Looking at the ballot for federal offices, anything
jump out at you?
For CEO and relief pitcher, one must vote for a pair,
a 'ticket', both of the same party. Where does the
Constitution specify that? Are they not separate offices,
should the voters not have the option to vote each independently?
Also, nothing in the Constitution that the chief is
the Veep's boss, that he 'reports' to the chief, or is
'tapped' by the party candidate, or inspects the
troops, who have no obligation to pay him any heed.
In fact, he has no authority, except for Senate tie
breaking. His job is merely to sit by the phone, waiting
for the Big Call.
Am I the first to ever question this arrangement? Has this
ever been challenged?
What is apparently confusing you is that you when you vote for Electors for >President and Vice President, you only vote for one slate of Electors. The >Constitution leaves it up to the states to determine how the Electors are >chosen, but all states currently do so through a popular vote.
According to Rick <email@example.com>:
What is apparently confusing you is that you when you vote for Electors
President and Vice President, you only vote for one slate of Electors.
Constitution leaves it up to the states to determine how the Electors are >>chosen, but all states currently do so through a popular vote.
I think the question was why that's one slate of electors rather than two, >one for each office.
Well, that's what the 12th Amendment says. I don't ever recall it being an >issue.
Ever since the fiasco of 1800 it's been clear who's running for president
for VP, even if the electors screwed it up that time.
If for some reason there were a groundswell of support for the presidential >candidate
from party A and the VP from party B, there's no constitutional bar to >offering
a slate of electors who promise to vote that way, but the logistics of >getting
them onto state ballots would be daunting.
Well that's similar to what happened in the election of 1864 when
the Republican Lincoln and the Democrat Johnson came together from
different parties under the National Union label. Electing two
sets of electors seems cumbersome and somewhat unnecessary. The
idea is you vote for a slate of electors who will make the
decision on the two offices. Clearly the President is the main
issue, so the way it has evolved is the candidate for president
chooses who he/she wants as VP and the one set of electors votes
for them as a team. In the real world, I think if there were a
groundswell of support for a particular VP candidate, the
presidential candidates would give that person lots of
consideration. Colin Powell is one example of someone who would
have appealed to both parties but he declined to run. Joe
Lieberman is another one who had run for VP as a democrat but was
considered by Republican McCain as a VP choice. In most cases,
though, I don't think the public as a whole gives a lot of thought
to who the VP should be. The usual default is to leave that
choice to whoever you favor as president.
|Location:||Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK|
|Nodes:||16 (0 / 16)|