Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 26, 2014, 11:30:57 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  Wallace's Running Mate
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Wallace's Running Mate  (Read 2406 times)
True Democrat
true democrat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7485
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

View Profile
« on: May 16, 2006, 12:46:58 pm »
Ignore

How come in Southern states his running mate is Lemay, but in northern states his running mate is S. Marvin Griffin?
Logged

Michael Bloomberg for President.



Lol Winfield.  This quote is from a thread entitled "what do the following proceed to do if they are not nominated?"
Romney - President of Harvard
Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28562
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2006, 02:28:36 pm »
Ignore

I had the same question.  After looking it up, Marvin Griffin was a temporary VP candidate for Wallace who was replaced by LeMay; however, his name stayed on most ballots.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
Mr. Paleoconservative
Reagan Raider
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: 5.30

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2006, 09:45:56 pm »
Ignore

This happened because to get ballot access in several states Wallace had to declare a VP earlier in te cycle before he was willing to choose a "real" candidate, and so he had the stand-in who remained on the ballot in a handful of states.
Logged



“We can never be too tardy to begin the work of blood.”
“But it is a bad mode of settling disputes to make soldiers your ambassadors, and to point to the halter and the gallows as your ultimatum.”
-John Tyler, 10th President of the United States
True Democrat
true democrat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7485
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2006, 09:53:34 pm »
Ignore

This happened because to get ballot access in several states Wallace had to declare a VP earlier in te cycle before he was willing to choose a "real" candidate, and so he had the stand-in who remained on the ballot in a handful of states.

If Wallace somehow won, who would get the electoral votes?
Logged

Michael Bloomberg for President.



Lol Winfield.  This quote is from a thread entitled "what do the following proceed to do if they are not nominated?"
Romney - President of Harvard
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5884
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2006, 10:22:46 pm »
Ignore

This happened because to get ballot access in several states Wallace had to declare a VP earlier in te cycle before he was willing to choose a "real" candidate, and so he had the stand-in who remained on the ballot in a handful of states.
If Wallace somehow won, who would get the electoral votes?
Electors are free to cast their electoral vote for whomever they please.

One interesting point is that if no candidate has a majority of the electoral votes for President, the House chooses among the top 3 candidates (voting by state); while if no candidate has a majority of the electoral votes for Vice President, the Senate chooses between the top 2 candidates.  So while the House might have chosen between Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace; the Senate would choose between Agnew and Muskie.
Logged
Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28562
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2006, 11:18:35 pm »
Ignore

One interesting point is that if no candidate has a majority of the electoral votes for President, the House chooses among the top 3 candidates (voting by state); while if no candidate has a majority of the electoral votes for Vice President, the Senate chooses between the top 2 candidates.  So while the House might have chosen between Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace; the Senate would choose between Agnew and Muskie.

Why is this, do you know?  I've always wondered, because it seemed kind of weird.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15214
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2006, 11:45:46 pm »
Ignore

One interesting point is that if no candidate has a majority of the electoral votes for President, the House chooses among the top 3 candidates (voting by state); while if no candidate has a majority of the electoral votes for Vice President, the Senate chooses between the top 2 candidates.  So while the House might have chosen between Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace; the Senate would choose between Agnew and Muskie.

Why is this, do you know?  I've always wondered, because it seemed kind of weird.

I really don't know for sure. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say it's because the House might fail to select a President, since it's possible that none of the three candidates will get a majority in the House vote. However, even if the House repeatedly fails to select a President, the Senate will have to select a Vice President who will then become acting President until the House can break the deadlock. It's not possible for the Senate to be deadlocked on the selection of a VP.

However, what if two or more candidates tie for third or second? Does the House or Senate then select from all of them? I would assume they would, but that would kind of defeat the purpose of the scenario I mentioned above, if two candidates tied for third.
Logged
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58775
India


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2006, 04:29:53 am »
Ignore

Well, the pre-1808 lineup was for the House to choose between the top five EV getters, except in case someone won an outright majority (which was considered unlikely after Washington's retirement), and for the top EV getter - or no.2 if the top EV getter happens to get elected president - to be VP. It was a compromise between those who wanted the EV to choose the President and those who wanted Congress to do so. In fact this compromise is the chief reason the VP office was invented.
So it does make sense that eve post-1808 there's less room for intracongressional intrigue in the selection of a VP than a President. It's the Popular Mandate position.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28800
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 27, 2006, 11:18:41 am »

Well, the pre-1808 lineup was for the House to choose between the top five EV getters, except in case someone won an outright majority (which was considered unlikely after Washington's retirement), and for the top EV getter - or no.2 if the top EV getter happens to get elected president - to be VP. It was a compromise between those who wanted the EV to choose the President and those who wanted Congress to do so. In fact this compromise is the chief reason the VP office was invented.
So it does make sense that eve post-1808 there's less room for intracongressional intrigue in the selection of a VP than a President. It's the Popular Mandate position.


Also pre-1808 had the Senate choose the VP if there was a tie among the top remaining candidates after the President was chosen, which is probably why post-1808 the duty remained in the hands of the Senate in the new system if eth EC didn;t produce an outright winner.
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. — Khaled Hosseini
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5884
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 27, 2006, 03:42:43 pm »
Ignore

One interesting point is that if no candidate has a majority of the electoral votes for President, the House chooses among the top 3 candidates (voting by state); while if no candidate has a majority of the electoral votes for Vice President, the Senate chooses between the top 2 candidates.  So while the House might have chosen between Nixon, Humphrey, and Wallace; the Senate would choose between Agnew and Muskie.
Why is this, do you know?  I've always wondered, because it seemed kind of weird.
I am reading the debate in Congress over the 12th Amendment, but so far haven't found an answer.  It appears that they may simply have tried to conform as much as possible to the original Constitution.

