I couldn’t find this question posted before, but there’s a lot of election threads so sorry if it’s a repeat.
Over on the BBC site one blogger idly throws out the notion that it’d be legal for Bloomberg to be VP on both the Democratic and Republican ticket.
I can see that it wouldn’t be likely to happen, but is there a reason that it legally couldn’t?
SD
It’s perfectly legal according to the Constitution.
There might be a question of whether the rules drawn up by the parties allow it, although I don’t think the notion has ever come up.
The only problem I can see is that some states don’t allow a person to run on more than one party line on a ballot. New York explicitly does, but I know it’s unusual that way.
The prohibition against running on multiple party lines usually arises as a consequence of primary election laws. In Illinois, for example, you have to file a declaration of candidacy to appear on the primary ballot, and you’re only allowed to file for one combination of office and party.
That doesn’t apply to vice-presidential nominations, which are made by national conventions. So no, there is nothing to prevent a duplicate nomination.
Even less unlikely, but could both parties nominate the same guy for President?
Or how about the Dems field Person A as president with Person B as Vice and the Reps field B as president and A as VP. Legal?
Thanks for the answers everyone.
There is no constitutional impediment to such a dual nomination, but getting on the ballot in sufficient states under state law and party rules would be difficult if not impossible. As Freddy pointed out, in New York the same candidate is sometimes the nominee of multiple parties (I think the Constitution Party in New York almost always nominates the Republican nominee for whatever reason).
No problem with this either.
Missed the edit window:
Re the first question, I suppose that if one or the other party went into its nominating convention with no candidate havine enough delegates to secure the nomination, then once the pledged delegates are released they could lose their collective mind and nominate the candidate from the other party. The chance of that happening (the collective mind-loss part) is so tiny as to probably statistically unmeasurable.
In New York, most candidates have multiple lines. The Conservative Party usually endorses Republicans and the Working Family and Independence Parties usually endorse Democrats. There are other parties, but these five are guaranteed ballot lines, and the other parties usually run their own candidates instead of endorsing.
For some judgeships, both the Republicans and Democrats endorse the same candidate.
This has happened. Never with the Democrats and Republicans obviously but several people have run as the candidate of one of the major parties and also been nominated as the candidate of some third party. William Jennings Bryan, for example, was the presidential nominee of the Democratic, the Populist, and the Silver Republican parties in 1896.
Most states have ballot access restrictions effectively prohibiting multiple party nominations:
Ballot access restrictions may apply, but we need to remember that candidates for President and Vice President are not on any ballot on election day. Only electors PLEDGED to a particular candidate(s). So, two competing slates of electors wouldn’t be violating any state law that I can think of, so long as different electors were on each side…
That’s correct. The people citing anti-fusion laws as a barrier to a dual national nomination are incorrect.
And his candidacy was an example of the type of “fusion” being discussed in this thread, because he ran with different Democratic and Populist running mates. The “fusion” was arranged (in some states) by having the Democrats and Populists agree on a single slate of electors, with some of the electors pledged to Bryan and Democrat Sewall, while others were pledged to Bryan and Populist Weaver.
In Bryan’s day, however, most states didn’t have pre-printed ballots. The parties composed and circulated their own voting tickets, which made matters easier to arrange.
In an earlier example, all of the major presidential candidates in the 1824 election agreed on John Calhoun as Vice President. He won a nearly unanimous vote in the electoral college for Vice President, while the presidential election went to the House of Representatives. The election of 1824 was unusual, however, in that the candidates ran mostly as “free agents” instead of as party nominees.