How should VP candidates be chosen? Why not vote?

[Unspeaked]

The history of how a vice president is chosen has changed much since the first elections were held over 200 years ago. However, it seems odd to me that it has become customary in the past 50 years for a presidential candidate to simply choose whomever they see fit as their running mate.

If the point of a VP is to enhance the candidate's appeal, what better way to find out who appeals to the public than through popular vote? Or at least conventional vote, as was common in the past.

What do you think? Should the candidate get the say in who runs with him or not? I know there's logistics that need to be sorted out, but I think it makes sense to put it up for a vote.

(And in the spirit of voting, I figured I'd throw a poll in here, too!)

[olliebraves20]

I agree I've often wondered why we the voting public don't get to decide on the the second in command. I can vote for the stupid county drain commissioner but not the Vice President?? I think whoever finishes second in the primaries should be vice president candidate....

[r.j.s]

I think it should be decided by a vote, but you might have a hard time getting people to vote again. Really, only a handful (relatively) vote for Pres, why would they bother to pick #2.

[imac/cheese]

It helps to have a first and second in command that can get along.

[atszyman]

I always pondered the idea of the second place in the general election getting the VP spot. Of course it runs the risk of more whacko supporters of the VP possibly trying to get him into the presidency by whatever means (who wouldn't take a bullet for Bush to prevent the horror of President Cheney?) but it would also push the executive office into a bi-partisan setup that might result in constructive one on one debates between the Pres and VP that might lead to less of an us vs. them division in government.

Of course if you're going to complain that you can vote for obscure local reps you should really want a vote on the whole cabinet and all of the positions that are typically considered presidential appointments.

I can see the benefits of having opposing viewpoints in the 1&2 position but it could also lead to more partisan divisions and more of a risk of purely political impeachment just to get your party in the top spot.

[r.j.s]

Hell, why doesn't the person that loses the election become the VP? That would make things interesting.:D

[Dany M]

I think it is the nominee's decision on weather he/she wants someone to back them or, or someone who has experience elsewhere. It should not automatically be the person who was second in the primary because that alone is a chance for disaster, coming right out of the gate in second place to a man/woman you have been dissing for 3/11 months ans you are supposed to like them, agree with them...no won't happen.


It used to be in the 1700 or 1800 where the loser in the presidential race would be the VP......yeah it did not work out so well

[Unspeaked]

It used to be in the 1700 or 1800 where the loser in the presidential race would be the VP......yeah it did not work out so well

Well, yes, but back then they also picked the president by throwing a bunch of guys in a room and having them make the decision. It's not like that hasn't changed, either.

While there's something to be said for having the president choose a VP they get along with, I counter that with two points: first, the president has to work with plenty of people they don't get along with (and so do must of us) so what's one more? Second, there are plenty of times the president and vice president can't stand one another (look at the senior Bush and Reagan, who had a very bitter battle in the primaries before becoming running mates or the rumors today of McCain possible going with Romney).

The fact of the matter is above all - before experience, before compatibility, before anything - the one factor a president considers when picking their VP is how much they add to the ticket and how many votes they'll get that they otherwise wouldn't have, and isn't the public the best barometer for this?

[MacHipster]

The reason they have the President choose their running mate stems from 1968 when Humphries was handed a running mate (can't recall his name) that was found to have been bipolar weeks later. They had to quickly find another one to replace him. By having the candidate pick their running mate, they can properly vet them.

[Unspeaked]

The reason they have the President choose their running mate stems from 1968 when Humphries was handed a running mate (can't recall his name) that was found to have been bipolar weeks later. They had to quickly find another one to replace him. By having the candidate pick their running mate, they can properly vet them.

I don't get this - you can risk that for the candidates themselves but not the running mate?

[r.j.s]

I don't get this - you can risk that for the candidates themselves but not the running mate?

The candidates are done too. Vetting is when the party finds out everything about the person's past, stuff that will be used as dirt later. It's so they can be prepared to "deal" with it when it comes out - if that person is picked.

The public doesn't find any of this out until it is discovered by someone else, usually the campaign is prepared already.

[Unspeaked]

The candidates are done too. Vetting is when the party finds out everything about the person's past, stuff that will be used as dirt later. It's so they can be prepared to "deal" with it when it comes out - if that person is picked.

The public doesn't find any of this out until it is discovered by someone else, usually the campaign is prepared already.

I know this but my point is, it's not like one day five guys will volunteer to run for VP and we'll vote on them that afternoon.

They would go through a similar process as what the presidential candidates go through (presumably many of them will have been presidential candidates) so I don't think the situation MacHipster pointed out would be anything to worry about.

[r.j.s]

... I don't think the situation MacHipster pointed out would be anything to worry about.

