Having a President and Vice President of different parties presents a powerful motive for the VP's party to assassinate the President.
post
replies:
My understanding was that this rule led to some pretty bad βstrategic votingβ to try to organize securing both presidency and vice presidency, and became a tangled political mess that was improved greatly by having them bundled together on one ticket.
Of course, if you want to talk about strategic voting, infinitely better would be to kill FPTP voting.
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.
replies:
Vice presidents donβt usually sit around the room. Theyβre not heavily involved in day to day decisions
replies:
I think having a single executive in general was a mistake.
replies:
I think the root is not doing enough to address problematic party politics. That's the real concern you have here, OP.
This, indeed, was George Washington's fear. At his farewell address and AFAIK to his death.
replies:
Personally, I think it was a mistake.
It solidified the party ticket.
Having a vice president that came in second means that, if something happens to the President, the country will be led by someone qualified.
As far as checks and balances go, the vice president is the tie breaker in the Senate. With the 12th amendment in place, that vote is essentially the President's vote.
We would still have a system of parties but the dynamic would be dramatically different.
Finally, the original system meant that most Americans would feel represented. Yes, the VP has little power but they can have lots of influence.
Can you let us know what country you are talking about in the post?
This community is on a Canadian instance, and we don't have Presidents.
replies:
OMG, the USA was founded on RCV?!
all 46 comments