MovieChat Forums > Designated Survivor (2016) Discussion > Question about the designated survivor a...

Question about the designated survivor appointment

posted 8 years ago by slackersmom
17 replies | jump to latest

I haven't read all five pages of threads, but what I don't know-- and what I don't see explained anywhere-- is WHO APPOINTS the designated survivor? I haven't read anything about who makes that decision.

Is it the President himself/herself who names the person? The Secret Service? Do they put names in a hat?

One thing I did learn from trying to find out this info is, that usually the Survivor knows he/she has been selected for it ahead of time, and is sworn to secrecy about it. On the show, however, Kirkman didn't find out until just a few hours before the speech, which is pretty much the last minute.

Hmm, that makes me wonder.... what if someone else was originally supposed to be the Survivor, but for some reason, that didn't work out, and Kirkman was a last-minute replacement? That could cause some nice plot twists, if someone else was supposed to be 'protected'... someone who might have, say, conspired with some bad guys, maybe....? 

[–] wheelin176 8 years ago

The president chooses the designated survivor.

[–] DoodleWhit 8 years ago

Don't know who chooses but on the West Wing, the time they did it, the Deputy COS chose someone and told the COS just a day or two before the State of the Union.

[–] slackersmom 8 years ago

Did they mention that on the show? Because nothing I've read, anywhere, mentions who appoints the DS in real life.

[–] wheelin176 8 years ago

Oops the president's chief of staff.

http://www.austin360.com/news/news/national/designated-survivor-real-thing-sure/nscr7/

[–] slackersmom 8 years ago

Okay, thanks. Funny that none of the other things I read about it (even on Wikipedia) mention that fact. And even the article you linked only says 'generally' named by CHief of Staff.

Anyway.... in the show, the Chief of Staff was the guy who 'fired' Kirkman, right? And of course, we suppose that he's dead as well. (notice I said suppose... lol) Makes you wonder though, why, if he just told the guy his career is pretty much over, he named him as designated survivor. It's not like it's an insult or punishment, and being in the audience for the SotU speech wouldn't have changed anything.

[–] maryrosenkranz 8 years ago

He seemed to get the call that morning in the kitchen. I don't recall him saying who was on the other line. This could be where the conspiracy sets in. It could have been whomever is behind the attack.

[–] slackersmom 8 years ago

No, he got the call that evening, when he was in the kitchen after talking to his wife about being fired. So it was likely just a few hours before the speech/explosion.

[–] rosenkranz_4 8 years ago

Yea, you are right. But it's still the point that he received the call last minute, which does not happen.

[–] slackersmom 8 years ago

Exactly. Again, I don't know if that's going to turn out to be significant or not (it might not), but you never know.

[–] MagusTruthseeker 8 years ago

Although Kirkman was informed that morning he was being relieved, he did say that he would let the CoS and the President know his decision about how to move forward after the speech. Also, the administration had not yet officially announced Kirkman being replaced. So yes, it was more or less done since Kirkman knew it was coming, but since everyone was waiting fore the speech to be over to make any difinitive moves, Kirkman was still eligible to be the DS.

As for him being appointed DS, since the position is considered mostly a technical one, and Kirkman was on the way out anyway, why not drop it on the guy that no longer has any reason whatsoever to actually attend the speech. His attending just makes things awkward. So make him the DS to get him out of everyone's hair. It's not like the DS is ever actually going to be needed - right? For the record, the HUD Secretary has indeed been the DS before.

Sticking him in a room by himself (more or less)and away from the inner circle gives the administration a chance to distance themselves and him a chance to consider his response to being dismissed. It actually makes sense.

[–] amastantuoni 8 years ago

What I can't figure out is why in the show AND real life someone so low on the presidential chain of succession would be selected designated survivor. I would think you would designate someone higher in the chain like Secretary of State or Defense because of the obvious national security implications or even Treasury because of the need to keep the U.S. economy stabilized.

The only reason for not selecting someone in the chain of succession would be if that person was not eligible to be President. For example, Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright were not born in America and would have been passed over if succession ever got to them.

What will be interesting is if the show sets up a succession conflict because select party leaders in the Senate and House were selected "designated survivors". It did happen in 2005 and 2006 that non-succession representatives were selected as additional designated survivors.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MagusTruthseeker 8 years ago

You do realize that the HUD Secretary has actually been the Designated Survivor before, right? Within the context of the show, it makes even more sense to make Kirkman thhe Designated Survivor. The next day he was going to be relieved and assigned an ambassador. Of all the people that could be named, he had the least to gain from "face time" at the SotU. Sticking him in a closet to reinforce the fact that he has been kicked from the iner circle makes a pretty definitive statement.

After all, it wasn't like anyone believed for a second that the DS was actually going to become President, if they had suspected it, even remotely, the security would have been much different and a different DS would have been appointed, if the SotU Address happened that night at all (as opposed to being rescheduled for security reasons).

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MagusTruthseeker 8 years ago

Yeah, thread reply fail on my part. I meant to reply to the one above you on my thread.

[–] Conundrum-NSA 8 years ago

I think the show mentioned Kirkman was chosen BECAUSE he was fired. Having him present at the SotU would be awkward,

Welcome to the internet, everyone knows everything, and no one likes anything

[–] Jodyb22 8 years ago

I remember this from The West Wing. In that episode, I believe Leo McGary (chief of Staff). made the recommendation to President Bartlett and he approved the final choice. As I recall, it was said in that episode that it's typically so one lower on the totem pole because their presence is not needed nor really missed at the State of the Union address.