I dont think so either, just making sure you knew what happened behind the scenes.

[Thomas Veil]

Personally I'm fine with the current method. The two have to be able to get along.

The reason they have the President choose their running mate stems from 1968 when Humphries was handed a running mate (can't recall his name) that was found to have been bipolar weeks later. They had to quickly find another one to replace him.The process of picking your own running mate started in 1952. In '68, Hubert Humphrey ran with Ed Muskie, who AFAIK wasn't bipolar (though there was some Republican attempt to smear Muskie as being a wimp).

You may be thinking of Tom Eagleton, George McGovern's running mate, who had a problem with depression. Eagleton was later replaced with R. Sargent Shriver.

BTW, you guys would've liked George McGovern. He was sort of like Ron Paul, just without the gonzo libertarian tendencies.

Hell, why doesn't the person that loses the election become the VP? That would make things interesting.:DWhat, we're not dysfunctional enough already??

[r.j.s]

What, we're not dysfunctional enough already??

We're plenty dysfunctional now, but doing that may actually get something accomplished.

[Unspeaked]

We're plenty dysfunctional now, but doing that may actually get something accomplished.

It would probably cause radical changes to election strategies, which I think would be a good thing.

Interestingly, I think a policy like that would cause both parties to field much stronger candidates. And even more interesting, because they'd probably nominate more center leaning candidates, the two might actually get along despite being bipartisan.

It wouldn't be the worst idea in the world, in theory...

[r.j.s]

I think it might be crazy enough to actually work ...

[atszyman]

It would probably cause radical changes to election strategies, which I think would be a good thing.

Interestingly, I think a policy like that would cause both parties to field much stronger candidates. And even more interesting, because they'd probably nominate more center leaning candidates, the two might actually get along despite being bipartisan.

It wouldn't be the worst idea in the world, in theory...

The major problem would come in when the president is in the opposition party to Congress. If you thought Clinton's impeachment or the talk of doing it to Bush were even partly fueled by partisan reasons, you haven't seen anything in comparison to the crap that might be pulled if the President and VP are of opposing parties and Congress is on the VPs side.

"Hey, if we impeach the president we can get the executive branch. Get me Ken Star's number!"

It could lead to an era of real bipartisan compromise, or it could lead to an era where political impeachment is the goal anytime the executive and legislative branch end up from different parties.

[MacHipster]

You may be thinking of Tom Eagleton, George McGovern's running mate, who had a problem with depression. Eagleton was later replaced with R. Sargent Shriver.




Yes, you're correct. My mistake.

[Dont Hurt Me]

A random draw from the phone book. We should do the same for president, perhaps then the people would get representation.

[MacHipster]

A random draw from the phone book. We should do the same for president, perhaps then the people would get representation.

What if W. was the random draw?:p

[Thomas Veil]

A random draw from the phone book. We should do the same for president, perhaps then the people would get representation.I can just see it now. The next president of the United States...Burger King on Center Road.

[zap2]

in command. I can vote for the stupid county drain commissioner but not the Vice President??

I'm pretty sure you can vote on the president and the vice president.

Honestly, I'm fine with the current system, the president gets to pick his or her administration, why not pick there VP?

[r.j.s]

I can just see it now. The next president of the United States...Burger King on Center Road.

You have to use the white pages, not the yellow pages ...

[atszyman]

I can just see it now. The next president of the United States...Burger King on Center Road.

Intriguing, would that make those who were in the BK when they got the call the acting executive? Or would it be whomever happened to be in the store at any given time?

You have to use the white pages, not the yellow pages ...

Businesses sometimes get listed in the white pages as well.

[r.j.s]

Businesses sometimes get listed in the white pages as well.

I guess so ... Damn, Burger King it is.

So does that mean the Manager is the Pres, Asst. Mgr. is VP, and the rest of the staff is the cabinet?

[atszyman]

I guess so ... Damn, Burger King it is.

So does that mean the Manager is the Pres, Asst. Mgr. is VP, and the rest of the staff is the cabinet?

I figured it would become a committee presidency, but does it include only the employees? the customers? only those who were in the building when the call came? Anyone who eats at that BK?

If you get a value meal you get to sign a bill into law or veto it?

[imac/cheese]

I can just see it now. The next president of the United States...Burger King on Center Road.

I really don't want to see the US go back to having a monarchy.

[atszyman]

After watching last night, doesn't it basically come down to the system of having the delegates choose at the convention? They had separate votes on President and Vice President nominations, which would make Obama's choosing a running mate nothing more than a strong endorsement for the person he'd like to have as a running mate.

Not that the delegates would ever thwart the nominee's choice but it could be done in theory, right?

