posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 03:27 PM
I have asked a few times and haven't been able to get an answer yet (understandably with all the other stuff that was going on) but I'm hoping this
time I can get a ruling.
I have refrained so far from selecting a VP.
The original schedule stated that VPs were to be selected after the primaries. Because the primary system at the time was different, I pledged to take
the highest vote earner not to make it to the general election as my VP, regardless of party.
Since then there have been changes (because it seems like pretty much every candidate ignored the original schedule with respect to VPs), so I have a
slightly different idea, and I have a question about whether or not it is acceptable.
I believe that because the job of the President and Vice President is to communicate and not to implement policy, that it is not necessary or even
desireable for the President and Vice President to speak with one voice. I believe that the VP should be a voice of dissent, so that the membership is
more inclusively represented by the executives.
I would like to do one of the following things:
1. Leave the Vice Presidency on my ticket vacant throughout the election with the understanding that the runner-up in the general election will be VP
if I am elected.
2. Leave the Vice Presidency on my ticket vacant until after the primary election, and take the best candidate who does not make the general election
(this is less important now that the original plan for a partisan primary has been done away with)
Would either of these be allowable?