Should the President and Vice President Be Elected Separately?

[liberalpragmatist]

Some political scientists and politicians have advocated making the Vice President and President separate elected positions. Yes, in general, the presidential nominee could still be the one to pick the VP nominee but that VP nominee would have to be voted on by the American people separately.

Advantages: Possibly promote running mates of higher caliber. We almost certainly would be rid of Cheney regardless of what happens to Kerry.

Disadvantages: Presidents and Vice Presidents of separate parties very possible in close races. Also, could possibly make the Presidential nominee lose an issue - i.e. it'd be harder for Kerry to link Cheney to getting rid of Bush.

I'm not sure what I prefer. Personally, I lean more towards supporting the current system. What does DU think?

[Arkana]

1. Personally?

I don't like it. A Pres and a VP aren't supposed to be at each other's throats the entire four/eight years. Can you imagine a Bush/Edwards admin or a Kerry/Cheney admin trying to get anything done?

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

2. Also

If the president supports a bill that ends up being decided by a tie-breaking vote in the Senate by the vice-president (who happens to be in the opposing party) the president is in essence being punished for winning.

The vice-president used to be whoever the runner-up was in the general election.

[hlthe2b]

3. President & VP working at cross purposes?

More incentive for assasination conspiracy where party is different or VP is inordinately 'ambitious.'

Not a good idea, IMO

[Barney Rocks]

4. I don't like it.

the chief executive of the country has a right to choose his righthand man (or woman). However--at the state level lt governor is elected separately from governor and it seems to work. So philosophically I am against it, but I guess it can work.