We should vote for VP as well ?

Damocles said:
No, that is what created neato problems like the first impeachment and VPs having gun duels in NJ.
Click to expand...

Incorrect on both counts.

Andrew Johnson ran with Lincoln on the same ticket, replacing Hannibal Hamlin as a political ploy to secure Lincoln's re-election (i.e. look, he's from the other party, but we're at war and he's a hyperpatriot).

Hamilton (who was never VP) and Burr were dueling over the politicking for governor of NY in 1804 when Hamilton was shot in NJ. Furthermore, the election of 1800 was problematic because the P and VP were selected from the same pool of candidates (top 2), which is even worse than the top team that we do now.

Furthermore, the Twelveth Amendment stipulates that the candidates for P and VP will run in separate pools. Unfortuneately, we vote for a P/VP team and legally its valid (I guess...) because technically the Electors caste votes for both pools for the team members that win the given state. Personally, in the spirit of following the letter of the Amendment, I think there should be a popular vote for both pools.
 
Threedee said:
Incorrect on both counts.

Andrew Johnson ran with Lincoln on the same ticket, replacing Hannibal Hamlin as a political ploy to secure Lincoln's re-election (i.e. look, he's from the other party, but we're at war and he's a hyperpatriot).

Hamilton (who was never VP) and Burr were dueling over the politicking for governor of NY in 1804 when Hamilton was shot in NJ. Furthermore, the election of 1800 was problematic because the P and VP were selected from the same pool of candidates (top 2), which is even worse than the top team that we do now.

Furthermore, the Twelveth Amendment stipulates that the candidates for P and VP will run in separate pools. Unfortuneately, we vote for a P/VP team and legally its valid (I guess...) because technically the Electors caste votes for both pools for the team members that win the given state. Personally, in the spirit of following the letter of the Amendment, I think there should be a popular vote for both pools.
Click to expand...
It is legally valid because of an Amendment. You do realize that, don't you? We vote for electors who vote separately.
 
Threedee said:
Incorrect on both counts.

Andrew Johnson ran with Lincoln on the same ticket, replacing Hannibal Hamlin as a political ploy to secure Lincoln's re-election (i.e. look, he's from the other party, but we're at war and he's a hyperpatriot).

Hamilton (who was never VP) and Burr were dueling over the politicking for governor of NY in 1804 when Hamilton was shot in NJ. Furthermore, the election of 1800 was problematic because the P and VP were selected from the same pool of candidates (top 2), which is even worse than the top team that we do now.

Furthermore, the Twelveth Amendment stipulates that the candidates for P and VP will run in separate pools. Unfortuneately, we vote for a P/VP team and legally its valid (I guess...) because technically the Electors caste votes for both pools for the team members that win the given state. Personally, in the spirit of following the letter of the Amendment, I think there should be a popular vote for both pools.
Click to expand...
The duel came about because of the VP run. Hamilton was never VP because of the way they selected them at that time.
 
Damocles said:
The duel came about because of the VP run. Hamilton was never VP because of the way they selected them at that time.
Click to expand...

Hamilton was not born in the colonies, and therefore not legally able to run for president (since he immigrated before the US was created, he may have been able to challenge it, but we'll never know. He was so young that he may have planned to do so in the future).

The 1800 upset was merely strike two, and there was evidence to suggest that Hamilton was not actually responsibale for what went down on the floor of the House. Strike one was his interfering in Burr's grandfather's bid for a two-year US Senate seat from NY (2 years so as to begin the process of having the elections staggered). But when Hamilton got Burr to lose the governorship in 1804, it was the last straw, and Burr knew that his reputation was so tarnished (mostly his own doing), that his political career was over and he had nothing to live for.

The Twelveth Amendment does not call for what we do now, it calls for separate races for P and VP. Originally the Electors caste two votes in the same pool, and the top 2 emerged from it. Now they should be casting two votes, but in separate races, in which the votes are independent of one another. They, in fact, do just that, but we don't caste separate votes when we go to the polls. We caste one vote for two candidates.
 
I think we do it all wrong, we should have about 10 candidates and whomever gets the most votes is pres and whomever gets the second highest vote total is VP.
 
uscitizen said:
I think we do it all wrong, we should have about 10 candidates and whomever gets the most votes is pres and whomever gets the second highest vote total is VP.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming this is sarcasm, but in the event that it is not, that is how we originally elected the president from 1788-1803. Washington finished first in 1788 and 1792 with Adams finishing second. In 1796 it was Adams and Jefferson, and in 1800 it was Jefferson and Burr. Because Adams and Jefferson were of opposite parties it was ackward, and because the 1800 election was so close that the Federalists got to decide who was elected president from the opposing party, the Twelveth Amendment was passed.
 
Threedee said:
I'm assuming this is sarcasm, but in the event that it is not, that is how we originally elected the president from 1788-1803. Washington finished first in 1788 and 1792 with Adams finishing second. In 1796 it was Adams and Jefferson, and in 1800 it was Jefferson and Burr. Because Adams and Jefferson were of opposite parties it was ackward, and because the 1800 election was so close that the Federalists got to decide who was elected president from the opposing party, the Twelveth Amendment was passed.
Click to expand...


