Kill the Vice Presidency

Not the vice president, mind you--the office of the vice presidency. So advises Reason magazine contributor and vice presidential historian Jeremy Lott in the Washington Post. His main reason: it leaves people who would not normally otherwise be considered fit for the job as president, either as direct slot-fillers or as unfortunate legacies.

Lott doesn't declare what alternate means he would use to fill the post when the president we've got leaves us, but I might entertain such options as having the caucus of the party controlling Congress (or that of the party from which the president came) picking one.

Or maybe as much as they tend to suck, vice presidents are a necessary evil for that filling the vacancy role. Lott does suggest that if the office isn't eliminated, it should at least be voted on separately. I'm partial to returning to the original idea for the office in the Constitution: that the presidential runner up cop the post.

Comments

[Silentz]

While we're at it, lets get back to letting the state legislatures pick our senators.

Nice thought exercise, but it ain't gonna happen.

[Fred]

Necessary evil

[Bug]

All that Koch money, and this is the brilliant analysis we get?

Let's go back to the original method: second place vote-getter in the Electoral College gets the VP. It weakens the executive branch (good thing) and eliminates the "3rd term" for presidential legacies.

[wage slave]

Veeps exist for the same reason as bridesmaids - it makes the Prez look good by comparison

[J sub D]

Off the top of my head. Keep the VP. Elect him/her the same way. If the VP has to assume the duties as president, NLT 180 days later we have a presidential election for a four year term. Think of it. A presidential campaign that's only 6 months long.

This would soon put presidential elections out of sync with congressional ones but I see that as more a feature than a bug. Coattails are a stupid way to select congresscritters.

[John]

I agree with J sub D. Just have a special election to fill the job like they do for Senators and Congressman. It makes no sense to potentially let clowns like Joe Biden or Spirow Agnew become President for the remainder of a ternm.

[jasno]

I would argue that when you need the vice-president to step-in, you probably don't have time to have a special election.

Sure, eliminate the post, but have the successor picked in advance.

[Kolohe]

"vice presidential historian"

I was going to say that 'if the Vice Presidency ain't worth a pitcher of warm spit/piss, what's a vp historian worth?', but I see Mr. Lott preempted me in the title of his book.

from the wapo article
"It would be better if the president's understudy were separately elected by voters,"

The VP is de jure separately elected. That he is not de facto is indeed only a function of state legislatures and the political parties, not anything in the constitution.

In any case a re-org of the VP slot seems like the least important and least clammored for structural reform we could possibly engage in these days. We ain't exactly being crushed under the yoke of his Bidenness.

(last, can't say I agree with Bug's idea. If something needed to be changed in the *18th* century, chances are it was for a good reason. And it's not like it was a deviation from 'framer's intent' as the same dudes who wrote the beta version did the 1.5 release.)

[MJ]

"I'm partial to returning to the original idea for the office in the Constitution: that the presidential runner up cop the post."

Which did not work out very well when it was tried, because the Founder's discovered the joys of partisan politics. Burr challenging Jefferson's election? There are good reasons why that was changed soon after a consensus choice for president was off the table.

It is quite likely that any way of choosing a successor will result in a mediocrity because of intra-party politics. Suggesting doing away with the VP without coming up with a replacement option is a half-assed.

[?]

The vice-president is voted on separately. Go back to civics class.

[Randolph Carter]

I feel like the installation of the runner-up as vice president would significantly increase the number of assassinations.

[Lord Jubjub]

So a Clinton/Bush ticket would have worked out? or a Bush/Gore? Do you really think a Reagan/Mondale matchup would have been better than Reagan/Bush?

[John]

It should be noted that when the first President died in office, Harrison I think, it was not clear that the VP just took over. Many people argued that he didn't assume full powers and had to share it with the cabinet.

[Lord Jubjub]

And another thought comes to mind. . . Would you have Nixon as president in '63? or McGovern in '75?

[Hugh Akston]

The vice-president is voted on separately. Go back to civics class.

Maybe it's my fault for voting absentee, but I didn't have the option to select someone besides Joey Pluggs to ride shotgun for el jefe.

[MJ]

"The vice-president is voted on separately."

In the electoral college (and if the election is thrown to the Congress, th House votes on POTUS, the Senate on the VP).

[economist]

"Not the vice president, mind you"

What's the point? He's already brain dead.

[economist]

"I feel like the installation of the runner-up as vice president would significantly increase the number of assassinations."

I dunno. People would also be more likely to suspect assassination plots by the VP. That would lead to a rather unstable form of government. There's a reason why that provision was amended after two administrations.

[robc]

I feel like the installation of the runner-up as vice president would significantly increase the number of assassinations.

Feature.

[James Anderson Merritt]

Not only does the Constitution explicitly require the separate election of the Vice President, it does NOT mandate the method of choosing electors. Most of the things that people kvetch about or want to change in our Presidential elections are actually extra-Constitutional arrangements, and can indeed be changed at any time, on a State by State basis.

