- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Should VP and AG offices be separate elections?
Posted on 6/22/14 at 10:42 am
Posted on 6/22/14 at 10:42 am
Here in AR we have this type system. Seems to work pretty well. Without one party entrenched in the highest offices in the land, do you think there would be a better system of checks and balances in national government?
I know in the past here in AR that sometimes the governor is/was very deliberate in whether or not leaving the state is in his best interest considering the Lt. Gov. can do what he wants while the governor is gone. Not sure how that would compare to a VP on the national system.
Just curious to the pros and cons.
I know in the past here in AR that sometimes the governor is/was very deliberate in whether or not leaving the state is in his best interest considering the Lt. Gov. can do what he wants while the governor is gone. Not sure how that would compare to a VP on the national system.
Just curious to the pros and cons.
4
Posted on 6/22/14 at 10:43 am to Homesick Tiger
VP used to be separate and it caused a clusterfrick in the 1800 election.
Personally, I don't think we should be electing the heads of the Executive Branch.
Personally, I don't think we should be electing the heads of the Executive Branch.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 10:44 am to Antonio Moss
quote:It would be much worse in today's media market. Heck no from me.
VP used to be separate and it caused a clusterfrick in the 1800 election.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 10:45 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Personally, I don't think we should be electing the heads of the Executive Branch.
Uhhh... Wat?
Posted on 6/22/14 at 10:52 am to Homesick Tiger
frick no.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 10:54 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
Personally, I don't think we should be electing the heads of the Executive Branch.
Primogeniture is way cleaner.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 12:36 pm to Homesick Tiger
VP
I have no problem with the Twelfth Amendment.
Attorney General
Pro
Having an elected AG is rather tempting after seeing the behavior of US Attorney Generals over the past twenty years, which behavior in my mind is acting as disguised political muscle of the President.
Con
Popularly elected AGs especially in the states can sometimes tend to demagoguery, and it is hard to imagine the further corruption that would be launched by another nationally elected official.
Maybe the AG should be elected by the Senate, instead of just confirming the President's choice, or I read that Tennessee's Attorney General is elected by the state supreme court to an eight year term. I think I could live with our Supreme Court doing that.
I have no problem with the Twelfth Amendment.
Attorney General
Pro
Having an elected AG is rather tempting after seeing the behavior of US Attorney Generals over the past twenty years, which behavior in my mind is acting as disguised political muscle of the President.
Con
Popularly elected AGs especially in the states can sometimes tend to demagoguery, and it is hard to imagine the further corruption that would be launched by another nationally elected official.
Maybe the AG should be elected by the Senate, instead of just confirming the President's choice, or I read that Tennessee's Attorney General is elected by the state supreme court to an eight year term. I think I could live with our Supreme Court doing that.
This post was edited on 6/22/14 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 6/22/14 at 1:08 pm to Homesick Tiger
The VEEP shouldn't.
The A. G. should be appppinted by the House every 4 years.
The execitve office has too much power, the house is a huge body and there would be much less of the B
S. that Obama is doing, like circumventing our laws, and passing B.S. E.O.' s.
The A. G. should be appppinted by the House every 4 years.
The execitve office has too much power, the house is a huge body and there would be much less of the B
S. that Obama is doing, like circumventing our laws, and passing B.S. E.O.' s.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 1:36 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
VP used to be separate and it caused a clusterfrick in the 1800 election.
Legally, the VP is still elected separately by the electors.
The AG should continue to be appointed by the president. I'm a believer in a unitary executive.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 3:29 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
The AG should continue to be appointed by the president. I'm a believer in a unitary executive.
The only problem I have is it overloads the boat to one side. In politics I don't like the option of all is good or all is bad. I like something in between.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 3:42 pm to OleWar
I know it's counter intuitive but elected AGs may only be interested in party politics/grand standing while appointed ones at least have to pretend to be balanced.
There's no perfect solution. I just don't want more politicians, elections, and divisiveness. Imagine if a hardcore liberal democrat were AG while a Republican was president. The AG's office would waste all it's resources going after GOP politicians. (and vice versa)
There's no perfect solution. I just don't want more politicians, elections, and divisiveness. Imagine if a hardcore liberal democrat were AG while a Republican was president. The AG's office would waste all it's resources going after GOP politicians. (and vice versa)
Posted on 6/22/14 at 3:57 pm to Doosh606
quote:
Personally, I don't think we should be electing the heads of the Executive Branch.
quote:
Uhhh... Wat?
In my perfect world, the President would be selected by the minority party in the House and would be limited to two terms (4 years total)
Posted on 6/22/14 at 4:17 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
In my perfect world, the President would be selected by the minority party in the House
wtf?
Posted on 6/22/14 at 4:30 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
wtf?
During the drafting of the Constitution, the Virginia Plan called for the head of the Executive Branch to be selected by the Congress (akin to most parliamentary systems.) It was an extremely popular idea.
However, when the Virginia Plan was being tossed around the drafters never envisioned a two-party state. In fact, they spoken openly against it.
The Electoral College was selected because the drafters believed that it was the best of both worlds. They believed MOST presidential elections would end without a majority winner (because of multiple political parties) in which case the House selects the President. In the rare election when 50% of the EC votes went to a single candidate, he (or she) would win the office outright.
The two-party system threw a wrench into all of this.
Having the minority party of the House select the Executive would balance the branches between the two parties and limit the scope of federal control.
This post was edited on 6/22/14 at 4:33 pm
Posted on 6/22/14 at 4:48 pm to Asgard Device
quote:
appointed ones at least have to pretend to be balanced.
Holder isn't even trying to pretend.
Posted on 6/22/14 at 5:00 pm to Navytiger74
quote:Exactly.
Legally, the VP is still elected separately by the electors.
I like the idea despite the election of 1800.
I also, hate the 17th amendment.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News