[MacHipster]

After watching last night, doesn't it basically come down to the system of having the delegates choose at the convention? They had separate votes on President and Vice President nominations, which would make Obama's choosing a running mate nothing more than a strong endorsement for the person he'd like to have as a running mate.

Not that the delegates would ever thwart the nominee's choice but it could be done in theory, right?

It could be done, but would divide the party.

[MacNut]

The thing we are forgetting is that the number 2 could become number 1 really quick. I would hope it would be someone capable of running the country. Unlike Dan Quale.

[atszyman]

It could be done, but would divide the party.

Not if it were done for the right reasons. I could see a scenario where a politician makes a disastrous VP pick (picking a friend over someone more qualified) and the party remedies this by nominating a more qualified, person who would appeal more to the public. While it might cause some friction between the nominee and the party it could be better for the election, assuming the nominee could suck it up and work with the VP nominee rather than sulk and bicker with the VP.

Admittedly it would be an unlikely scenario.

[JG271]

I think a system of voting for the VP would put the emphasis more on the politics of an individual rather than a person. For the sake of party unity, it would probably be best that the presidential candidate chooses his or her running mate.

[MacNut]

I think a system of voting for the VP would put the emphasis more on the politics of an individual rather than a person. For the sake of party unity, it would probably be best that the presidential candidate chooses his or her running mate.Party unity is all well and good but if the general public doesn't like the guy neither of you will get elected.

[yg17]

I really don't want to see the US go back to having a monarchy.

Neither do I. Dairy Queen isn't ready to succeed the throne should anything happen to the King.

[MacNut]

I imagine Wendy's would do a good job.

[atszyman]

I imagine Wendy's would do a good job.

SOTU's would get record ratings during the Hooter's administration.

Are McDonald's citizens? Sounds foreign to me.

And couldn't a guy game the system by getting a ton of phone lines installed at his house, thus increasing his chances of being selected?

This sleepy little town of 800 people has many people hoping to be president. Their phone book's white pages spans 10,000 pages with an average of 1500 phone numbers per household.

Of course I can only imagine the marketing calls in a house like that.

[MacNut]

We should just do it American Idol style. All the candidates have to sing and each week one is voted off.

[Unspeaked]

The thing we are forgetting is that the number 2 could become number 1 really quick. I would hope it would be someone capable of running the country. Unlike Dan Quale.

Yes, this is the main difference between the VP and appointed members of the cabinet.

We have had VPs turn into presidents in the past, and it's likely it will happen again eventually. Wouldn't it be best that this person be someone the nation chose and not the pick of one individual?

[J@ffa]

We have had VPs turn into presidents in the past, and it's likely it will happen again eventually. Wouldn't it be best that this person be someone the nation chose and not the pick of one individual?

People do choose the Vice President, that is, when they vote. You elect Obama/Biden, not Obama +1. Since Cheney, the office of the Vice President has become a lot more important, but whether you view it as merely as part of the order of succession, an important part of the executive branch or both, if the choice bothers you significantly it's not an unreasonable factor to take into account when casting your Diebold-enhanced ballot.

In either party, the eventual nominee is going to want someone who is at least vaguely in line with their personal platform. McCain lumbered with Ron Paul? Hysterically funny in theory, but terrifying in practice.

[pseudobrit]

Since at least Gore, the Vice President is someone who works much more closely with the President. Gore refused to be marginalized and actively pushed policy with Clinton. Cheney and Bush have a bizarre relationship that we haven't seen before and probably won't see ever again.

It's so much more today than just a token office or a position of succession.

The office has come a long way from that "warm pitcher of piss."

[imac/cheese]

Not if it were done for the right reasons. I could see a scenario where a politician makes a disastrous VP pick (picking a friend over someone more qualified) and the party remedies this by nominating a more qualified, person who would appeal more to the public. While it might cause some friction between the nominee and the party it could be better for the election, assuming the nominee could suck it up and work with the VP nominee rather than sulk and bicker with the VP.

Admittedly it would be an unlikely scenario.

If a party overturned a nominee's choice for his VP, it would send a strong message to the world that the party doesn't feel the nominee is much a decision maker.

[atszyman]

If a party overturned a nominee's choice for his VP, it would send a strong message to the world that the party doesn't feel the nominee is much a decision maker.

I could only see it happening in a case where a clearly qualified person was passed over for blatant cronyism. Of course you'd have to weigh the possible attacks from the other side with either choice and see which one is more tolerable. Odds are if the situation was that dire the party has deeper problems than it wants to admit.

[imac/cheese]

I could only see it happening in a case where a clearly qualified person was passed over for blatant cronyism. Of course you'd have to weigh the possible attacks from the other side with either choice and see which one is more tolerable. Odds are if the situation was that dire the party has deeper problems than it wants to admit.

