QCExaminer writes: “This isn’t the first time I’ve thought the the best POTUS/VPOTUS ticket would be combining people from both parties. The GOP is always stronger on foreign policy/national security issues, and the Dems are stronger on domestic issues.”
A GOPer as POTUS would be preferred, since he/she is the Commander-in-Chief, but the VP would be in charge of domestic policy, with POTUS having final say. This would go a long way in moderating the extreme partisanship we have experienced since the Clinton years.
It would be the best of both worlds, in my view.
Exactly my point.
It’s obviously not going to happen, but wouldn’t it be a fantastic idea in theory? It would also create a different political culture, climate and debate. Parties would matter less. Now, it’s important to keep in mind that the American system wasn’t designed for parties. Some founding fathers even warned Americans against it.
It would diminish the roles parties play, which could very well be a good thing.
No?
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Well, the problem is what is meant by being ’strong’ in those areas. The GOP currently is much more hawkish, but even though I mostly agree with that I wouldn’t want them to be unchecked (again). Same with Dems on domestic issues- they’re strong on those issues if you consider a lot of economic intervention to be strong- but certainly as a conservative I want that to be checked.
But they wouldn’t be unchecked in such a system of course, because it will be impossible to get the administration as a whole to act if people are too much ideologically motivated.
Yes, I really like the idea. It’s never going to happen, but in theory it sounds quite good, no? To me at least.
Then again I’m prejudiced.
Actually, the more I think about it, the reason it wouldn’t work is that Constitutionally, the VP has no authority whatsoever (as I understand it.) So just because a VP is seen as being a guy who’s strong on domestic or foreign policy, the POTUS has absolutely no obligation to allow the VP to do anything at all. The only reason that he usually does is (generally speaking) they are interested in running the same platform. Putting two guys on the ticket who have conflicting platforms doesn’t mean that they have to come to consensus before acting- it means that the POTUS can always act and the VP does nothing.
Sorry, that of course should have been "no authority except for his role in the Senate."
Christine, sure. But we’re not talking about, in this situation, what selfish egotistical people would do, we’re talking about what they would ideally do (for the good of the country, etc.).
In other words, I completely ignore human nature, in order to show how it could be if humans were less… fallible.
And yes, you could – then – very well call this exercise useless or irrelevant, but I had fun thinking about it at least. Didn’t you?
But it’s not selfish to try to prevent an agenda that you strongly disagree with, Michael- that’s the point. The two men (or any others who are from opposing parties) simply have different ideas of what is ‘for the good of the country’.
Obviously that’s the same in the netherlands. yet we have learned how to compromise.
See it?
But in our system, the only way to do what you believe is best for the country is to fight for it- we don’t have proportional representation, so it really doesn’t work any other way.
But in our system, the only way to do what you believe is best for the country is to fight for it- we don’t have proportional representation, so it really doesn’t work any other way.
You’re just a spoiler who refuses to play the “what if” game so popular among little children (and 23 year old students bored to death by studying literature for 8 hours a day).
And yes, for some reason I post more and comment more when I’m supposed to study a lot. I think it’s because I’m often bored after 45 minutes or so.
OK, having complained I now hve to go. One hour reading, then sleeping.
Same here with regard to household chores, I suppose!
It won’t happen and really it shouldn’t. There is a reason that we don’t have the VP from the other party. Jefferson made a terrible VP for Adams, constant bickering and he refused to help Adams when ever he could.
It just didn’t work and there is no need to go back. I would rather have more parties than having a shared Presidency.
I agree with Bob. You might have one surrepticiously obstructing the other, with a gain of net zero for the country. But, having said that, I see no reason why the cabinet should consist of the winning party’s well-connected, or why the president shouldn’t have advisors that represent all points of view. This is how FDR operated, and it served him and us very well.
Say what? Who were the contrarians in the FDR administration? The man tried to stack the Supreme Court so that he could have his expansive executive authority validated- so it hardly seems that he was willing to entertain opposing viewpoints.