The popular election of the President was itself never intended by the Founders. The House of Representatives was deliberately cast as "The People's House," with its members the only federal officials who were to be elected directly by American citizens. The Senators were to be selected by the State Legislatures, the Supreme Court Justices were to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and the President and VP were to be elected by representatives OF the State Legislatures, but not by the legislators themselves. There were good reasons for the multiple levels of indirection, having to do with balancing power between the State and Federal governments, and between the branches of the Federal government.

Almost immediately after the present Constitution went into effect, the pressure began to subvert or replace the electoral structure it provided. The idea of electing the President through popular vote took hold first and is now traditional, albeit extra-Constitutional. The idea of popular election of Senators was slower to prevail, waiting until ratification of the 17th Amendment in the early 20th Century. But both developments have significantly altered the relationship between the States and federal government, and the federal government and the people -- and not for the better, in my opinion.

[Jack]

Hugh Akston wrote: "Maybe it's my fault for voting absentee, but I didn't have the option to select someone besides Joey Pluggs to ride shotgun for el jefe."

Under the 12th Amendment, the candidates for Vice-President are on a separate ballot in the Electoral College, so there's nothing in the Constitution preventing a separate vote on the office. The political parties developed the idea of joint tickets and most (all?) states adopted laws or regulations for ballot design that put the president/vice-president on a single ticket.

[Hugh Akston]

Jack, without checking, I'm going to call bullshit on that.

I mean, imagine the idea of the states and major parties ignoring the explicit requirements of the Constitution.

[economist]

"I mean, imagine the idea of the states and major parties ignoring the explicit requirements of the Constitution."

Sarcasm?

[peachy]

My favourite part of election season is when the primaries are resolved and the assorted candidates have to kiss and make up as the party switches gear for the general - the reconciliations and explanations for past mudslinging are always so achingly insincere and awkward. ('When I said that Senator X is the world's biggest douchenozzle and ought to be dropped over Afghanistan from 20000 feet without a parachute, what I meant was that he's a great American and credit to his country and party, and I'm proud to support his election campaign.') Having the losing candidate in the general be the VP would extend that glorious period over four entire years - not to mention deep-sixing all the tiresome VP debates etc during the campaign. It's all of a piece with my motto : 'If politicians can't be competent, they must at least be entertaining.'

[Hugh Akston]

My favourite part of election season is

Nice try peachy, but your florid spelling has blown your cover as a sinister agent of the barbarian nation to the north. I'm sure you'd love to see this country tear itself apart every four years by electing a president whose direct successor is at odds with his or her entire agenda, thus making America ripe for invasion.

Go back to your flap-headed, poutine-eating, single-payer taskmasters and tell them that this is Biden country!

[BruceM]

I agree that the VP is a worthless office - it has been ever since John Adams took office as the first VP. However, you cannot put in a system where the death of a president can or will result in a new president of a different political party. That would encourage assassinations. The best way to protect the president's life is to ensure that his/her replacement will be someone from the same party. The only good thing about the current VP system is that it acts in a way to protect the president. Anyone who would have wanted Bush gone would think twice knowing that Cheney would take over. Unfortunately the racists who want Obama gone would get "white rule" reinstated if Biden were to take over... but at least he's known to be as liberal as Obama is.

Whatever our policy is, good public policy dictates that we discourage change of power by assassination. To suggest we put McCain in the Oval Office were Obama to die is simply asinine. The nation clearly rejected him as president. The president should be able to pick his successor. Especially in a country where divided government is usually the norm. It would be highly improper to let a Democrat Congress replace a dead (assassinated) Republican president with a Democrat... or vice-versa.

If we're going to have a VP, I think he/she should have a more important position in the government. The VP should be the chief of staff, not a separate person. The VP should not have his own staff. The VP should be the President's consigliere. He should be the #2 guy in the executive branch. Why not?

[fishfry]

Runnerup? Like Vice President McCain? Oh I don't see this working at all.

[Mike Laursen]

ust have a special election to fill the job...

This is America! First of all, the Presidency ain't just a job, it's a deification. And how are all the governors and Senators out there going to start campaigning eight years in advance if you're just having Presidential elections willy nilly whenever you feel like it.

[D.R.M.]

The problem with giving the elected VP policy power is that it undercuts the unity of the executive. A cabinet official who displeases the President can be fired, a VP cannot.

Of course, that's only important if we think the successor to the President needs to be someone elected instead of appointed to his office (which is why the Vice Presidency was created as it was). There seems to be no serious problem with eliminating the post of Vice-President in favor of direct Cabinet succession, starting with the Secretary of State. (It's not like the modern Senate allows the VP to do much anymore, and we could easily let ties count as failed votes.)

[Tim]

If we had elected the VP separate from the Potus in the last election, we'd probably have an Obama/Palin administration. Now that is truly frightening.

[Kolohe]

I mean, imagine the idea of the states and major parties ignoring the explicit requirements of the Constitution.

