520
this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
520 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2089 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fun fact, the VP was originally supposed to be whoever got second place in the presidential election...until they figured out that the candidates might hate each other and that relationship isn't so great for a president and their VP.
It's not so much that as that the coalitions and eventual parties wanted to hold both seats, so they ran multiple candidates with the assumption that one would be president and the other vice president. The electors would then structure their votes to ensure that the correct person was elected to each position. However, with the difficulties in long-distance communication at the time, this was prone to error. In 1800, this almost led to the candidate for vice president being elected as president.
After that, they realized that it didn't make sense to use one slate of candidates for both positions, so they separated out the ballot into president and vice president. That's essentially how the elections had been running up to that point (particularly because they always had two votes to cast), but it was to easy to make a mistake. Both before and after the amendment, there was a presidential candidate with a running mate vying for the vice presidency.
Thanks for the additional context. And yeah, you're right about the coalitions trying to control both spots.
I don't think we can totally ignore that the 1796 Adams-Jefferson presidency was a vivid example to Congress--specifically, the congress that eventually passed the 12th amendment after the dumpster fire of the 1800 election--on the importance of relationship dynamics in getting things done.
I actually had written an answer about the effects of the 12th amendment on the politics StackExchange that details how the original elections worked (or failed) under the old system.
The interesting thing to me about this is that after Washington, there had always been running mates, and the problem wasn't that the President and Vice President may be political opponents. The problem was the old system was open to gamesmanship that thwarted the will of the voters.
1796 did not end with an Adams-Jefferson administration because Jefferson came in second. If things went as planned, it would have been Adams-Pinckney instead. But Hamilton preferred Pinckney over Adams and tried to sway the electors for Jefferson-Burr to vote Jefferson-Pinckney instead, which would have led to a Pinckney-Adams administration despite Pinckney campaigning with Adams as his presumptive Vice President. However, his plan didn't work out, and Jefferson ended up getting the second most number of votes. This led to an Adams-Jefferson administration which was not supposed to happen. This was bad, but the shady dealings happened in the dark, and Adams was at least elected President in accordance to the popular vote. The politicians at the time thought that they could just sweep this under the rug as they now had a better understanding of how to manage their electors.
But, that turned out to be false. In 1800, they planned to be smarter with allocating the electors' votes, but the Democratic-Republicans failed and accidentally cast the same number of votes for both Jefferson and Burr. Under the Constitution, a tie is decided in the House, and the makeup of the House meant that Federalists had the advantage. They preferred Burr over Jefferson, so they tried to subvert the election and appoint a Burr-Jefferson administration rather than Jefferson-Burr. Hamilton ultimately convinced the Federalists to relent and give the election to Jefferson. This was now the second time that Hamilton intervened to orchestrate the results of the election, and this time, it was all out in the open on the House floor. Furthermore, in both of these instances, Hamilton's actions screwed over Burr, leading to the infamous Hamilton-Burr duel that left Hamilton dead and Burr disgraced. So not only did the election show that this Constitution was failing in the democratic ideals of the revolution, it also led to the untimely downfall of two of the country's top political leaders.
So yes, the 1796 election exposed a pretty major issue, and the 1800 election showed that that issue could not be ignored. However, if you're suggesting that the 1796 election led to the 12th Amendment because it showed the problems that arise when the President and Vice President are not politically aligned, I'm not so sure. It's possible, but I don't think that was a revelation to them. At the very least, the parties at the time were always trying to fill both offices with specific people, even before the 12th Amendment. The biggest problem they were trying to address was the way that the old system could be gamed by political elites.
Also, sorry for the big wall of text. I just find this to be a very interesting topic.
I've had fun learning more about it and that includes your exceptional replies. Thanks for sharing your knowledge!!