I was wondering if the Primary process can be changed so that you get to vote for who you want as your Presidential nominee, and also vote for who you think the VP nominee should be. Once there is a clear winner, they would have to agree to pick the person with the most VP votes as their running mate. That way, there could be no delay and they can begin the campaign against Obama united.

I really think that to beat the Obama in 2012, the Republicans need to run as a coalition. Maybe striking a deal with the Libertarian Party could be on the table. There are enough votes out there to defeat Obama; but you can't do it if the party is divided within.

_________________
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
~~ Edmund Burke

They probably could change the rules that way. It won't happen though.

People want to see a President and VP that can work together and are a balance.

That said, i would like the GOP candidate to pick a VP early say...in May. More time to unite and nothing to fight about like who the VP will be.

You mean a Huckabee/Romney ticket won't work??

Thanks for the input.

_________________
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
~~ Edmund Burke

I would like to see a preferential primary. That is to say, if 10 republicans are running for the nomination, on our ballots, we could pick our top 5 preferences. Then, whoever has the highest level of support, would be the nominee, and the second highest would be VP frontrunner, but I don't think it should be compulsory for the Presidential nominee to choose them.

That would probably not be a good idea. If candidate A is my preferred candidate and B is his closest rival, I would probably list my preferences as A, C, D, E, and F. If enough people do this, candidate F might end up with the most "preference points," even though A and B are the best candidates.

It's certainly true that candidate F could win, but only if many other people upped his score by putting him in first and second place. In that way, it's hardly much more different than our current system in which someone you're not really excited about can still win... in fact, isn't it more likely that the person you don't like won't win because in effect you can vote against them?