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with both of the above points, and i think that the article would in fact be better if it were constricted to speak of just the President-Elect of the United States of America.  There's tons of interesting things that could be brought up aboout the hisotry, prodecures, and powers of the US President-Elect, very much to the exclusion of other countries.
Perhaps that just means that this general article needs to be split into another article, "President-Elect of the United States of America", but I think the struggle to make this article beholden to a world-wide view diminishes the scope of additional information that could amplify users' understanding of the US President-Elect.  CzechOut 21:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and agree that it should probably be changed to President-elect (U.S.) Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Disagree. That article, after looking at it, is irrelevant. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

text: This article definitely belongs at President-Elect (United States).  As to an article about President-Elects in general, the only thing that I can think of to put in it would be a dictionary definition, so the only use for this article would be as a redirect or a disambig. eigenlambda (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Global view?

message: If something were to happen to a President-Elect during the December before he formally took office, what would his title be in the history books? "President" isn't quite accurate, but "President-Elect" has a sad note of unrealized potential. An emotional note that might interfere with a historians objectivity. Is there a social protocol already in place for that horrible eventuality? -209.76.184.4 23:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  in memorium 

message: Any politician can be a lame duck. Also, the president can be referred to as a lame duck for the entire length of his second term, since he can no longer be re-elected, and not just between the election and inauguration dates.72.221.122.42 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lame duck 

message: This 1963 law (available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ293.106.pdf ) has the following to say about the term:  ‘President-elect’ and ‘Vice-President-elect’ as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President.
Unless someone has something that trumps this, this article needs drastic revision.LedRush (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Citing that law, I made this revision. --Modocc (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not so sure that the article is wrong.  The law speaks to the President-elect as a defined term for the purposes of the law.  This is good enough for me (obviously, as I posted the law above, in the Biden article, and in the Obama article) in describing the winner for Nov-Dec as President-Elect, but it cannot trump constituional interpretation (by law), if any exists.  Also, other laws and rules may define the terms differently.  Quite honestly, it could be a cluster%$#$...but who knows.LedRush (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of President-elect and Vice President-elect in this law is solely for the purpose of designating those persons authorized to receive the government-funded facilities and services authorized by the law. There is no conflict with the Constitutional definition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.169.76 (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  article appears to be wrong 

message: Let's say, as in 2000, it's not clear who won the election right away.
Who would have to authority to let one candidate get a .gov Web site (to be so modern) and in general be assigned the status of "President-Elect (in waiting)" prior to the Electoral College vote -- or even (if a hung Electoral College, vote in Congress)... ??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.153.81 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-08T12:41:35
:This is what's making everyone say "Office of the President-Elect???". It's an awfully formal title for a constitutionally informal status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildonrio (talk • contribs) 2008-11-10T13:26:31
::The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 authorizes the head of the General Services Administration to determine who is the apparent winner entitled to transition funds and services controlled by GSA. In the disputed election of 2000, the GSA refused to recognize a winner and both candidates were denied access to transition funds and services as long as the legal dispute over the recount continued. GSA Denies Bush Transition Aid, Citing Legal Battle  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.169.76 (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for finding this article.  Very informative, and answers some important questions. Good reporting, historically valuable. Robert K S (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Dubs a Candidate "President-Elect" Prior to the Electoral College? 

message: Is the president-elect a US government employee, since there's an office of the president-elect and all that?  I'm asking because Obama apparently is resigning from the Senate this weekend in order to concentrate on the transition, and I wonder if that technically makes him unemployed.  Will he get COBRA in a situation like that, since he wasn't laid off, or is it known if he took out some kind of individual insurance plan (sounds bureaucratically nuts given the short duration)?  What happens if one of his kids gets sick before the inauguration?  Thanks.  207.241.239.70 (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a Harvard graduate, there's a good chance he has those issues all worked out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course he has those issues worked out for himself, but it would be nice to know if he is legally a government employee or not.  I think he's a private citizen since he resigned his Senate seat, but I haven't read the transition act.  Anyone know? eigenlambda (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 authorizes transition staff to be paid and reimbursed and to accrue government retirement benefits, but also states categorically they are not government employees. It's not clear to me if the the president-elect and vice president-elect themselves are included in the transition staff category. A former senator would collect retirement benefits but Obama was not in the senate for the five years necessary for his retirement benefits to be fully vested. I speculate that the fact Joe Biden has not yet resigned from the Senate, although Obama has, may be due to Biden's much lower personal wealth compared to Obama and indeed other senators. Biden may need his Senate salary until his vice presidential salary kicks in January 20.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.169.76 (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't think so. Resigning now or later is almost certainly driven by political as well as practical reasons. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason I heard for Obama resigning when he did, was so that IL Gov. Blagojevich could appoint Obama's replacement before the new congressional term starts.  That would give Obama's replacement seniority over the new Senators who will arrive in January, which translates to juicier committee assigments further down the line. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  us govt employee? 

