The 101st Senator.

[retromike22]

I've always thought it odd that the position of the Vice President exists. It's not a well defined position other than "back-up President." Probably the most important power they have to break a tie in the U.S. Senate. But I have an idea. What if the Vice President always had a vote in the Senate? So there would be 101 members of the Senate. 2 from each state, and the Vice President.

[True Federalist]

I've always thought it odd that the position of the Vice President exists. It's not a well defined position other than "back-up President." Probably the most important power they have to break a tie in the U.S. Senate. But I have an idea. What if the Vice President always had a vote in the Senate? So there would be 101 members of the Senate. 2 from each state, and the Vice President.

The only real difference is that the Vice-President would get to participate in the election of his successor when the election of the Vice-President goes to the House.

Personally, I think we should have at the moment 104 Senators, with the 101st to 104th Senators being Senators Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. by virtue of being ex-Presidents. (Presidents who resign or are impeached would not get that privilege.)

[Joe Republic]

Personally, I think we should have at the moment 104 Senators, with the 101st to 104th Senators being Senators Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. by virtue of being ex-Presidents. (Presidents who resign or are impeached would not get that privilege.)

Assuming they would be granted that position for the rest of their lives, I'm not comfortable with the idea of legislative officeholders not having to face the electorate on a regular basis.  The idea of GWB being rewarded for his piss-poor presidency with a lifetime role in a different branch of government is not a savory one.  Senator Carter would have been a member of the Senate for the past thirty years, and not had to face an election once.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I've always thought the idea of the losing candidate in presidential (and vice) elections should become Senator; opposition leader of a sort, while the VP would get a regular seat to balance things.

[True Federalist]

Personally, I think we should have at the moment 104 Senators, with the 101st to 104th Senators being Senators Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. by virtue of being ex-Presidents. (Presidents who resign or are impeached would not get that privilege.)

Assuming they would be granted that position for the rest of their lives, I'm not comfortable with the idea of legislative officeholders not having to face the electorate on a regular basis.  The idea of GWB being rewarded for his piss-poor presidency with a lifetime role in a different branch of government is not a savory one.  Senator Carter would have been a member of the Senate for the past thirty years, and not had to face an election once.

Considering that they would be but a few out of many, it doesn't really bother me that this would be a lifetime office.  It does provide one answer to the question of what do you do with an ex-President.

I've always thought the idea of the losing candidate in presidential (and vice) elections should become Senator; opposition leader of a sort, while the VP would get a regular seat to balance things.

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

Actually I like idea of giving position of "All-American Senator" to former presidents and vice-presidents!

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

Personally, I think we should have at the moment 104 Senators, with the 101st to 104th Senators being Senators Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. by virtue of being ex-Presidents. (Presidents who resign or are impeached would not get that privilege.)

I can't think of anything good coming from this idea; it's at best undemocratic. Italy's had problems with it.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

No thanks. I'm not a fan of offices-for-life.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?

[Jerseyrules]

IMP the VP should be the head of the legislative branch, elected by the people staggered from the POTUS, I.e. in off-year elections.  They should also have equal if not more power than POTUS

[J. J.]

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?

In theory, it could be the candidate with the second highest number of electoral votes.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?

In theory, it could be the candidate with the second highest number of electoral votes.

In such case, is a runner-up is an incumbent Senator, I assume he'd simply move from an elected to a lifetime seat.

[Vasall des Midas]

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?

Clearly everybody who ran for President, even by paying a 30 dollar filing fee in the New Hampshire primary, should be made a Senator for life. That goes without saying.

[Vasall des Midas]

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?

In theory, it could be the candidate with the second highest number of electoral votes.

The Vice Presidency was of course invented for exactly that purpose originally, as part of a compromise package between those who wanted the electoral college to choose the President and those who basically wanted it to draw up a shortlist for Congress to choose from.

REPEAL THE XIIth AMENDMENT!

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?

Clearly everybody who ran for President, even by paying a 30 dollar filing fee in the New Hampshire primary, should be made a Senator for life. That goes without saying.

Well, in such case elected members would make up like 1% of the Senate

[J. J.]

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?

In theory, it could be the candidate with the second highest number of electoral votes.

In such case, is a runner-up is an incumbent Senator, I assume he'd simply move from an elected to a lifetime seat.

There would be a vacancy in the senate seat, in that instance (as there were in 2009).

I really think that people come in second for a reason, and don't like the idea too much.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Nah.  If you don't win, you don't win.  The Constitution is silent on the issue of political parties, and what do you do when there are multiple losing opponents?  Would you really have wanted Governor Thurmond to go into the Senate after losing in 1948?

And what about those who didn't quite run but received electoral votes from faithless elector (so, technically, were "candidates")? A freaking Senator-for-life Walter B. Jones in 1956?

In theory, it could be the candidate with the second highest number of electoral votes.

In such case, is a runner-up is an incumbent Senator, I assume he'd simply move from an elected to a lifetime seat.

There would be a vacancy in the senate seat, in that instance (as there were in 2009).

I really think that people come in second for a reason, and don't like the idea too much.

So, why not to create a third, upper-upper House to stuff all these people? American House of Lords, preferably with marginal powers.

John McCain, Baron McCain of Hanoi.
Richard B. Cheney, Baron Cheney of Haliburton.
J. Danforth Quayle, Baron Quayle of Phoenix.
Albert A. Gore, Baron Gore of Internets.
J. Richard Perry, Baron Perry of Niggerhead.
George H. W. Bush, Baron Bush of Kennebunkport.
Richard J. Santorum, Baron Santorum of Great Falls.
James E. Carter, Baron Carter of Malaise.
Newton L. Gingrich, Baron Gingrich of Luna.

Of course, there would be multiple Barons Romney to sit in the Lords. Baron Romney of Detroit, Baron Romney of Boston, Baron Romney of Nashua, BARONBOT-ROMNEY, etc.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

No thanks. I'm not a fan of offices-for-life.

[Rockefeller]

The Senate is the most important check that State governments retain on the federal government.  Thus, I do not like the idea of "stateless" Senators. 

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

The Senate is the most important check that State governments retain on the federal government.  Thus, I do not like the idea of "stateless" Senators. 

Senators are not dependent on their home state governments.

Ever heard about a little thing called Seventeenth Amendment?

[True Federalist]

The Senate is the most important check that State governments retain on the federal government.  Thus, I do not like the idea of "stateless" Senators. 

Senators are not dependent on their home state governments.

Ever heard about a little thing called Seventeenth Amendment?

Some of us still hope for its repeal.  Rather than popular election, I'd have much rather seen the powers of the Senate limited.