U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-11-2014, 05:50 AM
 
Location: Rutherfordton,NC
14,378 posts, read 9,088,949 times
Reputation: 9667

Advertisements

This might be an off the wall question but here it goes:


Why can't we have a president from one party & a vice president from the other? Say for instance the loser from said party has to become the vice president. Yes, I understand they the two parties don't get along but it might force them too if they had to work together. As it stands now they fight in congress about who does what. This way no one can complain if saying that said party didn't want to pass said law.
Same with congress, should there not be an equal amount of both parties in congress?

The fighting has to stop nothing is getting done the way things are now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-11-2014, 07:45 AM
Status: "Trump: Inept, Incompetent, Insecure" (set 9 days ago)
 
10,518 posts, read 6,211,360 times
Reputation: 7246
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067 View Post
This might be an off the wall question but here it goes:


Why can't we have a president from one party & a vice president from the other? Say for instance the loser from said party has to become the vice president. Yes, I understand they the two parties don't get along but it might force them too if they had to work together. As it stands now they fight in congress about who does what. This way no one can complain if saying that said party didn't want to pass said law.
Same with congress, should there not be an equal amount of both parties in congress?

The fighting has to stop nothing is getting done the way things are now.
That used to be the case: it used to be that the person that got the most electoral votes was president (like George Washington) while the person with the second highest tally automatically become VP (John Adams, a different political party). I am not sure when it all changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2014, 07:58 AM
 
8,088 posts, read 4,424,278 times
Reputation: 3074
We already have a system of checks and balances, as originally defined by the Constitution. Except the progressives screwed the pooch when they pushed through the 17th Amendment changing from individual state legislatures appointing the Individual State's representatives, the enumerated two Senators for each state, to being popularly elected. One hundred and one years ago.

Civics 101.
* Two state senators for each State to represent the State's individual interests in our Federal government system.
* Population based - per state - people's based representatives, Congressmen and women.
* An executive - the President - to administer the Federal government, elected via the Electoral College. Again based on an individual state's population, relative to the whole of These United States, and how the state's vote went; i.e. how much of the popular vote each party's candidate won in the individual state. I think there are some variations of this in a few states, so the Electoral College explanation may not be totally accurate.
* A court system, culminating in the Supreme Court, whose members are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and who serve for life, or resignation. The court systems' job is to interpret local, to state, to federal laws and regulations based upon conformity to The Constitution of The United States.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067 View Post
This might be an off the wall question but here it goes:


Why can't we have a president from one party & a vice president from the other? Say for instance the loser from said party has to become the vice president. Yes, I understand they the two parties don't get along but it might force them too if they had to work together. As it stands now they fight in congress about who does what. This way no one can complain if saying that said party didn't want to pass said law.
Same with congress, should there not be an equal amount of both parties in congress?

The fighting has to stop nothing is getting done the way things are now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2014, 07:59 AM
 
8,088 posts, read 4,424,278 times
Reputation: 3074
yep. Forgotted about that. Was relying on memory for my Civics 101 response. Excellent catch!
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
That used to be the case: it used to be that the person that got the most electoral votes was president (like George Washington) while the person with the second highest tally automatically become VP (John Adams, a different political party). I am not sure when it all changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2014, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
72,015 posts, read 83,688,530 times
Reputation: 41810
In some states people run for Governor and someone else for Lt Gov, they can be from a different party. I buy that one, but to think the person who comes in second would automatically be VP would be a nightmare. The two top offices have to work together, this isn't the way it would work if the law was changed back to the days of Washington. We are not the same country as we were in the 18th century.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2014, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Rutherfordton,NC
14,378 posts, read 9,088,949 times
Reputation: 9667
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
In some states people run for Governor and someone else for Lt Gov, they can be from a different party. I buy that one, but to think the person who comes in second would automatically be VP would be a nightmare. The two top offices have to work together, this isn't the way it would work if the law was changed back to the days of Washington. We are not the same country as we were in the 18th century.
That's the idea it would force them to work together instead of against each other.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2014, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Texas
26,724 posts, read 11,229,010 times
Reputation: 6150
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067 View Post
That's the idea it would force them to work together instead of against each other.
I'd rather have them not work together and allow states rights to decide things like it was intended to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2014, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Old Hippie Heaven
18,292 posts, read 8,240,161 times
Reputation: 10674
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067 View Post
That's the idea it would force them to work together instead of against each other.
Actually, no. As anyone in a bad marriage knows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 05:25 AM
 
53 posts, read 46,545 times
Reputation: 53
To be honest, I feel like assassinations would be much more likely if that were to happen

Last edited by Nick21243; 11-19-2014 at 05:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2014, 07:36 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
34,694 posts, read 33,709,656 times
Reputation: 51934
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067 View Post
This might be an off the wall question but here it goes:


Why can't we have a president from one party & a vice president from the other? .
I would rather see a teams of 2 run in the primaries. We have no say-so over the VP pick and they are too close to becoming President, in my opinion. Of course, that would mean the President part of the team could never be VP if they lose the presidential primary.

The VP is the tie breaking vote in the Senate. If I'm the President I don't want that guy to be from the other party.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top