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?

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"RichD" wrote in message news:55ca1113-bef5-427a-83b0-565a9e42dd13n@googlegroups.com...

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?

--
Rich

The Constitution DOES specify separate elections of President and Vice President.

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an
inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their
ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the
person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of
all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate."

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.

You are right that the Constitution does not specify per se that the
President is the VP's "boss". The President does have Constitutional
authority to be the chief executive of the executive branch, and you are correct that the VP's only constitutional duties are to serve as president
of the senate, casting tie-breaker votes where needed, and to assume the presidency if the President dies or otherwise leaves office or is disabled.
But over the years, an unofficial system has been established where the President can give assignments and responsibilities to the VP and most VPs accept such responsibilities without complaint. But constitutionally,
nothing forces any VP to do what the President requests and there are no repercussions short of impeachment for a VP who refuses to do what the president requests. The VP is one member of the executive branch whom the present cannot fire.

And no, you are not the first to bring these issues up. They have been
debated for decades.
--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to Rick <rick@nospam.com>:

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.

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 and who
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.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"John Levine" wrote in message news:sejlac$pj$1@gal.iecc.com...

According to Rick <rick@nospam.com>:

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.

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
and who
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.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:sek0o6$159v$1@gioia.aioe.org:

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.

I agree. How many people who who ran for VP but didn't win do you
remember? How many who ran but did run do you remember? Still not
many.

Originally (as I recall) the Constitution declared that the loser for
President would be VP. They saw pretty quickly that didn't work very
well.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)