Electing a Vice President in the Senate... - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Cali Coug · 07-13-2007, 09:23 PM

Assuming Bloomberg gets into the presidential race (or Giuliani or McCain run as an independent), I posted before that I could see the election going to the House of Representatives for a decision on who will be president.

I was thinking about it today and realized how screwy our election process is for the Vice President.

It used to be that the person with the most electoral votes was president, and the person with the second most was VP. That caused some issues (see the Burr-Jefferson fiasco), so we amended the Constitution to change the process. Now electors have to identify on their ballots who they would vote for as president and as VP. Generally, this means they elect the person the president selected as his running mate (though they don't have to).

But, if an election goes to the House, then the Senate elects the VP. That VP doesn't have to be the same person that the president would have selected. It does have to be one of the top two vote getters for VP, however. So, it could be the VP from the other major party's ticket (presumably, the Democrat and Republican candidates for VP will finish in the top 2).

This is interesting, because I had read an article a while back that suggested Bloomberg could be the VP if he angled for it correctly. After re-reading Amendment XII, I don't think that is true. I believe the wording is pretty clear that only the top 2 vote getters for VP can be elected as VP (for president, it is the top 3 who can be elected president by the House- so Bloomberg COULD be eligible for that slot if he came in third).

If the House fell into chaos in trying to elect a president, would a deal be considered to elect a VP from the opposite party? I don't think so. If neither is elected by the fourth day of March, the VP would become president. Because there wouldn't be a VP elected yet (unless the Senate was able to elect the VP without the House electing the president), the sitting VP would become president... Dick Cheney. Republicans would have every incentive in the world to gum up the process so nobody could get elected from either the House or the Senate.

This concludes my random post of the day.

SeattleUte · 07-13-2007, 10:24 PM

I didn't used to care who was VP very much until we wound up with our VP as defacto president behind a callow, lazy and stupid president the past six years, and making tragic blunders in foreign affairs (the only place where the president really can make a difference as a practical matter).

Tex · 07-13-2007, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I didn't used to care who was VP very much until we wound up with our VP as defacto president behind a callow, lazy and stupid president the past six years, and making tragic blunders in foreign affairs (the only place where the president really can make a difference as a practical matter).

True. Much better to have an incompetent nutcase as VP while the president philanders in the Oval Office.

SeattleUte · 07-13-2007, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Tthe president philanders in the Oval Office.

This is not as important as some things. I would rate this less important malfeasance than invading and occupying a country under false pretences and thusly becoming involved in a war we are almost certain to lose and the vast majority of the electorate has concluded is not in America's best interests.

YOhio · 07-13-2007, 11:56 PM

If Bloomberg actually becomes formidable, this election has the potential of being one of the most interesting we'll see in our lifetimes. If the two nominees are Hillary and Rudy, then Bloomberg won't make a dent.

When the decision is between a liberal New York Republican and a liberal New York Democrat, a liberal New York Independent will have no impact. But if Romney, McCain, Thompson or Obama are able to snag the nomination, Bloomberg may have affect the race in a big way.

SeattleUte · 07-14-2007, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yep. Both are bad, but to say the two are equal is nonsensical.

It would be nice to have a president that doesn't philander in the white house even though that's not as big a deal as lying about it. If he philandered in the White House and then didn't lie about it under oath that wouldn't be as bad. It will be even better if we can have a president who doesn't go around stupidly starting wars.

Tex · 07-14-2007, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is not as important as some things. I would rate this less important malfeasance than invading and occupying a country under false pretences and thusly becoming involved in a war we are almost certain to lose and the vast majority of the electorate has concluded is not in America's best interests.

Heh. I don't really care what you think about Bush and Cheney. I just thought one good cheap shot deserved another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yep. Both are bad, but to say the two are equal is nonsensical.

Good thing I didn't say that, then.

creekster · 07-14-2007, 12:51 AM

Many presidents have been philanderers. The problem, as calicoug or somebody pointed out, is lying about it. I will always detest Clinton for both lying about it and persisting in his lie as the nation was dragged through this sordid affair in a way that has forever lowered the standard for acceptable public discourse. Nonetheless, whether or not you agree with the war, philandering can never compare in gravity to the decision to commit the armed forces to harm's way.