I agree completely and most likely if the party is in shambles to that extent they probably have no chance of winning with any VP candidate.

[atszyman]

I agree completely and most likely if the party is in shambles to that extent they probably have no chance of winning with any VP candidate.

I could almost see it happening next week if McCain were to choose Lieberman as some rumors are stating. The question would remain about whether the question of his judgement would lose them more votes than a pro-choice former Democrat.

[Don't panic]

I could almost see it happening next week if McCain were to choose Lieberman as some rumors are stating. The question would remain about whether the question of his judgement would lose them more votes than a pro-choice former Democrat.

i really wish he does choses lieberman.
but i think it's impossible per GOP internal rules, unless he switches party first.
he is a republican, so it wouldn't be much of a deal.

[Unspeaked]

I could almost see it happening next week if McCain were to choose Lieberman as some rumors are stating. The question would remain about whether the question of his judgement would lose them more votes than a pro-choice former Democrat.

So what about NOW?

Could the party decide they don't want Palin with all the negative press she's already attracted?

[atszyman]

So what about NOW?

Could the party decide they don't want Palin with all the negative press she's already attracted?

I don't know if the GOP does the same process as the Dems where there are separate nominations, but it would not be entirely surprising if they yanked her, although I can see her "stepping down to spend more time with her family" either sometime during the convention, or very shortly thereafter if things don't clear up quickly.

The party second guessing McCain would be worse than Palin has been so far, and now that the scenario is on top of us and I think about it even more, having the party do the dirty work can only mean disaster, but it would also show that McCain has a bit of the Maverick in him if he didn't bow to the outside pressure to drop her and pick again, although once again I'm not sure which one is a more comforting thought.

Maybe they'll just do the whole thing over and nominate Romney/Guilliani as a ticket....primaries be damned. :rolleyes:

[fivepoint]

Interesting content from Wikipedia. The 12th Ammendment really changed things up... how crazy would it have been to have had Bush as the Prez and Gore as the Veep?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States
Under the original terms of the Constitution, the members of the U.S. Electoral College voted only for office of president rather than for both president and vice president. Each elector was allowed to vote for two people for the top office. The person receiving the greatest number of votes (provided that such a number was a majority of electors) would be president, while the individual who received the next largest number of votes became vice president. If no one received a majority of votes, then the U.S. House of Representatives would choose among the five highest vote-getters, with each state getting one vote. In such a case, the person who received the highest number of votes but was not chosen president would become vice president. If there were a tie for second, then the U.S. Senate would choose the vice president.[4]
The original plan, however, did not foresee the development of political parties and their adversarial role in the government. In the election of 1796, for instance, Federalist John Adams came in first, and Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson came second. Thus, the president and vice president were from opposing parties. Predictably, Adams and Jefferson clashed over issues such as states' rights and foreign policy.[6]
A greater problem occurred in the election of 1800, in which the two participating parties each had a secondary candidate they intended to elect as vice president, but the more popular Democratic-Republican party failed to execute that plan with their electoral votes. Under the system in place at the time (Article Two, Section 1, Clause 3), the electors could not differentiate between their two candidates, so the plan had been for one elector to vote for Thomas Jefferson but not for Aaron Burr, thus putting Burr in second place. This plan broke down for reasons that are disputed, and both candidates received the same number of votes. After 35 deadlocked ballots in the U.S. House of Representatives, Jefferson finally won on the 36th ballot and Burr became vice president.[7]
This tumultuous affair led to the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804, which directed the electors to use separate ballots to vote for the president and vice president.[3] While this solved the problem at hand, it ultimately had the effect of lowering the prestige of the vice presidency, as the office was no longer for the leading challenger for the presidency.
The separate ballots for President and Vice President became something of a moot issue later in the 19th century when it became the norm for popular elections to determine a state's Electoral College delegation. Electors chosen this way are pledged to vote for a particular presidential and vice-presidential candidate (offered by the same political party). So, while the Constitution says that the president and vice president are chosen separately, in practice they are chosen together.
If no vice presidential candidate receives an Electoral College majority, then the Senate selects the Vice President, in accordance with the United States Constitution. This is a curious anomaly since the sitting Vice President is also President of the Senate and would be called upon to break a tie vote, possibly for himself or his successor. The election of 1836 is the only election so far where the office of the Vice President has been decided by the Senate. During the campaign, President Martin Van Buren's running mate Richard Mentor Johnson was accused of having lived with a black woman. Virginia's 23 electors, who were pledged to Van Buren and Johnson, refused to vote for Johnson (but still voted for Van Buren). The election went to the Senate, where Johnson was elected, 33-17.