Vice Presidential Election Amendment (At Final Vote)

[minionofmidas]

Vice Presidential Election Amendment

Elections to the Presidency and Vice Presidency shall be held in separate contests. Vice Presidential Elections shall be held on the same date as Presidential Elections.


Sponsor: Lewis


Much to my surprise, there isn't any additional language in the Constitution or CESRA that needs to be explicitly repealed to make this work. All the current ticket system is based on is "He shall be elected with a Vice President(...)" in Article II Section 1 Clause 1 and the Candidate Regulations (an executive order. And one that has rarely been obeyed to the letter anyways.) The Constitution also says "The Senate shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Presidential elections", so whether this even requires an amendment is open to debate. Better to play it safe, though.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'll let it go to the people, but I personally oppose the idea

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I like the idea.

[Јas]

Would anyone run for the Vice Presidency?
Is it worth considering getting rid of the office altogether?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Would anyone run for the Vice Presidency?
Is it worth considering getting rid of the office altogether?

Wouldn't that lead to a health mess of other issues?  The VP does cast at least 1 or 2 tiebreaking votes a senate and many a times has assumed the presidency.  Who would be next in command for the presidency?  All the cabinet members are unelected and picking one governor or senator would be absurd

[Meeker]

Yea, we need someone to break ties, and there's really no one else in the federal government that it makes sense to do it. If we didn't have that issue then I'd fully support either 1) Giving the PPT the powers of the Vice President or 2) Giving the Vice President the powers of the PPT. Having both seems silly (with the exception of the tie-breaking duty).

[minionofmidas]

Yea, we need someone to break ties, and there's really no one else in the federal government that it makes sense to do it. If we didn't have that issue then I'd fully support either 1) Giving the PPT the powers of the Vice President or 2) Giving the Vice President the powers of the PPT. Having both seems silly (with the exception of the tie-breaking duty).

You could always give me* a second vote in case of ties...

*no, I can't be PPT forever. The position is termlimited to four consecutive terms.

[Јas]

Would anyone run for the Vice Presidency?
Is it worth considering getting rid of the office altogether?

Wouldn't that lead to a health mess of other issues? 

Would it? I don't know. Let's discuss it.

The VP does cast at least 1 or 2 tiebreaking votes a senate

Hardly the most difficult one to overcome. Assign the tie-breaking role to someone else, e.g. the PPT or the President, or set a rule that a tied vote equates to a fail or something. Whatever.

and many a times has assumed the presidency.  Who would be next in command for the presidency?  All the cabinet members are unelected and picking one governor or senator would be absurd

Mandate a new election within X days. Mandate someone to step in as acting President, PPT or SoEA or whoever.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I don't see how giving the PPT an extra vote is a good idea, its like making them a double senator.  Giving the power to the president is a possibility, but not a good one.  I fail to see why we would need to eliminate the office, that serves no purpose.

The election of the vice-president increases partisanship, something desperatley lacking in Atlasia until the last few months and I fear it might return. 

Having a non-elected official take over as VP is also a bad idea, takes away so many rights.

[Јas]

I don't see how giving the PPT an extra vote is a good idea, its like making them a double senator.  Giving the power to the president is a possibility, but not a good one.  I fail to see why we would need to eliminate the office, that serves no purpose.

Please explain why giving the power to the President isn't a good idea, whilest retaining it for the VP is.

Having a non-elected official take over as VP is also a bad idea, takes away so many rights.

Please list the 'so many rights' that would be taken away.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I don't see how giving the PPT an extra vote is a good idea, its like making them a double senator.  Giving the power to the president is a possibility, but not a good one.  I fail to see why we would need to eliminate the office, that serves no purpose.

Please explain why giving the power to the President isn't a good idea, whilest retaining it for the VP is.

The VP and president can share differences of opinion that are good for the country

Having a non-elected official take over as VP is also a bad idea, takes away so many rights.

Please list the 'so many rights' that would be taken away.
[/quote]
The right to have a VP they elected.  At least if the president picks a new one, that's someone the president picked and the senate confirmed (to be VP before you say the SoFA, SoEA, or AG is appointed by the president)

[Ebowed]

I don't see how giving the PPT an extra vote is a good idea, its like making them a double senator.  Giving the power to the president is a possibility, but not a good one.  I fail to see why we would need to eliminate the office, that serves no purpose.

Please explain why giving the power to the President isn't a good idea, whilest retaining it for the VP is.

Too much power given to one person - the President signs/vetoes legislation, so he shouldn't be voting on it.

Giving said power to the PPT is also a bad idea as it's supposed to be a non-ideological position.

[Meeker]

Letting the President vote in the Senate is a pretty glaring violation of the separation of powers principle.

[Јas]

I don't see how giving the PPT an extra vote is a good idea, its like making them a double senator.  Giving the power to the president is a possibility, but not a good one.  I fail to see why we would need to eliminate the office, that serves no purpose.