Tex · 07-14-2007, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Just as you now imply that what Bush and Cheney have done is worse than what Clinton did (and we would agree).

I implied no such thing. What Bush and Cheney have done is of more consequence than what Clinton did, but I don't consider the War on Terror a negative thing, so I would not use the term "worse."

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

Many presidents have been philanderers. The problem, as calicoug or somebody pointed out, is lying about it. I will always detest Clinton for both lying about it and persisting in his lie as the nation was dragged through this sordid affair in a way that has forever lowered the standard for acceptable public discourse. Nonetheless, whether or not you agree with the war, philandering can never compare in gravity to the decision to commit the armed forces to harm's way.

Agreed. I was really just poking fun at SeattleUte. Engaging in a moral comparsion of Bush vs. Clinton is a fruitless battle, IMO, no matter which side you're on.

SeattleUte · 07-14-2007, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

The problem, as calicoug or somebody pointed out, is lying about it.

How could you have forgotten so quickly that it was SU that said this? Moreover, it was only a page away. Sheesh.

07-13-2007, 09:23 PM	#1
Cali Coug Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 5,996	Electing a Vice President in the Senate... Assuming Bloomberg gets into the presidential race (or Giuliani or McCain run as an independent), I posted before that I could see the election going to the House of Representatives for a decision on who will be president. I was thinking about it today and realized how screwy our election process is for the Vice President. It used to be that the person with the most electoral votes was president, and the person with the second most was VP. That caused some issues (see the Burr-Jefferson fiasco), so we amended the Constitution to change the process. Now electors have to identify on their ballots who they would vote for as president and as VP. Generally, this means they elect the person the president selected as his running mate (though they don't have to). But, if an election goes to the House, then the Senate elects the VP. That VP doesn't have to be the same person that the president would have selected. It does have to be one of the top two vote getters for VP, however. So, it could be the VP from the other major party's ticket (presumably, the Democrat and Republican candidates for VP will finish in the top 2). This is interesting, because I had read an article a while back that suggested Bloomberg could be the VP if he angled for it correctly. After re-reading Amendment XII, I don't think that is true. I believe the wording is pretty clear that only the top 2 vote getters for VP can be elected as VP (for president, it is the top 3 who can be elected president by the House- so Bloomberg COULD be eligible for that slot if he came in third). If the House fell into chaos in trying to elect a president, would a deal be considered to elect a VP from the opposite party? I don't think so. If neither is elected by the fourth day of March, the VP would become president. Because there wouldn't be a VP elected yet (unless the Senate was able to elect the VP without the House electing the president), the sitting VP would become president... Dick Cheney. Republicans would have every incentive in the world to gum up the process so nobody could get elected from either the House or the Senate. This concludes my random post of the day. Last edited by Cali Coug; 07-13-2007 at 09:26 PM.

07-13-2007, 10:24 PM	#2
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	I didn't used to care who was VP very much until we wound up with our VP as defacto president behind a callow, lazy and stupid president the past six years, and making tragic blunders in foreign affairs (the only place where the president really can make a difference as a practical matter). __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

07-14-2007, 12:51 AM	#8
creekster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the far corner of my mind Posts: 8,711	Many presidents have been philanderers. The problem, as calicoug or somebody pointed out, is lying about it. I will always detest Clinton for both lying about it and persisting in his lie as the nation was dragged through this sordid affair in a way that has forever lowered the standard for acceptable public discourse. Nonetheless, whether or not you agree with the war, philandering can never compare in gravity to the decision to commit the armed forces to harm's way. __________________ Sorry for th e tpyos.

07-13-2007, 11:56 PM	#5
YOhio AKA SeattleNewt Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 7,055	If Bloomberg actually becomes formidable, this election has the potential of being one of the most interesting we'll see in our lifetimes. If the two nominees are Hillary and Rudy, then Bloomberg won't make a dent. When the decision is between a liberal New York Republican and a liberal New York Democrat, a liberal New York Independent will have no impact. But if Romney, McCain, Thompson or Obama are able to snag the nomination, Bloomberg may have affect the race in a big way.