I think the VP should have to be of the losing party. People tell me thats stupid, what do you think?
2007-02-10 14:30:27 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The office of VP isn't that weeeeeeaaaak. And I would hope he has access to the Prez's ear.
2007-02-10 14:40:21 · update #1
This has in fact happened before in the history of the US. Thomas Jefferson was John Adams vice-president even though they were from different parties.
It didn't work so well in 1797 and I don't think it would work today. The role of the vice-president is to mainly help push the president's agenda and be ready to take over the duties of the president if necessary. If the two people were from different parties these duties would be extremely difficult as they would want to push different ideas.
There is some argument for having a broad array of ideas in the executive branch...but practically speaking this arrangement would not provide that. The president gets to appoint the entire cabinet and all of his advisors so the vice-presidents role would be easily marginalized.
In my opinion the best place for discourse in the government is in the legislative branch and with the legislatives advisory role over certain executive actions.
2007-02-10 14:38:13 · answer #1 · answered by knoebelspt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hope is never stupid. However that is not how are system works. Usually the VP has very little to do with policy. I know Cheney is wielding the axe now but look at Gore and Quail. What were they known for? To give the loser the VP is like giving a trophy for last place.
2007-02-10 22:35:36 · answer #2 · answered by apple juice 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
#1) Hilarious Avatar
#2) Nice progressive thinking, its interesting, refreshing and could possibly enhance our system of checks and balances.
Too often the public overlooks the Cabinet members and what their personal gains are. For all we really know, GW could just be a stooge puppet for more sinister cabinet members. Highly unlikely, but when was the last time we credited him with anything? LOL
On that note, I am dreaming up conspiracy theories.... time to go get a beer and some sunlight!!! Arrgggh!!! LOL
2007-02-10 22:38:11 · answer #3 · answered by Porterhouse 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
that's how it was in the olden days of the US...it's not that bad of an idea. the person with the next most votes was the VP. i'm afraid that with the electoral votes, that can't happen. the only reason it worked at the beginning of the US was because there were far, far less people.
2007-02-10 22:32:32 · answer #4 · answered by DeceptiConservative 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Used to be the man with the most votes was president, the man with the second most was vice-prez. That was back a few generations though.
2007-02-10 22:34:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The split of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential winner will never happen because of the electoral college votes. It will only happen if the individual votes of the people are counted.
2007-02-10 22:33:46 · answer #6 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I see it as a fantasy other than stupid.
Neither party would stand for it - as the voters are so divided on major issues anymore that if the minority held the vice-presidency they would never stop yelling for recounts until the next election and beyond.
2007-02-10 22:38:25 · answer #7 · answered by Akkita 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's not stupid, it just wouldn't work. They have two diffferent agendas. The VP has to support the President.
2007-02-10 22:33:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd love to see Bill Clinton as Pres and Diick Cheney as Vice Pres! Now THAT would be interesting!! :)
2007-02-10 22:34:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that would be encouraging whackos of the Vice President's party to knock off the President. And there are whackos in each party.
2007-02-10 22:32:56 · answer #10 · answered by Terri J 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