Please explain why giving the power to the President isn't a good idea, whilest retaining it for the VP is.

The VP and president can share differences of opinion that are good for the country

I'm sure that's the answer to some question, but I don't see how it answers the one I asked.
Please either explain further or come up with another answer.

Having a non-elected official take over as VP is also a bad idea, takes away so many rights.

Please list the 'so many rights' that would be taken away.

The right to have a VP they elected.  At least if the president picks a new one, that's someone the president picked and the senate confirmed (to be VP before you say the SoFA, SoEA, or AG is appointed by the president)

Again, you do realise that's not actually answering my question?
I await the other 'so many' reasons with interest.

[DownWithTheLeft]

OK - I'll break real simple for you

President getting to vote in senate not good
Non-elected person being VP also not good

[Јas]

OK - I'll break real simple for you

President getting to vote in senate not good
Non-elected person being VP also not good

I didn't ask you to repeat yourself, I asked you to explain yourself.
It's perfectly acceptable for you to explain that you don't know of course.

[DownWithTheLeft]

OK - I'll break real simple for you

President getting to vote in senate not good
Non-elected person being VP also not good

I didn't ask you to repeat yourself, I asked you to explain yourself.
It's perfectly acceptable for you to explain that you don't know of course.

If the president gets to sign or veto legislation AND vote on it, that is not acceptable.  Where is the checks and balances?  Seperation of power?  Now, if the VP casts a vote in favor to break a tie, the president can veto it.  Now, if the president votes yes its over because he can sign it too.  The checks disappear.

[Јas]

OK - I'll break real simple for you

President getting to vote in senate not good
Non-elected person being VP also not good

I didn't ask you to repeat yourself, I asked you to explain yourself.
It's perfectly acceptable for you to explain that you don't know of course.

If the president gets to sign or veto legislation AND vote on it, that is not acceptable.  Where is the checks and balances?  Seperation of power?  Now, if the VP casts a vote in favor to break a tie, the president can veto it.  Now, if the president votes yes its over because he can sign it too.  The checks disappear.

The tie-breaking vote is of very limited use, and the Vice Presidency isn't a check on the powers of the Presidency. The Senate and the Court and the people are the checks. The argument could be used as reasoning to reject the rebalancing of anyone's powers.

And if all else fails, having the President break ties is only one option I presented.

What of requiring a majority vote to pass amendments in the Senate, and so removing the need for any tie-breaker?

[DownWithTheLeft]

What of requiring a majority vote to pass amendments in the Senate, and so removing the need for any tie-breaker?

In a senate of so few people, I don't see that as plausible.  The difference between getting 5 votes for something and 6 is quite different

[Јas]

What of requiring a majority vote to pass amendments in the Senate, and so removing the need for any tie-breaker?

In a senate of so few people, I don't see that as plausible.  The difference between getting 5 votes for something and 6 is quite different

But you said yourself earlier the need for a tie-breaking vote is unusual as is.
How many ties have there been in the last term? 2? 3?
Out of how many votes? 40? 50?

[Ebowed]

But you said yourself earlier the need for a tie-breaking vote is unusual as is.
How many ties have there been in the last term? 2? 3?
Out of how many votes? 40? 50?

It's also comparatively unusual for the government to prosecute court cases - perhaps the President could fulfill the role of the AG?

[Јas]

But you said yourself earlier the need for a tie-breaking vote is unusual as is.
How many ties have there been in the last term? 2? 3?
Out of how many votes? 40? 50?

It's also comparatively unusual for the government to prosecute court cases - perhaps the President could fulfill the role of the AG?

If the power were to be removed from the AG, then I'd probably recommend the ability of the President to appoint a special prosecutor as the need arises.

[HappyWarrior]

I will support the election of the VP.

[minionofmidas]

But you said yourself earlier the need for a tie-breaking vote is unusual as is.
How many ties have there been in the last term? 2? 3?
Out of how many votes? 40? 50?

It's also comparatively unusual for the government to prosecute court cases

Huh? As far as I'm aware the number of settled governments in world history that have not been prosecuting court cases is zero.

It's just that they've been leaving the day-to-day running to underlings. Underlings that do not exist in Atlasia.

[DownWithTheLeft]

But you said yourself earlier the need for a tie-breaking vote is unusual as is.
How many ties have there been in the last term? 2? 3?
Out of how many votes? 40? 50?

It's also comparatively unusual for the government to prosecute court cases

Huh? As far as I'm aware the number of settled governments in world history that have not been prosecuting court cases is zero.

It's just that they've been leaving the day-to-day running to underlings. Underlings that do not exist in Atlasia.

I think the point he's trying to make is that the president shouldn't be voting on legislation as much as he shouldn't carry out the duties of the courts