What if the President and VP were elected separately?

[defe07]

If the President and VP were elected separately, would you support the idea? This is how it would work: parties nominate 2 candidates and the voters are given 2 votes: 1 for President and 1 for VP. Both candidates from the party run against each other as well as the other candidates. Electoral votes are allocated like now but first to the candidate that won the President's race in a state and then to the candidate that won the VP's race. However, should a ticket get an absolute majority of the 1st round vote, both candidates are given electors (President and VP).

[Padfoot]

I would definitely favor voting for president and vice president as separate offices instead of on the same ticket.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

No way.  It would create too many problems.  Imagine President Gore and Vice President Cheney; there would be too much friction.  If anything, we should go back to the system where the top 2 Presidential candidates get the Presidency and Vice Presidency.

[defe07]

But you could also factor in the case where a VP candidate for party A is stronger than a Pres candidate from the same party. Recall Dukakis/Bentsen anyone?

[defe07]

I'm sure this would help voters even more. In '92, a voter could vote for Perot and Clinton or Bush. In 2000, a voter could vote for Nader and Gore. Plus consider the fact that third parties and independents would be considered more often as the spoiler effect and wasted vote syndrome would decrease. I'm not sure if I made myself clear with the question but this doesn't mean you had parties nominate their ticket and voters would have to vote for say Nader for Pres and Campagna for VP. If you wanted, you could vote for Nader and Kerry instead.

[ottermax]

Perhaps the top two candidates with IRV, so that the best candidates are chosen.