I remember reading that when this country was first founded, in Presidential Elections, whoever came in first was President and whoever came in second was VP. Does anybody else remember something like this? Would that work today?
2007-05-12 14:20:53 · 10 answers · asked by whisper2roar 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
That wouldn't work today. Imagine the security they would have to have. (They have an incredible amount now) If they were opposing parties serving in the white house together, what would stop them from making sure one of them took a dirt nap so the other person could step up to be the front runner. There is too much corruption in the world for that.
2007-05-18 08:03:07 · answer #1 · answered by Penny K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was that way when the country was founded and they were able to figure out that this system does not work. You have to opposing forces trying to impose their will which always leads to gridlock. In a Utopian society where the good of the country as a whole were the deciding force it could work, but in the real world people do not behave that way. I am just amazed that I heard Sam Waterston advocating that very idea on a news talk show not to long ago. Oh well, "those who do not remember their past are doomed to repeat it."
2007-05-12 17:13:19 · answer #2 · answered by rick b 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That was how it originally was. But the 12th amendment changed to a 'ticket' system where the Pres and VP are each running for the respective office and running as a team.
The reason for the change was for smoother operation of government. Having the number 2 vote getter become the VP guarantees that the Pres and VP are going to be political rivals who will work against each other, not with each other.
2007-05-12 14:33:00 · answer #3 · answered by jehen 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
These days, if a liberal or a conservative wing of the party is elected, a moderate has to be the VP on the ticket.
For example, if Guiliani and McCain are 1 and 2, the Conservative faction will turn to another party (American Fascist Party?LOL) to give their vote.
2007-05-12 14:28:12 · answer #4 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This Obama supporter thinks that reading suggestions makes you clever. i've got have been given by potential of no ability heard of absolutely everyone who thinks that reading a candidate is racist. for specific, you the two got here across an extremely stupid Obama supporter (which will possibly be an anomaly) or you misunderstood something that somebody pronounced.
2016-11-27 22:23:09 · answer #5 · answered by markell 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
hmm, I can see Thompson/Clinton now, lol. We might as well burn the whitehouse down! lol
There are a lot more diverse issues these days than there were then. Back then it was simple. If it wasn't the "norm" it was illegal. Now we have openly gay, abortion, extra taxes, education, healthcare etc... The 2parties just will not agree on these things.
2007-05-12 14:27:21 · answer #6 · answered by Chrissy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No at first they didn't have two parties and if you were to desolved the different beliefs would still exist and might even create more problems
2007-05-17 05:04:31 · answer #7 · answered by goodins2 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thought goes to bed hungry...this food is stale!
2007-05-19 11:43:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
this would not work today, the only way I would want Kerry close to the White House is if he had a paint brush.
2007-05-12 14:24:13 · answer #9 · answered by 007 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
mmm,makeing me hungry
2007-05-20 11:29:55 · answer #10 · answered by pennywisebaby 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