A new group called vice.run has launched a campaign to change election laws and practices, to allow a popular vote in November for president, and then a separate popular vote on the same November ballot for vice-president. See the website here.
A new group called vice.run has launched a campaign to change election laws and practices, to allow a popular vote in November for president, and then a separate popular vote on the same November ballot for vice-president. See the website here.
What a GREAT idea! Seems to me this issue should be bundled with abolishing the Electoral College and U.S. Senate.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to put a picture of John C Calhoun on their website? Lincoln was never Vice President, and his Vice President was impeached.
I’m confused. Voters vote for members of the electoral college, not for candidates. Suppose the voters of a given state vote for one slate of electors for President and a different slate of electors for Vice President? Does the Constitution actually give states the flexibility to designate persons A-K as it’s electoral college members for president and persons L-V as it’s electoral college members for vice president? How would that work?
In the early days of this failed experiment the top vote getter in the Electoral College became president and the second place finisher became vice president. Since that would mean a Federalist and an Anti-Federalist would most likely be the top two the system was changed so that it more likely that member of the same “party” would win both offices. The more things change the more they remain the same! Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez for Empress!
SEE 1800 PREZ ELECTION WIKI >>> 12TH AMDT *FIX* 1804 [BARELY IN TIME FOR 1804 ELECTION]
—-
UNIFORM DEFINITION OF ELECTOR-VOTER IN ALL OF THE USA – INCLUDING COLONIES.
VP SHOULD BE AN EXEC. DEPT HEAD — OUT OF SENATE.
NONPARTISAN APPV — PENDING CONDORCET.
The website is obviously incorrect in saying that this is permitted by the Constitution. Popular vote is not permitted by the Constitution. And, even with National Popular Vote, should enough states enact it, the Twelfth Amendment clearly states that the Presidential Electors cast separate ballots for both President and Vice. Since NPV gives Presidential Electors to the presidential popular vote winner, it couldn’t possibly give a second set of electors to anyone else since the number of electors allotted is fixed in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3.
As Arte Johnson used to say on the old Laugh-In show, “Very interesting, but dumb!”
It is permitted… each elector in the electoral college casts a vote for the President and Vice President separately on two different ballots. There’s no reason you can’t seat two different sets of electors for each race.
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”. This doesn’t say that each state is not entitled to a different set of electors for each office…. just what the number of said electors shall be.
The electors vote separately for president and vice-president, but that doesn’t mean the November voters have the same freedom. About the only way this idea could be implemented would be for state legislatures to take back their ability to appoint presidential electors, but they would promise to appoint electors who follow the popular vote. Then that state could have an informal election in late October, in which the ballot would have presidential candidates listed in one part of the ballot, and vice-president in on the next section. Then the legislature in early November could appoint electors who promise to vote for which presidential and vice-presidential candidates got the most popular votes in late October.
How many EVIL ROTTED EC machinations [aka fixes, schemes, plans, etc.] since 1788-1789 about the EC part of the ANTI-Democracy minority rule USA regime in the ANTI-Democracy 1787 USA Const ???
Hundreds / Thousands ???
SOME results — $$$ 24 plus TRILLION USA regime debt, nonstop UN-declared foreign wars, nonstop destruction of the States – esp since 1929-1936, White House LAWLESS TYRANT Prezs (esp appointing SCOTUS HACKS), etc.
Tennessee used a unique system for appointing electors in its two initial presidential elections. The legislature appointed three individuals from each county. These delegatess chose the presidential electors. There is nothing that would have prevented these delegates from being popularly elected.
Moreover, they could be elected prior to the FTATFMIN. When legislatures appointed electors, they of course were elected prior to the date of appointment. When Congress set the FTAFMIN as the uniform appointment date, they required the South Carolina legislature to meet on that date to make an appointment.
So a state could hold an election in March where each voter would vote for two persons. They would also elect a delegate to a convention. If no candidate achieved a majority, the convention would choose from among the Top 5 as the presidential candidate. The higher among the Top 2 would become the Vice Presidential candidate. In November, the convention would meet to appint electors who would pledge to vote the agreed way.
Andrew, the Twelfth Amendment says, “The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state as themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, and they shall sign and certify.”
So each elector must sign and certify a piece of paper that shows the group’s choices. To me this does not permit a state to have one set of presidential electors who choose the president, and an entirely different set of electors who only vote for vice-president.
On further consideration, I think Richard is right, except that the public vote could be in November. The legislature would appoint a set of electors that it instructs to implement the results of the popular vote (whether it should trust anybody to do this is an issue that echoes the current issue of faithless electors). Then in November the voters vote separately for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The electors rubber-stamp the choices of the voters. Candidates wouldn’t choose slates of electors they think will be faithful to them. The legislature would choose a slate of electors it thinks will be faithful to the results of the vote.
There might be requirements in current federal statutes that prevent this arrangement. But I no longer think the Constitution prevents it.
But none of this speaks to whether it’s a good idea or not. I’m not sure I see the point.
What is the motivation for this curious proposal? Do they imagine that Trump would be easier to impeach if he had a Democrat for a Vice President? Dream on.
Richard, “Then the legislature in early November could appoint electors who promise to vote for which presidential and vice-presidential candidates got the most popular votes in late October.” The Electoral College was designed to be a deliberative body. Appointing people based upon their promises is just rubber stamping, not deliberative. It completely removes the human element and totally defeats the intended purpose. The Electoral College is not a self check out or McDonald’s kiosk.
The EC was totally rotted while Prez Washington’s 2nd term was ending in 1795-1797.
Delusion to hope that State gerrymander HACKS would appoint non-HACKS to be Prez Electors — and who would magically *deliberate* on who should be Prez.
1800 CRISIS Prez election got 12 Amdt in 1804.
Civil War I was delayed a bit [just enough] by having Jackson elected in popular votes in 1832.
GOP HACKS kept EC despite 750,000 plus DEAD in 1861-1866 after 1860 Prez Lincoln 39 pct minority rule election.
—
PR and AppV
When do electors meet to vote for the President? … The electors meet to … The date when the electors meet in the state capitals to vote for the President of the …
USA law re election of Prezs —
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/chapter-1
had its effects in SCOTUS Bush v Gore in 2000.
Seems like there are two huge gaps in how the Constitution defines this process:
1) How Electors get chosen (the Const. leaves it up to the states).
2) How electors represent the will of the people (up to the states).
This process has changed a lot in 200 years. But it’s all state-level and party-level changes, with some adjudication about faithless electors.