Jump to content

It's today then ... (Trump thread)


mikehoncho

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TomJones233 said:

I mean, If Biden wins, i hope he steps down so Harris can become prez.

I like Harris as a candidate, but I don't like the idea of "backdooring" a President in that manner. If she wants the job, then run for it and let the people vote for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, David said:

I like Harris as a candidate, but I don't like the idea of "backdooring" a President in that manner. If she wants the job, then run for it and let the people vote for you. 

Disagrees in Gerald Ford. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
32 minutes ago, David said:

I like Harris as a candidate, but I don't like the idea of "backdooring" a President in that manner. If she wants the job, then run for it and let the people vote for you. 

I was going to say that surely by voting for Biden, you're making also a choice that says you understand how the US system works, and therefore accept that Harris becoming president is a reasonable possibility.

Having thought about it some more, and the nature of "package deal" politics in general, something struck me (and perhaps someone can immediately explain to me why it wouldn't work): wouldn't it be better if the system were overhauled so that a presidential candidate would have to nominate, say, three potential VPs that the electorate could then vote for (or even vote for a VP from the opposite party if they so choose)? Then if, say, the Democratic presidential candidate won, the Democratic VP candidate with the most votes would get in.

@Fog Dude, @JNLister, @Uncle Zeb, any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
1 hour ago, dopper said:

We have more cases because we have more testing" most likely refers to the fact that countries who don't test as much will probably have more undiagnosed cases than America does.

No, that's not what he meant by that, and he doubled down and clarified that he meant the stupidest possible interpretation of that statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

wouldn't it be better if the system were overhauled so that a presidential candidate would have to nominate, say, three potential VPs that the electorate could then vote for (or even vote for a VP from the opposite party if they so choose)? Then if, say, the Democratic presidential candidate won, the Democratic VP candidate with the most votes would get in.

@Fog Dude, @JNLister, @Uncle Zeb, any thoughts?

Doesn't strike me as any better, to be honest. Perhaps actually worse, as at least with the current system you can make an informed choice with your vote for president, knowing who'd replace them. With a field of three possibilities on that part of the ticket, would you still vote for that president if you only liked two of those three potential VPs? What if you only liked one of them?

If Republican voters were to get a say in which of Biden's VP picks replaced him, would they opt to make the best choice for the country or the best choice for the GOP candidate to beat in the next election?

Pull on the thread further and what you might end up vouching for instead is one of those systems where you rank the candidates by preference (you probably know the name of it; I've forgotten), and then the VP role would go to the second most popular candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
13 minutes ago, Uncle Zeb said:

Doesn't strike me as any better, to be honest. Perhaps actually worse, as at least with the current system you can make an informed choice with your vote for president, knowing who'd replace them. With a field of three possibilities on that part of the ticket, would you still vote for that president if you only liked two of those three potential VPs? What if you only liked one of them?

Presumably you would vote for that one VP? With any election, you always have to be prepared for the possibility that someone you don't like will get in. As a lefty, I'm certainly used to that by now.

Quote

If Republican voters were to get a say in which of Biden's VP picks replaced him, would they opt to make the best choice for the country or the best choice for the GOP candidate to beat in the next election?

Ah, but if you only get one VP vote, you would have to make a decision as to whether or not to vote for an opposing VP or one from the party you'd vote for.

Quote

Pull on the thread further and what you might end up vouching for instead is one of those systems where you rank the candidates by preference (you probably know the name of it; I've forgotten), and then the VP role would go to the second most popular candidate.

This probably sounds like the most reasonable idea.

6 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

Ranked choice voting I think.

I don't see the value in making people pick a VP. it's a distracting and unimportant choice tbh, when the voting ticket is long enough with enough actually relevant and  important decisions for people to make.

Yeh, but in US history there have been nine occasions when the president has had to be replace, that's nearly a quarter of the total number of presidents there've been. And in the current context, with Trump being the oldest president on record (and maybe someone can confirm whether or not this election will see the highest combined age of presidential candidates ever), not to mention the unusually-violent nature of politics right now, it could be more relevant than it usually is.

 

Either way, I'm just speculating here. Certainly not my Capitol Hill to die on.

Edited by Carbomb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I think David is talking about the idea of Biden intentionally standing down to make Harris President, which would indeed be a shitarse move. You vote knowing who the VP is, but it's very much an unspoken assumption that the Presidential candidate intends to serve the full term and the VP is only going to take over in the event of death/illness/impeachment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

I was going to say that surely by voting for Biden, you're making also a choice that says you understand how the US system works, and therefore accept that Harris becoming president is a reasonable possibility.

I don't know if many Americans really know how the system works to be honest, and while I agree with you, I'd just far prefer a candidate like Harris to outright win the vote legit and not get into office in a way that would provide naysayers with a shitload of ammo to decry her as "not their president" and so forth.

The best thing for all concerned would be Biden seeing out his term. The US could do without another controversial White house for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Presumably you would vote for that one VP? With any election, you always have to be prepared for the possibility that someone you don't like will get in. As a lefty, I'm certainly used to that by now.

 

Ah, but if you only get one VP vote, you would have to make a decision as to whether or not to vote for an opposing VP or one from the party you'd vote for.

Ah, I was thinking this VP vote would occur as and when necessary, after President A had been elected on his/her selection of three potential Plan Bs.

You're right that there's always some uncertainty in an election, but you normally know who you're voting for. If you liked Biden but hated Harris, sure you could vote for Biden as president and someone else as VP, but your vote for Biden would help open the door for his VP to take over, and that could still be the one you hate.

That's if the VP had to be from the same party of course, and I realise you suggested a version where that wouldn't be the case. When the VP can be cross-party though is when you get closer to the ranked whatchamacallit scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...