It was expected by most that the moderate Republican would win the presidential election in West Wing. History backs this up. Hard as it is to imagine, there never really was a time when a totally unrelated member of the same party won an election after a two term president. This is less surprising given the fact that there are many times over our history when a two term president itself was unlikely. John Adams was the first of three (four counting Gore) vice presidents who followed in the footsteps of two term presidents. Madison to Adams (by House vote) followed the theme via the secretary of state route. All the same, some suggested Bush in 1988 did not have history on his side since the last time the vice president route was followed was in 1836.
The word "really" is a bit of a trick. Hayes did follow Grant, but it is pretty well accepted that the election of 1876 was of questionable validity. Anyway, Tilden won the popular vote -- the need for electoral skullduggery (pretty fair word) underlines the "rule." The other exception was Teddy and Taft. Two provisos though -- first, TR did not serve two full terms. President McKinley was assassinated early on, but that is still one less election cycle. Also, Taft was in effect handpicked by TR, much to the latter's displeasure as events played out. The WW situation also had the President have a major role, but only in breaking a deadlock at the convention.
Things played more realistically, however, than the re-election of President Bartlett, which was a bit too much of a sweep. This election was razor thin with Vinick winning some "blue" states while Santos winning some "red" ones (his home state of Texas is understandable; South Carolina is a bit questionable, especially with a religious conservative sort on the other ticket). Things went down to Nevada (I received its quarter today -- I still did not get the 2005 CA one), also believable -- it's a purple state. Though the electoral vote validity was not really raised (though lawsuits were discussed -- neither candidate wanted them), it was quietly underlined that a state neither side paid attention to decided things. The popular vote count was not given, but yes, this is a bit troubling.
Real life also advanced another surprising plot line -- Leo died on Election Night. It is almost like it was planned ... seriously, there is something eerie about acting out hearing about a sudden death of a cast member who many really were close to.* It also raises various issues discussed on the show. Actually, the Constitution allows for the possibility. The only thing voted for are electors tied in some fashion to certain candidates. Certain state laws require them to vote for a certain candidate, which is constitutionally dubious, and especially open to flexibility when the candidate in some fashion cannot serve. One might argue that if Leo is chosen, the votes should not be counted, since in effect it is a null vote. The likely result would be no majority and the Senate would decide.
The 20A does deal with the death of a vice presidential candidate before the beginning of his/her term, but only in a limited context -- Congress can pass legislation to handle the situation when the matter is tossed the Senate's way if no majority is obtained in the Electoral College. If Congress accepted the count of Leo (the new Congress would be split, so disputed electoral counts would go the way of the states in question pursuant to the old law, but this time is simply a matter of qualified electors), which the text of the Constitution does not seem (at least technically) to disallow, Santos could appoint one via the 25A. Congress would then ratify ... this seems to most democratic way.
But, that does seem a bit crafty -- being alive seems to be an inherent "qualification" of the vice presidency (12A), so Leo would not be a valid choice when the electors vote. Thus, Leo is not someone who the Senate "may" choose from if there is no majority in the Electoral College. Anyway, unless (which is a possibility) there was some "faithless" electors (who did not vote for the candidate they were tied to though here maybe it was by design), there would not be a need to toss things to the Senate -- Leo would have 272 electoral votes. If necessary, the Senate picks from the top two legitimate vote getters. A null vote would not do the job -- the electors would have to vote for a legitimate candidate. So, Santos would ideally choose a vice president who he would suggest the electors pick.
The person would either get the necessary votes, or enough to be among the top two. In the latter case, the Senate decides (controlled by Republicans). But, the count is done by the Congress, so the Republican Senate cannot on its own determine it has to vote for a vice president; it does so pursuant to the official count. The not so happy v.p. does preside, but this should not affect things. I do foresee, especially as a dramatic possibility, that a handful of Leo electors choose not to vote for him. If more than two are faithless, there might be a lack of a majority. Then, what happens? The second legitimate vote getter might only have a small amount of votes. Or, would Leo be accepted, and the provision respecting the death of the candidate kick in? Could this somehow lead (if not by some other route) my feeling that somehow Vinick will become VP to come to pass? Perhaps, if he is also given some other meatier role as well?
Precedent? In 1872, the losing presidential candidate died before the electors voted. The electors voted for various people in a largely meaningless effort. It would seem that we can play a bit with technical rules here to reach a fair result, since ultimately it is a political question that surely would not be decided by the courts. Thus, the 25A route seems best with the electors voting for Leo given that is who the people voted for. After all, remember that the Articles of Confederation required universal acceptance for its amendment -- the Constitution only needed nine states to be ratified. There is some play in the joints, especially when technically yes a dead person can be elected.
Anyway, surprising ending, huh? And, I bet there is still more to come -- I did not see "scenes from next week," usually do not. But, this time, it may further the surprise. Time will tell.
---
* It brings to mind the death of the co-star of the silly early 1980s (pre-Back to the Future) time traveling show Voyagers! (the annoying kid grew up to be a history teacher). He died in a freak accident on another (comparably silly) adventure series and the show re-filmed using another actor. A few commented on the tastefulness of doing this.
The WW does not seem tasteless, but it is weird. The show is ending. It really was not necessary to kill the character off ... this is a television program after all. But, it turns out that it was felt that the originally planned ending would be too much for the viewers to take. And, I guess the show does have a certain fan base who would take things to heart in this fashion.