Sounds like it’s a quick primary? So will VPs be picked before the nomination is finalized? Can multiple candidates pick the same VP? If after the nomination, it has to be pretty fast. Pick the second place finisher?
You must log in or register to comment.
The person who is chosen for President will announce a decision. How much influence others have over that decision is unclear, but officially it is the decision of the Presidential nominee.
Primary candidates don’t usually select a running mate before the primary anyways.
The process for VP selection is handled by the Presidential candidate and usually takes months. For instance, McCain started steps in his VP selection around Memorial Day for an announcement in late August. Even then, he made a last minute change to consider Palin, which ended up with Palin not being fully vetted.
Harris is really behind in the selection process, not even having a committee to advise on selecting who the VP candidate should be.
As this primary didn’t have serious competition, I don’t think she will select the second place finisher.
My money is on Pete Buttigieg because it will represent a continuation of the administration, he’s gone through the vetting process to run for President, and he’s been able to conduct himself well in national media.
Governors carry the risk of not knowing how to deal with national media. Senators are needed in the Senate and also may not have that full experience. House members aren’t usually picked.
Don’t expect a VP before the convention and the president is decided. Do expect that the VP will be from MI or PA as the boost there would make this a very difficult run for Trump.
Maybe it’s the time to go back to how things were when the US was founded. We have a vote and top two are President and VP nominees. Keeps the party aligned to what we actually care about and who we think is best, vs who the nominee or party thinks might be best.
More democratic this way
No. There’s a reason we amended the Constitution not to do that. The system prior to the 1804 election created a deadlock between two candidates that took the House of Representatives (which is responsible for breaking said deadlocks) thirty-six attempts to try to break the tie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
And if it’s just for one party vs both, what would that be bad?
I get why it was changed for VP for the dem vs Republican nominee. But why wouldn’t we want, as a party, better representation on who we voted for.
That’s exactly what happened in 1800. Both Jefferson and Burr, who were from the same party, tied in the electoral college vote. Some people in the party didn’t like Jefferson, but they but didn’t like the opposing party even more.
Each electoral college member got two votes. So all the electoral college members who were part of what would be the winning party ended up casting one vote for Burr and one vote for Jefferson, resulting in a tie. (Due to slow communication in those days, they all assumed someone else was going to be the one who would cast the tie-breaking vote.)
The tie went to the House of Representatives to break it, as is specified in the Constitution. Unfortunately, neither Burr nor Jefferson got the majority vote needed even after thirty-five separate votes. (Note that, in the US House of Representatives and the Senate, a “majority vote” is not “more than 50%”. Typically, you must get 2/3 of the votes in order to win.) On the thirty-sixth vote, Alexander Hamilton managed to convince some others to vote for Jefferson, and he got the majority vote he needed and became president.
Ok, but that’s for the EC and for presidential and VP nominees by the EC.
In the dnc we have delegates with 1 vote for their nominee. If the delegates vote for 1 dem and another gets the 2nd amount of votes, then they’d be Pres and VP nominees for the dnc. Or actually do ranked choice for dnc nominees to get voter ranking of nominees.
How is it better for a presidential nominee to pick who they want vs listening to the peoples actual preferences.
Ah, that’s what you meant. A presidential nominee will typically pick someone who’s different enough from them (but that they still fundamentally agree with) that people who felt underrepresented by the presidential nominee pick will feel represented by the vice presidential nominee pick. That’s the general logic behind who becomes the VP pick.
The fourth election nearly started a civil war.
How would nominating a dem VP by Dems via voting cause a civil war?
Read up on the Election of 1800. Suffice to say, the election went so badly that the 12th Amendment was enacted.
There is no primary. The presidential candidate and the DNC will choose the VP candidate. This is the state of our democracy. Out of 330M people we have been told we can pick from two people, neither of which did we have any part in selecting.
Oligarchs will provide a useful idiot.
