Jump to content

Should we change how we elect a VP?

formerkywrestler
 Share

Recommended Posts

Getslow

Getslow

Posted
Posted

Interesting concept.

 

But as the author says, even the guy who is arguably the best legal mind in Washington doesn't really have a good replacement in mind.

 

There is something inherently un-democratic about having the person a heartbeat away from the presidency be an official that no one really elected.

 

Maybe the easier thing to do would simply be to switch around the order of presidential succession so that elected officials come first. Even if the Speaker of the House was only elected by a single Congressional district, at least he was also voted into that position by the majority of the congressmen from his or her party. Might make the way parties choose Speakers of the House work a little differently as well.

 

Then perhaps President Pro-Tempore of the Senate comes next and only then the VP.

 

Or maybe that still just leaves us with the Gerald Ford problem, in which we have a President that only a tiny fraction of Americans actually got to vote for.

 

It's tough.

Voice of Reason

Voice of Reason

Posted
Posted

We do elect the VP ... he/she is part of the package when you vote for president. For those who think the VP is not considered when voting, I absolutely disagree - e.g. Sarah Palin. No way I want another separate election for just VP. We waste way too much time and money on elections already. That would just be another waste.

LIPTON BASH

LIPTON BASH

Posted
Posted
We do elect the VP ... he/she is part of the package when you vote for president. For those who think the VP is not considered when voting, I absolutely disagree - e.g. Sarah Palin. No way I want another separate election for just VP. We waste way too much time and money on elections already. That would just be another waste.

 

I always hate this statement "we waste to much time and money" on elections . I would easily argue that the elections in the country that leads the free world are literally the most important events in the world when they happen. For that very reason I think it only makes sense so much time and money is spent.

Bluegrasscard

Bluegrasscard

Posted
Posted (edited)

Is everyone forgetting the past or choosing to ignore it...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

The 1800 election exposed a defect in the original formula in that if each member of the Electoral College followed party tickets, there would be a tie between the two candidates from the most popular ticket. The emergence of partisan political activity caused the failure of the original constitutional plan.
Edited by Bluegrasscard
Added link on reason for question.
CincySportsFan

CincySportsFan

Posted
Posted

I have no problem changing it. I could see valid points for either a.) the runner-up in the primary, becomes the party's VP candidate, or b.) have each candidate announce their ticket prior to the primary, so that you actually know what tandem you'd be putting on the ballot in the fall.

 

There's also two other changes that I'd go ahead and make as well. One is the electoral college. It'd be gone. We hear all the time about one person, one vote...and yet for the top office in the country, we elect to bypass this philosophy. There should be no more key "swing" states. A voter is a voter, regardless of where they reside. After all, we're all Americans, aren't we?

 

The other change that I'd make, is to make the primaries all at the same time in the spring, the way the general election is in the fall. Again, there is no reason why voters in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina or anywhere else, should be able to have more impact on who I can vote for, here in Kentucky. It's for a national office, so the states should play by national rules, not their own.

Voice of Reason

Voice of Reason

Posted
Posted
I always hate this statement "we waste to much time and money" on elections . I would easily argue that the elections in the country that leads the free world are literally the most important events in the world when they happen. For that very reason I think it only makes sense so much time and money is spent.

 

It is more about the money than the time. The last election finance reform was one of the worst things Congress has done.

BigVMan23

BigVMan23

Posted
Posted
I have no problem changing it. I could see valid points for either a.) the runner-up in the primary, becomes the party's VP candidate, or b.) have each candidate announce their ticket prior to the primary, so that you actually know what tandem you'd be putting on the ballot in the fall.

 

There's also two other changes that I'd go ahead and make as well. One is the electoral college. It'd be gone. We hear all the time about one person, one vote...and yet for the top office in the country, we elect to bypass this philosophy. There should be no more key "swing" states. A voter is a voter, regardless of where they reside. After all, we're all Americans, aren't we?

 

The other change that I'd make, is to make the primaries all at the same time in the spring, the way the general election is in the fall. Again, there is no reason why voters in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina or anywhere else, should be able to have more impact on who I can vote for, here in Kentucky. It's for a national office, so the states should play by national rules, not their own.

 

As to the bolded...I LOVE this idea and think it's definitely how it should be done.

 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.

  I accept