Under the original Constitution, electors cast two votes for President.  If no candidate had a majority, the House of Representatives, voting by States, would choose from among the top 5.   In case two candidates had a majority, the House of Representatives would choose between those two.  In any case, after the President had been chosen, the Vice President would be the candidate with the most electoral votes (other than the President-elect).  The Senate would only choose the Vice President if there was a tie.

The election of a Vice President was conditional on first electing a President.  There wasn't a provision for a Vice President to be chosen in case a President was not chosent.

Neither John Adams in 1789 or Thomas Jefferson in 1796 received a majority of the electoral votes.  They were simply the runner-up candidate who became Vice President.

It was the 1800 election that triggered the 12th Amendment.   Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied, and both had a majority because every Democrat elector had voted for both.  After Jefferson was eventually elected by the House of Representatives, Burr became Vice President because he had more electoral votes than any other candidate.

The original proposal for the 12th Amendment simply provided that electors designate their votes for a President and Vice President.  It left the rest or Article II, Section 1 intact.  It addressed the immediate problem of the 1800 election, since it would prevent two candidates having a majority of electoral votes for President.  It didn't really provide a method for the Vice President to be chosen.

The form of the proposed amendment soon changed to be quite similar to that eventually enacted.   When the proposal was first voted in the House (in the Committee of the Whole) a substitute was proposed that would have had the House of Representatives choose the President from among the top 5 candidates in case none had a majority; and the Senate choose the Vice President in case of tie.

This introduced the concept of separate electoral votes, while preserving the original Constitution's provision for handling unresolved conditions.  Having separate electoral votes eliminated the possiblity of two tied candidates with a majority of electoral votes for President, and so that case no longer had to be handled.

As far as I can tell, the fact that a Vice President could now be chosen without a President being chosen was not an intended consequence.  I haven't found any debate at all about the method of choosing the Vice President.

The proposed amendment was referred to a House committee which reported a version that provided that in case no Presidential candidate had a majority, the House would choose from among the top 3 candidates.

There was debate among the House about the proper number of candidates to be considered:

  • Top 2 - this would adhere closer to the wishes expressed through the electorate.  When this change was proposed, it appeared to provide for election by the House, rather than State delegations in the House.  This was immediately corrected.
  • Top 3 - this would be the effective equivalent to the original Constitution, considering that each elector would only have one vote.  Under the original Constitution for example, it would be possible for the 5 candidates to each receive votes from 40% of the electors.  Under the one vote system, the top 3 could each receive a vote from 33% of the electors.
  • Top 5 - similar to the original Constitution; and would preserve the idea that the House of Representatives would choose the President in cases where the electoral college was indecisive.  While under the original Constitution, the 5th place candidate could receive a vote from 40% of the electors, it was quite possible that he could have had much fewer, and still be considered.  For example, in 1796, John Adams had one electoral vote more than a majority.  If the decision had been made by the House of Representatives they would have chosen from among (John Adams 71, Thomas Jefferson  68, Thomas Pinckney 59, Aaron Burr 30, and Samuel Adams 15.  All 15 S.Adams electoral votes were from Virginia, who had for Jefferson and Adams, rather than Jefferson and Burr.
  • All who received electoral votes.  Since the electoral college would be indecisive, the House could choose from among all persons who had received votes.  It was unlikely in any case that the House would choose a candidate who didn't have broad national support, since election required a majority of the state delegations.

The proposal to change (3) to (All) was defeated 26:77.  But a proposal to change (3) to (5) was passed 59:47.  There was some comments that this was supported out of concern that the whole amendment would be defeated it no change was made.

The amendment was passed by the House of Representatives 88:31 (a 2/3 majority).  It provided for House election among 5 candidates; and a Senate vote in case of tie.

The Senate apparently did not consider the House resolution, and instead passed its own.  I haven't read the Senate debate yet, and am just now reading the House debate of the Senate resolution.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2006, 03:40:40 pm by jimrtex »Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5884
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2006, 12:03:06 pm »
Ignore

I made it through the Senate debate on the 12th Amendment.  There was quite a bit of debate whether the House should choose from among the top 3 or 5 vote getters.  Like in the House, an amendment was made that changed the original proposed version that would have the Senate choose among the top 2 in the case that no candidate had a majority.  The original version had the Senate only choosing in case of a tie.

There were some suggestions that 3+2 was equivalent to 5, but these were directed at the number of candidates considered by the House.

The Senate also added the language that provided that in the case the House did not choose a President by March 4, that the Vice President would act as President.   There were arguments made that this could result in someone who was not intended to be President being chosen (that it would foster intrigue), as well as arguments that this would put pressure on the House to make a decision (to counter intrigue).  But, I didn't see anything about having two candidates in order that a decision be made.  I suppose it was somewhat implicit that the Senate would elect a Vice President.

Opponents of the amendment were correct in their prediction that it would lead to less able persons being nominated for the Vice-Presidency, and there would be more deal making involved.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines