During a war can the US have an election of their presidency

1. Constitutional schedule and historical practice

The U.S. Constitution and long-standing practice fix presidential elections on a four‑year cycle that has not been suspended for war, and historians observe that American presidents and challengers have competed for office while the nation was at war — examples cited include James Madison (War of 1812), Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt ^{[1] [2] [3] [5]}; contemporary summaries of civic practice likewise note that presidential elections have continued even amid major conflicts ^[6].

2. Precedents: logistics and political choices in wartime ballots

The logistical and political challenges of voting during conflict have been addressed on past occasions rather than used to cancel elections: during the Civil War, states and officials debated and implemented procedures to let soldiers cast ballots, and in 1864 the election went forward despite concerns that it might be delayed ^{[7] [2]}; in World War II the 1944 election proceeded while large-scale global combat continued, producing a contested national vote and a transfer of leadership responsibilities when President Roosevelt died months into his new term ^{[3] [5]}.

3. Why postponement has not been the American default

Observers and scholars emphasize that U.S. conflicts historically “did not take place on U.S. soil in a way that disrupted the electoral process,” a condition that made holding scheduled elections feasible and politically acceptable in past wars, and political actors have typically preferred to preserve constitutional rhythms and the legitimacy they confer ^{[8] [9]}. That preference is reinforced by the political calculus cited in academic work showing wartime electorates often weigh competence in war leadership heavily when voting, producing incentives both to hold elections and to campaign on national security grounds ^{[10] [9]}.

4. International contrasts and legitimacy concerns

Democracies confronted by existential or territory‑wide battles have sometimes postponed elections — the United Kingdom postponed a general election in World War II, and Israel has delayed votes during wartime hostilities — illustrating that postponement is a viable but exceptional choice that many democracies take when meaningful participation or security cannot be assured ^[8]. Scholars warn that elections held under severe disruption can suffer legitimacy problems, and international commentators urge that meaningful participation, competition and security are prerequisites for a genuinely democratic vote ^[8].

5. Practical caveats and unresolved questions

Past U.S. wartime elections took place under widely varying conditions and often relied on state-administered voting rules, acceptance by political elites, and ad hoc accommodations for soldiers; contemporary legal and logistical details for any future wartime election would depend on the nature of the conflict, whether voting infrastructure on U.S. soil were intact, and how states and Congress chose to respond — factors that the reviewed sources document historically but do not model for every possible future scenario ^{[7] [8] [2]}.

6. Bottom line: constitution, precedent, and political choice

Constitutional timing, historical precedent and political practice all support the conclusion that the United States can hold a presidential election during wartime, but whether it should or how well that election would function depends on the specific threats to security and civic participation; other democracies have postponed votes under extreme conditions, so postponement remains an extraordinary alternative rather than the American default ^{[4] [3] [8]}.