Should the president and vice-president come in pairs - separate tickets?

Question

I mean should we be able to vote on who the vice-president will be just as we vote on the president and not let the president get to pick the vp?

After all, that person is second in line to the presidency and we have had the vp take over more than once in our country's history.

Think about it... this might help us come together more. We could end up with a demo pres and repub vp... or vice versa.

Answer 1

I think this happened in the first presidential elections?
One problem with this idea would be a lack of continuity. Say a republican president dies and on the same day a democrat takes over with extremely different views on foreign policy, the military, homeland security, and social structure within the country (sometimes the difference is not that great, but it could be) - it would really go for a radical break from what people voted for in a president. I realize they would have voted for the VP too, but it wouldn't normally have been with the thought in mind that he was likely to become president.
Then another problem: Could it encourage political extremists to assassinate a president in order to further their own political agenda? Right now it would not be worth it. For instance, who would want to assassinate Bush, and have Cheney for president? Not likely.

Answer 2

Lord, No!!!!!!!!!!
What if Bill Clinton had a VP that was a Republican?
The VP probably would have came to a bad end like a whole bunch of people from Little Rock did.
Another Vince Foster?
It's better to allow the President to pick his own VP.

Answer 3

I guess I have to go conservative with you on this one. I think the vice president has got to be in agreement with the president and it, again, has worked so far. To set up a conflict of interest in a vote might not be a good Idea and besides I don't like to change the constitution just to suit political needs.

Answer 4

i believe that the president should pick the VP, because things have to run smoothly in the executive branch, and if the top two are fighting all of the time, it will not be goo. Just look at John Adams' presidency.

Answer 5

Hillary and Bill- I have no problem with this choice what so ever. They didn't always succeed but by golly times were good and the budget was balanced-instead of owing 11.5 trillion today (1/2 individual income taxes just to service the interest) it was 5.5 trillion-virtually all owing to previous Republican administrations. Nobody sees this or even cares- pathetic! Jesse sees things the way they are- bill maher is a too cynical. Sorry.

Answer 6

It was orginally the loser of the presidential election who became vice president to better represent people but it was changed because if majority wanted X policy then it should not change to Y policy just because Vice takes over.

Answer 7

No, that would never work, and besides I think it would just be a better and more workable political system if the VP wasn't just a clone of the Pres. to consolidate one party's power over the other but differed from the Pres. from time to time to balance out possibly widespread agreement with any Pres. by either of both houses of Congress and/or the American public.


Hey, please answer this question for me, along with your continued reporting of KKK guy to get him outta here pronto!
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArFjC8AZqVvXphunhz.7jlLsy6IX?qid=20061203122809AAyYWQ3

Answer 8

They used to.

But sometimes the Pres and the VP were from different parties---and disliked eachother.

Not good.

Answer 9

Not a good Ideal A white house has to operate with a single vision.

Answer 10

VP is already a mostly useless position, basically another public official living on welfare. Why complicate it further?