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; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

There is only one group of electors, but they vote separately for Prez and VP. Now, the way (nearly) everyone does it, is that the popular vote goes to the electors that have pre-pledged to the Prez and VP. (some ballots specifically say for instance 'electors for John McCain and Sarah Palin' I think a few even list the names of the electors)

But there is nothing (in the constitution) that prevents a state from either having additional slates of electors that are pledged to 'split their ballots' or having 'professional electors' that are directed to vote the way the popular vote runs, even if the prez winner is diferrent than the vp winner. Of course, there's nothing to prevent a 'faithless elector' - some states have statutes on their books, but it's never been used against one. On the other hand, state legislative control of the elector selection has been more or less held to be plenary so far, so such faithless elector statutes should be able to be enforces

In any case, I take back a little of what I said before@9:19. I suppose you could alter the constitution to make a separate group of *electors* for each office to make the distinction more explicit.

Also an observation. Several good points have been made by other commenters above. It's amazing what the passion destroying office of the Vice President does to instill clear thinking.

[DADIODADDY]

can we re-visit the "Not the vice president" part again?

[Phil O.]

Arthur Schlesinger wrote a strong argument for abolishing the vice-presidency in The Atlantic back in May of 1974. Still a good read. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/74may/schlesinger.htm

[KT]

I agree 1000%, if only to prevent the prospect of another Palin.

[ondigo]

How about doing away with the VP office and, in the event of a President's death, having the electors from the last election reconvene to select the successor. In the meantime, the Speaker of the House is the Acting Executive. This helps reduce the possibility of "buyer's remorse" in the selection of a particular president or party.

[R C Dean]

However, you cannot put in a system where the death of a president can or will result in a new president of a different political party. That would encourage assassinations.

Mmm. Perhaps. But even so, it raises the question:

Bug? Or Feature?

[Dean Esmay]

If you go back to having the guy in 2nd place getting the VP job, then you are quite seriously setting up excellent conditions for a coup, virtual or literal. It's a really bad idea, which is why the Founders changed it pretty early on.

Personally, I'd rather strengthen the office slightly, by making the VP an actual member of the Senate, our one national Senator-at-Large and President of that body.

[Pro Libertate]

What about strengthening the Vice Presidency to a co- or even counter-presidency? Kind of like the consuls in Rome? With each having veto power over each other and Congress? Woo-hoo!

[John]

Lott doesn't declare what alternate means he would use to fill the post when the president we've got leaves us, but I might entertain such options as having the caucus of the party controlling Congress (or that of the party from which the president came) picking one.

In our nuclear age, we need an option that would work following a decapitation strike on the U.S. government.

Perhaps it could be simply having the Speaker of the House, upon her resignation as speaker and member, take the oath of office.

But really, is this such a big problem that we need to muck up the Constitution to deal with it? Yeah, Biden is a dolt, as have been other Vice Presidents. As have been other Presidents. As have been other Speakers of the House and Presidents Pro-Tempore of the Senate. I don't see how eliminating the office of Vice President is going to prevent narcissistic blowhards from becoming President, by election or succession.

[Craig]

Lott doesn't declare what alternate means he would use to fill the post when the president we've got leaves us...

How about just leaving the office vacant? Why exactly do we need a president?

[Geotpf]

"I'm partial to returning to the original idea for the office in the Constitution: that the presidential runner up cop the post."

This encourages assassination attempts by partisans from whichever party lost the presidency, and therefore is an absolutely horrible idea. Electing them seperately is also a bad idea, because you could get the same result (the prez and VP coming from different parties) at least semi-frequently, resulting in the same threat of assassination.

[ChrisO]

Geez, talk about fixing something that isn't broken. Glad to know there isn't anything else wrong with the federal government, so that we can focus on the critical question of the vice presidency.

[liamandme]

Arthur Schlesinger came to this same conclusion in one of his essays from "The Cycles of American History" something like twenty years ago.

[Abner MacGillicuddy]

To everyone talking about assassinations.

It's really, really hard to get away with murder. Really, it is.

Especially when you are in a prominent position and you're likely to be a prime suspect.

Not everyone gets OJ's luck. And consider, that ran out too.

[Rich Rostrom]

Re: Making the runner-up VP. Yes, this would encourage assassinations. Not necessarily by the VP, or even by Americans, but by anyone in the world who might benefit from a policy reversal by the U.S. government. Or think they would. It might be a foreign government, a political faction, or even a gang of speculators. If the system ensures continuity of policy, then there is no incentive.

It would also make any other Presidential succession (such as disability or impeachment) a policy football. Bad idea.

In the ICBM etc age, there needs to be an immediate successor to the office.

This does not need to be a full-time job. My recommendation is that the President-elect should designate a Senator as Spare President. The Spare President would have no extra powers or duties, except to receive occasional briefings on secret stuff he would need to know already if he became President.

[kevrob]

Prez. dies or quits.

Secy. of State becomes Interim Prez.

Electoral college reconvenes, and votes for a new Prez.

Anybody who can't sit in the EC, due to death, incapacitation, election to an office that makes him ineligible, gets replaced with a nominee provided by the state party's choice, or, if its an independent elector, a caucus of his fellow independent elector-candidates. [A list of Elector-alternates would be better.]

All this is much too complicated to ever get adopted.

Kevin