Vice President: Election

[nz_upy]

I think that the Presidential Candidates should have running partners which become the Vice President rather than having the VP appointed.

Sorry if this has already been discussed/mentioned/thrashed but i couldnt find it anywhere.

Since the VP is also going to be playing the game the Senate should be able to at least support or deny Presidential Choice as is done in other things by the Senate.

[notyoueither]

The Senate must confirm the president's choice for VP under the New Con.

We debated the running mate idea and found it less workable than the appointment, confirmation proposal.

[adaMada]

I was one of the main proponent for the appointment-confirmation proposal. Though I understood why it might be nice to have running partners from the start, I thought we could ensure the best Vice President by waiting till the end of the elections. By doing this, we allow everyone to run for any office they choose, and then the President can select the best canidate remaining. This system doesn't A) force the president to not select someone because they're running for office, even if they loose, and B) force canidates to give up other offices they might be interested in on the chance that they can be Vice President.

This was debated amoung the Con Con members, with this system being decided as the best compromise. Though I understand why some don't like it, I think it's the most stable and efficent system for selecting the Vice President, and I'd urge everyone to give it a try.

-- adaMada

[Harovan]

I'm against the VP being the "second" in the presidental election. First, there may be only one candidate. Second, it would be like Al Gore being the VP of George Dubya, wouldn't it? Ridiculous. But I'm against electing the VP either. Why is the VP not simply handled as the president's deputy (which he is, de facto) and thus, appointed rather than elected? The other ministers appoint their deputies too, why not the president?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I'm against the VP being the "second" in the presidental election. First, there may be only one candidate. Second, it would be like Al Gore being the VP of George Dubya, wouldn't it? Ridiculous. But I'm against electing the VP either. Why is the VP not simply handled as the president's deputy (which he is, de facto) and thus, appointed rather than elected? The other ministers appoint their deputies too, why not the president?

I agree with Sir Ralph.

[joncnunn]

VP rule under new constituion works fine for me.

I would sugest that those seeking office for President annouce who they would appoint as VP but not require them to do so.

[Togas]

We discussed a LOT of different VP ideas. I think this was one of the most discussed areas at the Con Con. I was originally a proponent of a running mate system, but was later convinced that the current system was better. And I agree.

Current system: President-elect "nominates" his VP after he's won the election. VP is confirmed by Senate.

In practice, Presidents will know who they want their VP to be, will be public about it, and have a backup or two just in case the guy they want is running for office. The President has the most flexibility in this system. The system also leads to very cooperative President/Vice President relations and includes the approval of the people in the selection.

In our redraft we added that the President could not fire the VP, to ensure the VP could be somewhat independent, disagree and not get fired.

--Togas

[nz_upy]

Thanks for clearing this up, No barriers to the NewCon for me now.