What do you think of Lt. Governor being elected separately from the Governors?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I favor it........but we're used to it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

One of the dumbest ideas, up there along with electing judges.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I like the New Jersey model where the Lt. Governor is chosen post-primary and elected on the same ticket as the Governor.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

One of the dumbest ideas, up there along with electing judges.

Yep, we elect our judges......including our Supreme Court.

[rbt48]

I can live with it either way.  But, I would say that if they are paired on the general election ballot, they should be paired in the primary as well.

The New Jersey and Iowa solutions seem merited as well.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Strongly oppose. Lieutenant Governors should be elected on the same ticket just as the vice president.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Just simply eliminate the post.  There's no real need to have a warm body whose only job is to be a backup to the guy in charge.

[Хahar 🤔]

Just simply eliminate the post.  There's no real need to have a warm body whose only job is to be a backup to the guy in charge.

But if there must be one, I would prefer that it not be separately elected.

[Holmes]

Oppose it. Chances are the governor and lieutenant would probably work together better if the candidate for governor chose who he wants to work with. And really, it's not like lieutenant governors even do much so the public isn't really deciding much when they elect them.

One of the dumbest ideas, up there along with electing judges.

Yep, we elect our judges......including our Supreme Court.

That's not activist at all.

[Torie]

I favor eliminating the position of Lt. Governor. It is about as useless an accoutrement as tits on a boar.

[Bo]

Oppose. They should be elected together.

[King]

Approve.  Here every now and then a terrible Lt. Governor is chosen in a split three way primary.  Allowing for a third party challenge or split in Lt. Governor to correct such mistakes would be nice.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

I favor eliminating the position of Lt. Governor. It is about as useless an accoutrement as tits on a boar.

This, with an exception for the biggest states. I can understand having a designated successor in case the governor of California or New York croaks, but who gives a crap if the governor of South Dakota decides to resign and start a yak farm?

[Lunar]

Haha, maybe the runner up in the general election should be the LG, like in the old days when that's how VP's were selected.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I favor eliminating the position of Lt. Governor. It is about as useless an accoutrement as tits on a boar.

This, with an exception for the biggest states. I can understand having a designated successor in case the governor of California or New York croaks, but who gives a crap if the governor of South Dakota decides to resign and start a yak farm?

Well, you can give the designator successor some real executive responsibility.  In Arizona, Oregon, Puerto Rico, and Wyoming, the Secretary of State is that successor, while in Alaska, Hawaii, and Utah, the Lieutenant Governor functions as the Secretary of State of those states.  If nothing else, such tasks are much better preparation than having them preside over the State Senate.

[King]

Haha, maybe the runner up in the general election should be the LG, like in the old days when that's how VP's were selected.

For about two or three prez elections and then we realized that was a really dumb system.  Despite *gasp* it being conceived by our almighty genius founding fathers.

[Хahar 🤔]

My idea:

After he is elected, the Governor appoints a Lieutenant Governor, who must be a state legislator or an elected cabinet member. The Lieutenant Governor must be confirmed by the legislature, after which he will serve in the line of succession in addition to whatever elective office he has.

[Lunar]

My idea:

After he is elected, the Governor appoints a Lieutenant Governor, who must be a state legislator or an elected cabinet member. The Lieutenant Governor must be confirmed by the legislature, after which he will serve in the line of succession in addition to whatever elective office he has.

But then, if the candidate knows who he's going to pick, then you just end up with an automatic vacancy every time on day 1.

[Хahar 🤔]

My idea:

After he is elected, the Governor appoints a Lieutenant Governor, who must be a state legislator or an elected cabinet member. The Lieutenant Governor must be confirmed by the legislature, after which he will serve in the line of succession in addition to whatever elective office he has.

But then, if the candidate knows who he's going to pick, then you just end up with an automatic vacancy every time on day 1.

The Lieutenant Governor would also hold whatever job he was elected to.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The last time a LG took over was when Ridge left to become Fatherland Security Secretary..... we had a wonderful LG.....shame he didn't want to run for a whole term.

[Lunar]

My idea:

After he is elected, the Governor appoints a Lieutenant Governor, who must be a state legislator or an elected cabinet member. The Lieutenant Governor must be confirmed by the legislature, after which he will serve in the line of succession in addition to whatever elective office he has.

But then, if the candidate knows who he's going to pick, then you just end up with an automatic vacancy every time on day 1.

The Lieutenant Governor would also hold whatever job he was elected to.

faceplant, missed that part of you post.  Very interesting suggestion, actually.

[Sam Spade]

I favor eliminating the position of Lt. Governor. It is about as useless an accoutrement as tits on a boar.

Unless you're in Texas, where the position is as strong (if not stronger) than the Governor because of its function as a Senate Majority Leader/House Speaker, with requisite control over legislation.

[King]

I favor eliminating the position of Lt. Governor. It is about as useless an accoutrement as tits on a boar.

Unless you're in Texas, where the position is as strong (if not stronger) than the Governor because of its function as a Senate Majority Leader/House Speaker, with requisite control over legislation.

Unless that Lt. Governor is a pawn of Rick Perry.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oppose it. Chances are the governor and lieutenant would probably work together better if the candidate for governor chose who he wants to work with. And really, it's not like lieutenant governors even do much so the public isn't really deciding much when they elect them.

One of the dumbest ideas, up there along with electing judges.

Yep, we elect our judges......including our Supreme Court.

That's not activist at all.

Electing them on the same ticket in the general election doesn't imply that the gubernatorial candidate picked his running mate. New York has a separate primary for Lt. Governor.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I'd rather have the position just abolished in Minnesota, where it is useless. If the Lt. Gov. actually has some power though, I'd agree with having them separately elected. The worst system is how Illinois has it but will soon abolish it, where they run separately in the primary but run as a ticket in the general for fairly obvious reasons and why Illinois abolished it.

I was thinking that simply letting the second place in the primary run as the Lt. Gov. but then I realized in cases where an incumbent Governor is running basically unopposed you'd like end up with cases where some LaRouchite or other assorted nutcases end up on the ticket.