What would happen if we had a separate Vice-Presidential Election?

Question

I just thought about how would elections be if the VP was elected in a separate election instead of having a joint ticket and be VP if the Pres. candidate wins. I also thought how this could help future Pres. candidates by making them face the voters and have experience. I'd like to hear any answer!

Answer 1

It would put on a different spin on things. What I figure is that under the current system, the Presidential candidate attempts to pick a running mate that compliments their views. Perhaps by bring something to the table that might be lacking in their individual perception or by adding something to the ticket that the public appears to be drawn to.

If the Vice-President ran on their own ticket, would the individual parties be incline to pick someone that would be at odds with the President? I don't foresee that occurring. It might cause the public to vote for someone that might be strong enough in their own right and could potentially create conflict in the White House arena.

Honestly don't see how that would be in the best interest of the U.S.A. As an individual country that has established itself as a certain status level (be that a good thing or not) a united front in the face of it's potential enemy's is essential.

If there is inherent power struggles for all to see, that wouldn't bode well and I for one would not want war to come to the U.S.A. so readily, because others think we are weak.

Answer 2

Before the 12th Amendment in 1804, the President and Vice-President were not elected as a ticket. Whoever got most votes was President ... second-place was Vice-President. This had the interesting side effect that the President and Vice-President would both be from opposite parties.

Ironically, the 12th Amendment changed the election precisely to have separate votes for the President and Vice President (rather than just one for President, with second-place getting the Vice-Presidency as it was in the original Constitution). However, these as these separate votes are in the electoral college, the net effect to the voting public is that they candidates run together as a ticket.

In other words, when you vote for President, you are not really voting for President, but for a delegate who pledges to vote for that candidate in the electoral college. Since 1804, parties put joint-tickets up so that the delegates for a party pledge to vote for a certain President+Vice-President combination.

Answer 3

It used to be this way a long time ago.

I think, practically speaking, it needs to be this way in order to have an effective president. Let's say the president is a Democrat and the VP is a Republican. It would be likely that the Republicans wouldn't respect the authority of the Democrat president as much under those circumstances. Also, in our current environment it would lead to much more abuse of the impeachment process if the Congress and the President are of different parties and the VP is of the same party as the VP.

Answer 4

Lord, No!!!!!!!!!! What if bill Clinton had a vice chairman that change right into a Republican? The vice chairman in all likelihood might want to have got here to a foul end like a lot of folk from Little Rock did. yet another Vince Foster? this is extra effective to allow the President to %. his own vice chairman.

Answer 5

Actually in the early days of the republic there were separate elections for both president and vice president. Didn't work very well. The President and VIce president had little to no incentive to cooperate.

Answer 6

then u may cause a fight in the white house because they might have different views about every thing

Answer 7

its just a waste of taxpayers money with the same results