English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

they shall be elected "together" --
Couldn't this mean "at the same time", instead of "as a team".
Furthermore it continues to say that in every case, after the president is elected, the person with the largest number of electors will be name vice president. Hmm.

Thanks for your help.

2006-07-26 22:55:56 · 7 answers · asked by ive read the constitution 1 in Politics & Government Government

7 answers

You ask a very interesting question. The original Constitution required Electors to cast two ballots from president. Whoever got the most votes was elected president, and the second most votes, the vice president.

In the aftermath of the disasterous election of 1800, Congress passed, and the states adopted Amendment 12. This amendment requires electors to cast separate ballots for president and vice president. Thus, even to this day, we actually have two elections, one for the president and one for the vice president. As a result, it is technically possible that the electors could choose a Democrat for President and a Republican for Vice President.

But given that the members of the Electoral College are now very carefully handpicked by the political parties, it is highly unlikely that the electors would choose someone from the other party for one of the offices. It is nevertheless legally possible, but politically, highly unlikely.

2006-07-27 00:06:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

The 12th amendment changed all that. The original idea in the Consitution did not anticipate the formation of political parties.


From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Election

"Under the original terms of the Constitution, the members of the U.S. Electoral College voted only for office of President rather than for both President and Vice President. The person receiving the greatest number of votes (provided that such a number was a majority of electors) would be President, while the individual who was in second place became Vice President. If no one received a majority of votes, then the U.S. House of Representatives would choose between the four highest vote-getters, with each state getting one vote. In such a case, the person who received the highest number of votes but was not chosen President would become Vice President. If there was ever a tie for second, then the U.S. Senate would choose the Vice President.

Aaron Burr, 3rd Vice President (1801-1805)The original plan, however, did not forsee the development of political parties. In the election of 1796, for instance, Federalist John Adams came in first, and Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson came second. Thus, the President and Vice President were from different parties. An even greater problem occurred in the election of 1800, when Democratic-Republicans Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied the vote. While it was intended that Jefferson was the Presidential contender and Burr was the Vice Presidential one, the electors did not and could not differentiate between the two under the system of the time. After 35 unsuccessful votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, Thomas Jefferson finally won on the 36th ballot and Burr became Vice President.

John Tyler, the first to assume the Presidency following the death of the PresidentThe tumultuous affair led to the adoption of Amendment XII in 1804, which directed the electors to use separate ballots to vote for the President and Vice President."

2006-07-26 23:02:36 · answer #2 · answered by SirCharles 6 · 0 0

The constitution merely provides the framework but the election rules allow the parties for a president with a vice president to be voted for so that the vice president could elicit votes for the president.

2006-07-26 23:00:10 · answer #3 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0 0

that's what they mean fool: a individual of profound psychological retardation having a psychological age under 3 years and in many cases being no longer able to benefit related speech or look after against person-friendly negative aspects. The term belongs to a class device no longer in use and is now considered offensive. words do no longer basically have one deffinition

2016-11-03 02:33:15 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

They changed it because they did not work together the other way. every time the president was out of the loop the VP would be trying to change stuff.

2006-07-26 23:00:13 · answer #5 · answered by MP US Army 7 · 0 0

You should read a constitution for the people, of the people, and by the people.


http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/intro.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0706-32.htm

2006-07-26 23:14:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

they should work as a team because of the welfare of the country

2006-07-26 23:00:50 · answer #7 · answered by ekam 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers