How should VP candidates be chosen? Why not vote?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Unspeaked, Aug 27, 2008.

?

Should VP candidates be decided by votes?

  1. Yes, and the vote should be made by the public.

    6 vote(s)
    26.1%
  2. Yes, and the vote should be made by delegates at the convention.

    1 vote(s)
    4.3%
  3. No, the presidential candidate should choose whomever they want.

    14 vote(s)
    60.9%
  4. I don't care how the VP is chosen!

    2 vote(s)
    8.7%
  1. Unspeaked macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #1
    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!)
     
  2. olliebraves20 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    Lansing, MI
    #2
    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....
     
  3. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #3
    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.
     
  4. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #4
    It helps to have a first and second in command that can get along.
     
  5. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #5
    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.
     
  6. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #6
    Hell, why doesn't the person that loses the election become the VP? That would make things interesting.:D
     
  7. Dany M macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Location:
    Earth
    #7
    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
     
  8. Unspeaked thread starter macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #8
    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?
     
  9. MacHipster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago/London/Sydney
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Unspeaked thread starter macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #10
    I don't get this - you can risk that for the candidates themselves but not the running mate?
     
  11. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #11
    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.
     
  12. Unspeaked thread starter macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #12
    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.
     
  13. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #13
    I dont think so either, just making sure you knew what happened behind the scenes.
     
  14. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #14
    Personally I'm fine with the current method. The two have to be able to get along.

    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.

    What, we're not dysfunctional enough already??
     
  15. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #15
    We're plenty dysfunctional now, but doing that may actually get something accomplished.
     
  16. Unspeaked thread starter macrumors 68020

    Unspeaked

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Location:
    West Coast
    #16
    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...
     
  17. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #17
    I think it might be crazy enough to actually work ...
     
  18. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #18
    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.
     
  19. MacHipster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago/London/Sydney
    #19

    Yes, you're correct. My mistake.
     
  20. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #20
    A random draw from the phone book. We should do the same for president, perhaps then the people would get representation.
     
  21. MacHipster macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago/London/Sydney
    #21
    What if W. was the random draw?:p
     
  22. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #22
    I can just see it now. The next president of the United States...Burger King on Center Road.
     
  23. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #23
    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?
     
  24. r.j.s Moderator emeritus

    r.j.s

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    #24
    You have to use the white pages, not the yellow pages ...
     
  25. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #25
    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?

    Businesses sometimes get listed in the white pages as well.
     

Share This Page