Why can't the Prez & Vice Prez be from the same state?

Factual Questions
1

It is apparent that there are some pretty intense US Constitution mavens out there. (After they got through with me and my Small Claims Court misstatements on another thread, you could barely identify me from my dental records. But that’s okay, I deserved it.)

Here’s my Q for you guys an’ gals: A while back, as Geo. W. Bush was sealing up the Republican presidential nod, there was some speculation as to who he might pick for a running mate. Some newscaster remarked that there was a decent potential Veep (I forget who, but it’s irrelevant) in Texas, but the Constitution forbade him/her from running on the same ticket as Bush, another Texan.

“Wha…?” I said, reaching for an old US History textbook.

Sure enough, there in Ammendment XII it states:

“The electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves;…” (The ammendment goes on to explain how the Prez & Veep get chosen.)

Before the ammendent was adopted, the original text of the Constitution (Article II, Sect. 1, par. 3) said essentially the same thing – that is, that the Prez & Veep can’t be from same state, so the ammendment did not create the concept.

Is this requirement just a reflection of the now-quaint intra-state jealousies of our founding fathers, or is there some deeper purpose that a layman like myself can’t detect?

AN APPEAL BEFORE YOU POST: Please resist the temptation to hijack this into a debate about the merits of the Electoral College, or a Who-Will-Bush/Dole-Pick? discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

2

No, no, no.

The amendment you’re quoting says the elector must choose someone not from the elector’s state.

It’s rare for a prez and vp to come from the same state because doing so will get you fewer votes. If you’re the prez candidate, you want someone who attracts a voter block that you’re having trouble with. So, you get someone from a state you’re borderline losing in, someone with an ethnic background or gender you’re losing to, with political views you’re losing to, etc.

3

So you’re saying if both canidates are from California, then California’s electors cannot vote for that ticket?

4

The constitution says the electors have to vote for at least one candidate – VP or President – who does not come from their state. They can vote for a VP from their state; they can vote for a President from their state. But they can’t vote for both.

If Bush were to choose a running mate from Texas (unlikely), the Texan his electors would have to vote for a VP other than his official running mate. In a close race, that could make a difference, leaving Bush as president and a Democrat as VP. The Republicans aren’t going to allow that possibility.

As for the reason, when the Constitution was established, there was a concern that one state would dominate the Federal government. No one wanted that, so they set up a mechanism to make it more difficult for one state to have the two top officers. The framers of the Constitution did a poor job of predicting the way things worked out – they thought the VP would have a lot more power than he does (they also assumed that most elections would go to the House of Representatives.)

5

Dead on, for two reasons. First, in a much smaller (26 member) Senate, the VP is much more likely to have to vote to break ties as the President of the Senate.

Second, the VP was supposed to be the runner-up in the presidential election and therefore, by definition, the leader of the opposition. While the VP has extremely few constitutional duties, his political influence would have been great under the system originally planned by the framers.

V.

6

Yes, they couldn’t vote for those two candidates. My guess would be that if a ticket for whatever reason ran two candidates from the same state and won the general election in that state, the electors would vote for the Presidential candidate and give their Vice Presidential votes to a different out-of-state person. This normally would not be an issue but in a close election this might be enough to allow the Presidential candidate to win but not his Vice President.

7

I knew you guys would come through! Thanks for making it all very clear, especially you RealityChuck.

But, Chuck, you say something that – purely for the sake of playing Devil’s Advocate – I’m gonna challenge. You wrote:

“As for the reason, when the Constitution was established, there was a concern that one state would dominate the Federal government. No one wanted that, so they set up a mechanism to make it more difficult for one state to have the two top officers.”

I would argue that XIIth Ammendment requirement is a pretty weak mechanism to prevent the domination of a single state; all it does is “void” only ONE state’s power to vote for a that-state ticket. The numerous other states could do as they please (i.e. vote Texan+Texan), no?

I suggest that the reason for the requirement is that the framers wanted to prevent EVERY state from voting for a native-son ticket.

Think about it. Given the small number of states, the strong allegiance people had for their home states at the time, and the lack of a dominant national party system, it’s easy to imagine each and every state wanting to nominate (probably not the right word, but you know what I mean) a pair of their own “home boys.” If it became an entrenched practice, it would be virtually impossible to stop, given that no one state would want to “let go” first.

Thus, the requirement forces the states to scramble up their votes to some degree.

What do you think of this theory?

8

It’s a reasonable hypothesis.

9

I’ve read that the Framers set up the Electoral System as a compromise between direct election and congressional election. However, the way the rules were set up, it was thought that it would be likely that there would never be a majority and that Congress would ultimately make the selection. In a sense, the Electoral College would serve as a nominating body. However, everybody soon realized that this was a really bad idea.

Hamilton didn’t write directly about the different states requirement in Federalist No. 68, but he did write that the President would ultimately have to appeal to many different states to be elected.

I think Stuyguy has a good hypothesis.