Special Election to the Presidency (Opinions)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When discussing changes to our constitutional framework, the burden of proof is always on the proponents of change to demonstrate how their idea would actually and practically improve the game—and I'm yet to read a convincing argument to that effect. 

Ironically, throughout my years in this game it has always seemed to be the reverse. The bandwagon effect causes a large number of people to jump on board a given proposal only for the debate and discourse to whither it away once the counter arguments are presented and people begin to see both sides.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was just stating my opinion about the Vice Presidency and a truthful story about why I've never run for president. If you want to get offended about that, it's all up to you.

Since when does "object" meaning a disagreement on the facts, followed by a post filled with relevant constitutional texts and quotes, constitute "offense"?

I even threw in a tongue emoticon to emphasize that it was a respectful disagreement.

[Lumine]

As for the underlying question, since it was buried in the large post above. I would support having special elections to the Presidency, if we moved towards and separately elected President of Congress, in lieu of the present VP elected on a ticket. That way PoC is entirely legislative in nature, and people will be elected to it based on their activity and competence, not their popularity with a certain block of voters regardless of other factors (though the culture around the VP selection process has been shifting already, thanks to the past year of VPs actually needing to do stuff).

Well, as I've stated on the Senate I'm supportive of that idea as well. I can agree that there is a relevance to the job PiT does (which can be carried on by a President of Congress who isn't a Vice-President), and it would solve several of the issues which I find should be addressed. Would you be interested in drafting an initial proposal for that so we can add it to be the debate or as a separate amendment if needed be?

[Pericles]

One thing is that PiT's tie-breaking power in the Senate makes the presidential ticket's mandate more meaningful and allows them to counter-balance against Congress, whose members got less support than they did. While the left is on the receiving end of that treatment now, in future at some point they'll be breaking the ties.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As for the underlying question, since it was buried in the large post above. I would support having special elections to the Presidency, if we moved towards and separately elected President of Congress, in lieu of the present VP elected on a ticket. That way PoC is entirely legislative in nature, and people will be elected to it based on their activity and competence, not their popularity with a certain block of voters regardless of other factors (though the culture around the VP selection process has been shifting already, thanks to the past year of VPs actually needing to do stuff).

Well, as I've stated on the Senate I'm supportive of that idea as well. I can agree that there is a relevance to the job PiT does (which can be carried on by a President of Congress who isn't a Vice-President), and it would solve several of the issues which I find should be addressed. Would you be interested in drafting an initial proposal for that so we can add it to be the debate or as a separate amendment if needed be?

Well the structure of it would depend on what it is being added to.

Here would be the relevant Article III provision

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clause 3 basically moves up to section 1 and clarifies, what is established in Section 5, of Art 3. I would point out said section has been amended, which is not displayed on the wiki currently.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That moment when you realize that technically, Truman and Windjammer count as "Constitutional" Conservatives in this case.