40
Was the 12th amendment a mistake? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.ca
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Before the 12th amendment, the presidential candidate who got the second most electoral votes became the vice president. This meant they were usually different parties.

It occurred to me that one thing this achieved was always ensuring that there was someone in the room who would be willing to disagree with the president. He couldn't surround himself with yes-men.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 9 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Vice president doesn't have much power. Wouldn't accomplish much.

Should probably get rid of the presidency and Senate, and just have a large house. Also reform the supreme court so it's like a rotating pool of federal judges instead of lifetime corruption magnets.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 1 point 2 months ago (7 children)

    Wouldn't that just make it easier for one party to capture control of the government?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    No? It'd be similar to today, except without the senate giving undue weight to low population areas, and the president doing whatever he wants. You'd probably also want to change the voting system to support ranked choice or similar, while you were waving your magic around.

    In what way do you think it would be easier?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

    Taking over three branches of government would be harder than taking over just one, no?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    The judicial is still separate in what I proposed, so there's still at least two.

    I don't really think the separation of powers really holds up when they're all elected in the same way, anyway. Not in a two-party system. We have a sort of incidental defense via staggered elections and terms, but as you can see the republicans are happy to collaborate across branches.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    With no Senate or presidency, whoever controls the house could just pass a law to add justices until they control the judicial.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    That's how it works now with extra steps. The system doesn't provide any defense when people are working as a party regardless of their branch.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] [S] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    It's the extra steps that are the point though, right? It's harder to get control of the presidency, Senate, and House than just controlling one of those.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 2 months ago

    The only thing that makes it harder is the elections are staggered. They're all popular vote. You can do that without a senate. Removing lifetime appointments for 9 people and replacing them with a rotating pool has its own advantages, including not locking in control of the court for decades due to luck.

    Well, the executive was historically civil servants that persisted beyond administrations, but the project 2025 people don't believe in that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent