Okay.. no more "picking your own vice president"

[SoCalDem]

Hear me out..

Everyone runs for president....

Top two vote-getters win the spots..It GUARANTEES bi-partisanship and sets up a viable option if the president needs to "go".. Right now, if he gets impeached, his handpicked henchman gets the top job ..instead of the person who would have won, had he not gotten the job..

This also would allow for some real compromise since the vp is pres of the senate.. If he were from a different party, the president would have to treat him well or he migth not vote the way he wanted him to, in case of a tie..

This is the way it started out , and it's time to go back to basics..

[Burried News]

1. Oh is this an idea I would like to see catch on. Great topic. nt

[peacebird]

2. but if a dem wins top spot be sure to have a professional food taster

on the white house staff....

[bmcatt]

3. Hand-counted paper ballots first?

And maybe even instant run-offs for those situations which require a clear majority?

I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but, pragmatically, in the current environment, it's entirely untenable.

[SoCalDem]

4. Paper ballots would be my choice too

:)

[Freedom_Aflaim]

5. Why was it changed?

As you mention, this was the way it started out and then many years ago the process was modified to what it is now.

That makes me wonder what problem they were trying to solve way back then?

Depending on what that problem was, it may or may not be relevant today.

[SoCalDem]

7. beacuse when parties formed, it practically guaranteed

pres & vp of different parties..

pres didn;t want #2 guy looking over his shoulder..and vp probably got tired of being lied to :)

[MrMonk]

9. Adams & Jefferson; Jefferson & Burr

Before 1804, the Constitution provided that the electors would vote for two candidates and that the candidate having the most votes would become President and the one with the next most votes would become Vice-President. In 1796, Adams was elected President and Jefferson was elected Vice-President. But Adams and Jefferson had opposing views on the role of government and the type of government that the United States should be. Jefferson essentially stepped out of the government, but influenced his adherents to impede and slander Adams, seriously impeding Adams' ability to govern. It didn't help any that Adams was getting the same treatment from the other direction under Hamilton's leadership. So one danger of the original system was exposed.

The election of 1800 exposed another problem with the original system. Jefferson and Burr, members of the same party, each received exactly the same number of votes. Burr had previously agreed to take the VP slot, but he reneged, and repeated rounds of voting resulted in deadlocks. Finally, one little Congressman changed his vote to Jefferson for reasons that will probably never been known. The deadlock, which could have caused a real Constitutional crisis, was probably the reason that the 12th amendment was passed.

The 12th amendment, ratified in 1804, provided that each elector vote separately for President and Vice-President. The person with the most votes in his respective column takes the office. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents an elector for casting his vote for a Presidential candidate as Vice-President or vice-versa. The combination of President and Vice-President in a single ticket is an artifact of party politics.

On edit: I started writing this before response #8 was posted. Honest.

[Laelth]

8. It was a mess.

We reached our first Constitutional crisis in the election of 1800, Jefferson vs. Adams vs. Burr vs. Pinkney. Each elector got 2 votes for president. Top vote-getter was supposed to be Pres. 2nd top vote-getter was supposed to be VP. The federalists cast all their votes for Adams and Pinkney. They lost. But all the Republicans (now called Democrats) cast their votes for Jefferson and Burr. It was a tie, and the electors had to re-ballot a bunch of times before a deal was struck and Jefferson was allowed to be Pres.

So, what the OP is proposing is not the system we originally started with. Besides which, I don't relish the idea that it would be advantageous to anyone to assassinate the President.

-Laelth

Edit:Laelth--sloppy editing.

[SoCalDem]

11. Nor am I, but it would at least allow for cooperation

It might have to rely on popular vote instead of EC, which needs to go anyway, but it would certainly make votes aware that their votes were important..

Right now, with a winner take all, lots of people don;t bother to vote because they are vastly outnumbered

and whethere we know it or not, we kind of HAVE a bit of a constitutional crisis.. The guy at 1600 PA is x-ing out all kjnds of stuff from it...that he does not like :(

[FrenchieCat]

6. I don't like it....

As the media picks the winners because they determine who they will talk about and how they will talk about them....

and "Buzz" is oftentime decided by which candidates are raising the most money (and doesn't have to be money from small donors).

The more a candidate's name is heard via free media publicity (determined by the media) the more likely they will poll well, which will mean that they will be discussed that much more and earn more buzz.

No thanks!

The way now isn't good....but what is being suggested here really isn't much better.

Without meaningful media reforms, campaign contribution reforms, and election reforms.......this will only seem like the solution that it's not.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

10. in cheney's case - "no more picking yourself as vice president"

[SoCalDem]

13. yes..concentrate on picking birdshot out of your pals' faces

:)

[InvisibleTouch]

12. If the top two were of different parties...

...they'd spend all their time trying to scuttle each other. I doubt it would work out very well. No offense, just my take on it.

Now as for having the nominee pick their own VP candidate, that could be argued about. Maybe the top two vote-getters of each party should be on the ballot for their respective parties, which gives the voters more of a say.