No Floridian Will Be Trump's VP Nominee. Guaranteed.
March 25, 2024 5:16pm
Despite Senator Marco Rubio making the rounds on network news shows this past weekend to discuss being on Donald Trump's short list to be the Vice-Presidential running mate, it will not happen. Guaranteed.
Marco Rubio will not be the VP nominee for the same reason Ron DeSantis will not be the VP nominee: Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States, reiterated by the 12th Amendment, effectively prohibits two people of the same state from being running mates. Although it is not an outright ban, the Constitution makes such a scenario extremely risky because Electoral College votes would be automatically lost.
That clause says about the Electoral College that "The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, OF WHOM ONE AT LEAST SHALL NOT BE AN INHABITANT OF THE SAME STATE WITH THEMSELVES" (emphasis added). In other words, if the nominees for President and Vice President were both citizens of Florida, then Florida's Republican electors to the Electoral College would not be able to vote for Trump, even if Trump won Florida.
Florida is not Alaska. That's not a statement about the weather. Alaska has three Electoral College votes. Florida has thirty. That's more than ten percent of the 270 needed to win. So, no candidate would risk the loss of thirty Electoral College votes just to have a fellow Floridian as a running mate.
Think back to the 2000 election. George W. Bush assigned Dick Cheney the role of leading his VP selection committee. Then after a supposedly thorough search, Dick Cheney recommended himself. But Dick Cheney and George W. Bush were both residents of Texas. So, just days before Bush's VP pick was announced, Dick Cheney changed his residency back to his home state of Wyoming, thus allowing Texas' 32 Electoral College votes to count (if Republican). But if Cheney and Bush both were citizens of Texas, Texas' Electoral College votes would not have counted. The result would have been neither Bush nor Gore receiving 270 Electoral College votes, and the U.S. House and U.S. Senate separately choosing the victors (with the House choosing the President and the Senate choosing the Vice President).
The result of such a scenario would have been very interesting. The Republicans had a majority of the House of Representatives on certification day (January 6, 2001). But each Representative would not have gotten a vote. Only one vote per state would have been cast. Republicans held majorities in 28 states, so assuming votes went along party lines, Republican George W. Bush would have been elected President. But Democrat Joe Lieberman would have been elected Vice President. Why? Because the composition of the Senate on certification day was 50-50. The tie-breaking vote would have been cast by the then-sitting Vice President, Democrat Al Gore. Gore would have lost the presidency, but his running mate would have won the Vice Presidency! Seriously.
While the Constitution's de facto prohibition against two people from the same state running together is not common knowledge among the masses, it is not esoterically obscure minutiae either. What I don't understand is how the conversation about Marco Rubio or Ron DeSantis being Trump's running mate even gets into the so-called "news" papers and "news" networks without the editors spiking the story because of its impossibility - or at the very least without explaining the Constitutional ramifications of such a scenario. I have been explaining it to countless people over the past several months when they've advocated for Ron DeSantis to be Trump's running mate. And not a single person had ever heard of the constitutional ramifications I just outlined. Many have challenged me on it. But it's easy enough to read the Constitution and verify the veracity of my explanation.
Why do I know this, but the big news outlets don't? Not to sound conceited, but it's because I'm educated and objective. The big news outlets are generally run by partisan fools who are more interested in inflaming than informing. Such is the sad state of today's partisan press.