message: I was wrong to state in previous edits that a winning candidate becomes the president-elect in January. The U.S. House reports I've added seem to indicate that the House considers the P-E to be whoever wins the majority of the electoral ballots cast in December, and that the title devolves onto the winner from the point those ballots are cast. To better reflect the vigorous debate on this page, I added a framework describing "two competing definitions" preceded by something previously never noted, that the Constitution doesn't define when someone becomes P-E. Altho' the discussion here isn't as passionate as on other Talk pages, this article boils down to whether the GSA certification is sufficient to legitimately confer the status, or whether it must wait until the EC votes in December. Since Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the Transition Act, I've added a link to it at the GSA. I've also added a link to a news report detailing how GSA certification isn't automatic, which seems to me to undercut that particular argument/position. Since the V-P is off-topic, I removed reference to the veep in the Transition Act graf as a means to keep the article crisper. Given that consensus doesn't seem absolute on Obama's status, I moved the statement that he is the P-E into the GSA graf. While "Obama is the P-E" may still be open to debate, the statement I've constructed, "For these purposes, [Obama] can be said to already be the P-E" is valid (assuming the GSA Administrator already has made the certification). This article had been lacking any mention of the widespread practice of the press to annoint the Nov. winner as the P-E, so I've added a reference to it. Previous comments on other Talk pages seemed to suggest that the mere fact that Obama is referred to as the P-E automatically makes him the P-E, but this seems a dangerous fallacy to embrace. As a former reporter, editor and free-lance writer for the Associated Press who's participated in election-result reporting, I can assure you all that many reporters (number unspecified) do assume the E.C. will rubber-stamp the general-election results. Finally, given that the Congressional Research Service took pains to mention competing definitions, I submit that this article likewise should make room for them. Steven Spenser (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Every 4 years, the losing party hold out this absurd hope that somehow the electoral college will thwart the will of the people. It doesn't happen. And if it did, it would be a major, major constitutional crisis. No. It will not happen. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with the "two competing definitions" language added.  This is an interpretation rather than a statement of fact.  If you're going to add such language, you will need to add a citation to a court decision or academic paper or something of similar weight in support. Robert K S (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification is a good thing. Various editors have raised the question of what "President-elect" really means, and it deserves a clear and succinct answer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New definitions 

message: The capital is the city containing the state's seat of government. The capitol is the building set aside for that purpose. There is no constitutional requirement or even suggestion that the electors should meet in their respective states' capitol buildings. In fact, not even in their respective states' capital cities. Only "in their respective states". They could meet in some rural bar-and-grill someplace if they wanted to. However, in this context, capital city would seem to be the more likely practice. However, maybe someone can cite some evidence. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The statute dealing with this, 3 USC § 7 says, "The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct." Thus, it is the states who say where their electors will gather. As to whether any states have their electors gather anywhere other than the state capital, or the state capitol for that matter, I have no idea. -Rrius (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  capital vs. capitol 

message: what for? there is a list of presidents. IF there are discrepancies one can list them explicitly (if.. any.. ever). no need for a "List of US Presidents-elect". 91.15.167.133 (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same initial reaction, but the list is considerably different from the list of presidents.  Barack Obama, for example, will be the 44th president but only the 35th president-elect.  I can see how some of the start dates may be controversial without (or even with) firm sourcing. Robert K S (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's liable to run into Original Research complaints. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way?  Compiling previously-unconsidered lists is a perfectly fine encyclopedic task and it is done throughout Wikipedia.  It is not required that a list be published elsewhere; ordering and processing commonplace facts is not original research. Robert K S (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll see. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of US Presidents-elect 

message: This article gives the impression that president-elect is an official title used worldwide. It needs to be clarified as to where this is official and where it is not. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 19:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "Candidate-elect" would be a better name for the article due to the fact that mayor-elect and several other "elects" redirect here. Then there's the fact that many countries don't elect a president... El Alternativo (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone needs to globalize this article 

message: Should it be included that a Cardinal that has been elected Pope is referred to as the Pope-Elect for the short time (usually 30 minutes or so) in-between accepting he election and taking their oath on the St. Peters balcony when they are introduced to the populace? 203.46.132.214 (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Papal Conclave