Something weird in a constitutional amendment.

[napi21]

I'm obviously being a bit strange tonight, but something on DU prompted me to check the Constitutional amendments, and what they really say. I recognized all of the first 10 with no problem, but then I stumbled upon this one. It looks to me that candidates for President & Vice President must run independently. That's not what we've been doing. I don't know if it would be better or worse, but it sure would be interesting if you had to decide on a President, and separately, a VP. Reallym why should the candidate be able to choose his VP? Could prove realy interesting if a President Shrub was chosen, and a VP Edwards!!!!

Amendment XII

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

[liberalpragmatist]

1. No - nothing weird

What this is referring to his how the electoral college should vote. The electors are supposed to vote separately for President and separately for Vice President. That is exactly what happens. There is nothing to indicate that the presidential and vice presidential candidates cannot run on a ticket, and nothing that keeps electors from being pledged to both a presidential and a vice presidential candidate.

That being said, it's not at all unconstitional according to most scholars for the presidency and vice presidency to be voted separately by the regular electorate. If Congress were to permit it, or were the states themselves to put them on separate ballots, it could be done according to most scholars. So we could have had a Bush/Bentsen pairing in '88 or a Bush/Lieberman or Bush/Edwards pairing in '00 or '04.

The reason this amendment was added was b/c prior to this, the vice president was whoever came in second in electoral votes. There was no separate vote for president and vice president. Each elector had 2 votes for president and whoever secured the support of the largest majority of electors would be elected president. The next highest majority or the next highest plurality would be elected vice president. That is how Thomas Jefferson would up VP to John Adams.

However, in 1800, the electoral college deadlocked b/c the Democratic-Republican ticket of Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr held too strongly. B/c the same electors voted for the same two candidates, they had equal numbers of votes and the vote was sent to the House. The Federalists had managed better, having one of their electors purposely vote for a different person than their vice-presidential candidate, but there was some misunderstanding and the Dem-Rep ticket screwed up.

This original system did not anticipate political parties and tickets. So the constitution was amended to make electors vote separately for president and vice president.

[napi21]

2. Thanks for the explaination!

I never paid enough attention to civics classes to know any of that, but I think it would sure jazz up the elections if the US would really follow this amendment. I was being "cute" with the Shrub/Edwards thing, but I think it could be a good thing if we had several candidates run for Pres, and several for VP as well! It might not please the Pres very much, but do you really think Shrub would be as destructive without Cheney?

[liberalpragmatist]

3. Hm...

Given Cheney's public image, I really do think that if President and Vice President were elected separately, Edwards would have been elected Vice President this past cycle. So we'd have had a Bush/Edwards pairing. Which would've been pretty interesting. Certainly Edwards would've used the position to campaign for President himself, setting up an interesting power dynamic.

Also, Lloyd Bentsen would certainly have won the '88 Vice Presidential contest if he were running. So you'd have a Poppy Bush/Bentsen pairing.

Actually, in thinking back over this, I'm not sure this would actually be constitutional. I remember reading something about this, but maybe I'm wrong and actually they said there would need to be a constitutional amendment for it. I just don't see how you'd get electors who would split their tickets, since electors are chosen by slate and by party. Anyway, it's an interesting question.

[Historic NY]

4. Thank DeWitt Clinton for the admendment........he was the

Senator from NY that introduced it in 1802 after the Burr/Jefferson election of 1800. Prior to this one could have say a Democratic VP & Republican Pres. He sought to have this clarified. DeWitt Clinton was from my town.