And we still cannot reliably count votes. We have not progressed very far.

and no I am not kidding, that is what I would like to see. Opposite parties be damned. If they are not adult enough and focused enough on the USA to get along they should be shot and we can get someone else.
 
Threedee said:
Hamilton was not born in the colonies, and therefore not legally able to run for president (since he immigrated before the US was created, he may have been able to challenge it, but we'll never know. He was so young that he may have planned to do so in the future).

The 1800 upset was merely strike two, and there was evidence to suggest that Hamilton was not actually responsibale for what went down on the floor of the House. Strike one was his interfering in Burr's grandfather's bid for a two-year US Senate seat from NY (2 years so as to begin the process of having the elections staggered). But when Hamilton got Burr to lose the governorship in 1804, it was the last straw, and Burr knew that his reputation was so tarnished (mostly his own doing), that his political career was over and he had nothing to live for.

The Twelveth Amendment does not call for what we do now, it calls for separate races for P and VP. Originally the Electors caste two votes in the same pool, and the top 2 emerged from it. Now they should be casting two votes, but in separate races, in which the votes are independent of one another. They, in fact, do just that, but we don't caste separate votes when we go to the polls. We caste one vote for two candidates.
Click to expand...
Again, the 12th Amendment does not speak to how the states should run their election, it speaks to how electors would vote.
 
Damo, so if a state used my scheme and presents say a republican presidential candidate and a dem VP candidate as having won what would the erectorial kollege do ?
 
uscitizen said:
Damo, so if a state used my scheme and presents say a republican presidential candidate and a dem VP candidate as having won what would the erectorial kollege do ?
Click to expand...
The electors would have to vote for the VP that won.

The problem is in getting the states to do this. The parties trend toward the conservative in allowing such changes.

Personally I'd like it as well. There'd be primaries for all four, there'd be three times the cash in politics. Five times the 527s...

Well, maybe not.
 
Damocles said:
The electors would have to vote for the VP that won.

The problem is in getting the states to do this. The parties trend toward the conservative in allowing such changes.

Personally I'd like it as well. There'd be primaries for all four, there'd be three times the cash in politics. Five times the 527s...

Well, maybe not.
Click to expand...

I would like to see all who really want to be president have a shot at it. I would not care if there was 40 on my ballot.
 
Threedee said:
I'm assuming this is sarcasm, but in the event that it is not, that is how we originally elected the president from 1788-1803. Washington finished first in 1788 and 1792 with Adams finishing second. In 1796 it was Adams and Jefferson, and in 1800 it was Jefferson and Burr. Because Adams and Jefferson were of opposite parties it was ackward, and because the 1800 election was so close that the Federalists got to decide who was elected president from the opposing party, the Twelveth Amendment was passed.
Click to expand...

No it was not Three. People had two votes and cast it for two people, and the second was to become president. Which means the same majority chose the two candidates. If we had one vote and the top two were selected, then it would be much different.

However, it's stupid to put the opposition in the line of succession. The VP does nothing but wait for the president to die. If the VP had some other role and someone else was in the line of succession, a system where second person got the position would work. However, what the hell is the VP supposed to do? I think that it's best now, with the pres and vice pres working on the same ticket.
 
uscitizen said:
And we still cannot reliably count votes. We have not progressed very far.

and no I am not kidding, that is what I would like to see. Opposite parties be damned. If they are not adult enough and focused enough on the USA to get along they should be shot and we can get someone else.
Click to expand...

US, you can throw a bunch of stupid independent platitudes if you like, but it doesn't make them any more true. Why should the majority have to negotiate with the minority? American government is bad government because nothing gets done because everyone has their own agenda and there aren't any strong parties. We should make the party system stronger, not weaker.
 
uscitizen said:
Damo, so if a state used my scheme and presents say a republican presidential candidate and a dem VP candidate as having won what would the erectorial kollege do ?
Click to expand...

Great. People would be voting for the president with the best smile, AND the vice president with the best smile. Twice the smiles, half the substance, and nothing gets done because of US's independent platitudes. Bipartisanship sucks. It produces the worst legislation imaginable.
 
Watermark said:
US, you can throw a bunch of stupid independent platitudes if you like, but it doesn't make them any more true. Why should the majority have to negotiate with the minority? American government is bad government because nothing gets done because everyone has their own agenda and there aren't any strong parties. We should make the party system stronger, not weaker.
Click to expand...

Ohh so make what is causing the problem stronger ?

Yeah right.

I am for banning political parties as an organization that can channel money.
 
uscitizen said:
Ohh so make what is causing the problem stronger ?

Yeah right.

I am for banning political parties as an organization that can channel money.
Click to expand...

You know what is causing the problem? Independents who demand on voting for the guy with the best smile, instead of the party with the best issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top