I have a question about politics that is pretty absurd at face value?

I have a question about politics that is pretty absurd at face value............. ..........so I'm asking it for entertainment value more than anything else and just to see what everyone's opinions, answers, and comments would be on this. What if it was mandated through the government that in all future presidential elections, the office of president and vice-president could ONLY be comprised of one Republican and one Democrat? The president could be the Republican and the vice-president the Democrat or vice-versa but neither position could be held by two members of the same political party.

What do you think this would do for American politics or the state of the nation or anything for that matter? Asked by Bluefreedom 47 months ago Similar Questions: question politics pretty absurd face Recent Questions About: question politics pretty absurd face Politics & Law > Politics.

Similar Questions: question politics pretty absurd face Recent Questions About: question politics pretty absurd face.

It has sort of already been tried.....so it's not too wacky. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_... Originally, the Vice President of the US was the presidential candidate who came in second. E.g.

, If this were still in effect in 2004, the current Vice President could be John Kerry. The old system was more complicated than that, but (according to Wikipedia anyway) the system was actually changed to avoid having a president and VP from different parties, and thus avoiding deadlocked arguments within that branch. One thing that I would worry about is that a really popular candidate could get 80% of the votes, the next in line 15%, and some other guy only 5%.

In the case of the president dying, or just during congressional VP duties, there would be someone in charge that hardly anyone wanted at all. With the current system, at least in principle we can say that the majority of voters approved of both the President and Vice President. Now that I say all of that, I guess this is similar to the outcome of the 1800 election mentioned on Wikipedia.

Another issue is that the VP isn't just a replacement part in case the President dies, the VP is also a temporary stand-in. If the president has to go to the hospital, as Bush did last year... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/20/politics/main3081196.shtml ...we would have a hostile VP taking over for a day (or more), possibly doing all kinds of dastardly things while he has the power. Whichever side you are on, temporary 1-day reversals are only going to make things worse.

I think the president already gets plenty of argument from Congress, and staggered elections seem to do their job of preventing overnight conversions of the whole government to a single party. I would probably leave everything as is.

Vice Squad Back in the olden days individuals were nominated for only for president and the one who got the most votes won and the one who came in second became vice-president. Of course, that led to situations where the President and Vice-President were of different parties or at least different political philosophies. It didn't work out very well as they mostly ended up at each other's throat over every partisan issue.

Hence the 12th Amendment which required the President and Vice-President to be elected separately. It would be possible to require the Presidency and Vice-Presidency be split between Democrats and Republicans but (a) that would require an Amendment to the Constitution (difficult at any time) and (b) it would formalize the Two Party System and effectively disqualify any 3rd party candidates from holding the offices. As a practical matter, having the Vice-President of the same party and picked by the party or the Presidential nominee at least provides for some continuity in the event of the death or disability of the President.

Imagine the political upheaval if Bush had been elected President and Gore Vice-President and then Bush died. There is something to be said for the will of the voters as to political philosophy being respected. (And let's not get into the Bush-stole-the-election debate.

The upheaval would have been the same either way. ) Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution JBENZ's Recommendations A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election of 1800, America's First Presidential Campaign Amazon List Price: $27.00 Used from: $5.98 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5 (based on 17 reviews) Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 (Pivotal Moments in American History) Amazon List Price: $15.95 Used from: $2.97 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5 (based on 36 reviews) .

The job is better the way it is That's actually how it was originally done: the winner in the electoral college got the top job, and the runner up got to be VP. But that didn't really work once people figured out how to game the system: people ran together and the votes would be split between them. It didn't actually execute as well as they intended, but it was clear that the system still pushed to have the President and VP from the same party.

And there's good reason for that. The VP job is not a very important one. He breaks ties in the Senate, and that's about it.

Most VPs never get to do that even once. Everything else is either ceremonial or unofficial. Some Presidents make better use of their VPs than others, but in many ways that person is just another one of the President's advisors.

It happens to also be handy for keeping the VP in the loop, just in case. Should the VP be called on to serve as President, it's the closest possible thing to continuing with the same person in office. Should the President die in office, the last thing the country needs is a sudden shift to the other party while it's recovering from the shock.

It's bad enough that we have alternating administrations, and every time the office shifts parties the country lurches in a wildly different direction. But at least there, the people have spoken, and it's their favorite running the country, not the runner up. Besides, we don't need the party system enshrined any further.

It's bad enough that it's nearly impossible for anybody outside the two parties to get into office. We need not make it worse by officially designating two offices as "opposite", as if there were no other options. The system is already designed with checks and balances.

The President doesn't have to answer to the VP, but he (or she) does have to answer to the Congress. We get to change the makeup of Congress every two years, and if the President's party is failing, we elect a President of the opposite party to counter it. The VP office should be left alone, because it represents our best way to achieve stability in the unfortunate event that the office is actually necessary.

Electing a VP from the other party would just guarantee that the VP is out of the loop when that happens.

I think it would depend a lot on the politicians. For instance, if you had two highly polarized figures (one Republican, one Democrat) as President and Vice President, then I think this could only lead to a greater level of divisiveness in American politics. The obvious benefit of having the President and Vice President belonging to the same Party is that it unites the White House.

When the world sees the United States, I think most of the time they are paying attention to the Executive Branch, and so having a relatively harmonious White House helps convey a sense of American unity to the international scene, whether for good or bad. Let's say that in 2000, Al Gore and George Bush had been elected President and Vice President, respectively. Because the Vice Presidency is a role whose significance is largely determined by the President, and because Gore and Bush are so diametrically opposed, it is likely that Bush would have hardly any power in these circumstances.

However, as Bush would be able to cast tie-breaking votes in the Senate, he could display his opposition to Gore's policies by voting against bills promoting the Democratic Party agenda. In this situation, although Gore would really be fully in charge of the Executive Branch, Bush's oppositional appearance would cause the Executive Branch to appear to be divided. This would only highlight the division in American politics.

Suppose, however, that George Bush and Lieberman had been elected President and Vice President, respectively. While the two men belong to different parties (Lieberman was then a Democrat), they are known to be much more friendly, and they agree on at least some issues. If Bush and Lieberman were able to work together, promoting a somewhat bipartisan agenda, I think that this would do wonders for American politics.

It would show that beneath all of the divisiveness of politics, there was a unity. While Bush and Lieberman might not always agree, as long as they were seen as a thoughtful, bipartisan team, their presence together in the White House would encourage a new brand of politics. I think this would be helpful in another sense.

If the President declared war on a nation and sent troops and the war ended up going poorly, a single party's image wouldn't be tainted as being wholly guilty. If the economy started booming, the party of the President wouldn't get all of the credit. Both parties would be able to claim credit - and would have to accept a level of guilt.

This concept that both Republicans and Democrats are capable of good and bad would be more obvious in these circumstances. Sources: Me .

I think it would work. I've often asked my self that same question from my childhood through all of my adult life. I've always heard that between the Republicans & Democrats, that one was for the rich people & one was for the working class & poor.

Why not put one of each in office & cover all the bases? They could compromise on certain issues, until they are both satisfied with the end result. Democrats don't like it when a Republican is in office & Republicans don't like it when a Democrat is in office, so let's just put them BOTH in office together!

Great idea! .

" "An office politics question" "Keeping Presidential Politics, Democrats and Republicans out of this question and DB - Do you think there's any momentum" "I sent a question to Politics & Law but it has not appeared in My Askville. Why?

Keeping Presidential Politics, Democrats and Republicans out of this question and DB - Do you think there's any momentum.

I sent a question to Politics & Law but it has not appeared in My Askville. Why?

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.