Preferably after the election, so the good candidates don’t get dragged down with the odd-bedfellow running mates.
And also replaceable as the term progresses, like Secretary of State, etc.
No.
I agree.
Good candidates aren’t weighed down by weird running mates; usually parties seek to balance the ticket by having Prez and Veep candidates who have significant differences and thus appeal to multiple blocks of voters.
I agree, No. I want to ask ATPliny, Why? Presumably he has some argument besides “Change is good” for wanting to do so. What is it?
Yes. ummm No (I wouldn’t to be contrary but I couldn’t see how with this one).
The VP is appointed now for all practical purposes. No party runs a VP candidate who is unacceptable to the Presidential candidate.
I like the system we have now. The Presidential candidate appoints a Vice Presidential candidate and then the voters get to say yes or no to the pair of them.
There’s that whole “heartbeat away” factor to be considered. The voters should have a say in who’s the next person in line for the top spot. And the Senate fighting over cabinet officials is partisan enough without increasing its stakes.
Put me down as a"No" as well.
As a voter, I think I should have the right to vote against George Bush because I don’t want Dan Quayle anywhere near the Oval Office, or, for that matter, Geraldine Ferrero, Lloyd Bentsen, William Stockdale, Dick Cheney, Al Gore or fill-in-any-VP-candidate.
The VP candidate is often the first sign we get of the Presidential candidate’s thinking. I’d prefer to see it before the election.
Right. Specifically, one of the President’s major types of duties is picking people: appointing people to Cabinet positions, to the Supreme Court, to ambassadorships, etc.
Plus, I’ll also admit to wondering about the OP’s reasoning. If anything, the flaw in the current system seems to be the opposite of what the OP implies: Presidential candidates choose a vice president based on who will help them get elected (by “balancing the ticket” or some such), not by who they think would serve the best in the office of VP (or president, if something should happen to them). Would Abraham Lincoln really have wanted Andrew Johnson to be his successor?
Another thing to consider is that in an emergency the VP has to power to (with the consent of the cabinet secretaries) to invoke the 25th amendment and effectively suspend the president until Congress can make a decide if POTUS is able to carry out the duties of his office. If such a move failed POTUS can fire his cabinet, but he VP would stay in office.
Imagine how differently the public would have seen George W. Bush if it hadn’t known Dick Cheney would be his VP.
Any change to the VP position would be good. It’s the oddest thing in world politics today.
Cite?
Cite?
I would be afraid of a system where the VP was appointed by the president, after the elections. I can imagine a scenario like: Candidate XYZ makes a secret deal with the Christian right. They do a major turn out the vote campaign for him, and he agrees to appoint someone to their liking as VP. Then XYZ runs as a centrist Republican, but drops in a very conservative VP, after winning.
As a voter, I want to know who the second in command will be, before I vote.
The oddest thing in world politics today probably is that the recently deceased President of Turkmenistan renamed January after himself and April after his mother. He also banned ballet, beards, libraries, video games, makeup, dogs, and recorded music, and declared the evening that he pardoned a bunch of prisoners the “Night of Omnipotence”.
After that, it’s probably that Kim Il Sung is officially still president of North Korea even though he’s been dead for 13 years.
That the US elects somebody to preside over the Senate and take over in the case of the President’s death is really pretty low on the “oddness” scale, I think.
Hardly what I call a Great Debate. Not even up there with BK v. McD’s. 
How about if we voted for the VP candidate independently of the POTUS? Sure most of the time it would be pointless, but it would have been interesting to see if Cheney could have outpolled Edwards.
Better yet, we could revert to our old system, where the second-place finisher in the election becomes VP. It might reduce efficiency or it might increase bipartisanship.