# Should the VP be an appointed position? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2007, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vp-be-an-appointed-position/388530 "2007-01-19T00:50:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vp-be-an-appointed-position/388530/21 "2007-01-19T22:41:23Z")
Another alternative would be to revert to the pre-FDR practice in which conventions picked the VP candidate with little or no input from the presidential nominee. This would give the delegates something to do besides wear funny hats and try not to fall asleep on camera. The procedure was last employed by the Democrats in 1956, although even then it was a throwback. It resulted that year in the nomination of Estes Kefauver, the greatest boon to crossword puzzle constructors since Alfonso of Spain married Queen Ena. Have more recent nominees accomplished as much? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vp-be-an-appointed-position/388530/22 "2007-01-19T23:05:27Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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. There’s a reason the 12th amendment was ratified so soon after the Constitution was. Washington was universally loved, but Adams barely beat Jefferson, and had to wrestle with his VP for his entire term. After Jefferson had a similarly argued election, they changed the system. I don’t think Kennedy/Nixon, Clinton/Bush, or Clinton/Dole would have been remotely effective pairs. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vp-be-an-appointed-position/388530/23 "2007-01-19T23:47:54Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot] There’s a reason the 12th amendment was ratified so soon after the Constitution was. Washington was universally loved, but Adams barely beat Jefferson, and had to wrestle with his VP for his entire term. After Jefferson had a similarly argued election, they changed the system. I don’t think Kennedy/Nixon, Clinton/Bush, or Clinton/Dole would have been remotely effective pairs. [/QUOTE] Effective? What do VPs do except for sit around and wait for the president to die? As far as I’m concerned it might as well be the guy who got the second most votes getting the second shot at the presidency if the first guy dies or whatnot. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2007, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vp-be-an-appointed-position/388530/24 "2007-01-19T23:59:25Z")
Nowadays Vice Presidents do quite a lot; Cheney is involved in a hell of a lot of policy-making and meets with a lot of people Bush doesn’t have time to debate. If Veeps actually didn’t do anything, I don’t know that I’d have a huge problem with it, except for the fact that there would be radical changes in policy if the president were incapacitated. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vp-be-an-appointed-position/388530/25 "2007-01-20T00:35:22Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot] …If Veeps actually didn’t do anything, I don’t know that I’d have a huge problem with it, except for the fact that there would be radical changes in policy if the president were incapacitated. [/QUOTE] Which is also a good argument for removing the Speaker and President _pro term_ from the line of succesion. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vp-be-an-appointed-position/388530/26 "2007-01-20T00:39:03Z")
[QUOTE=alphaboi867] Which is also a good argument for removing the Speaker and President _pro term_ from the line of succesion. [/QUOTE] [hijack] There are some good arguments that the PPTOTS or the SOTH acting as President is unconstitutional anyways and that the office would go to the Secretary of State after a quick trip through SCOTUS as _Rice v. Pelosi_. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vp-be-an-appointed-position/388530/27 "2007-01-20T00:41:25Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot] Nowadays Vice Presidents do quite a lot; Cheney is involved in a hell of a lot of policy-making and meets with a lot of people Bush doesn’t have time to debate. [/QUOTE] They have a unique administration. Gore certainly wasn’t that involved in policymaking, and neither was Quayle. Anyway I don’t actually support the runnerup-as-VP idea, I just think it makes more sense than electing the VP independently. Our present system, imperfect as it is, is probably the best option. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vp-be-an-appointed-position/388530/28 "2007-01-20T00:48:39Z")
[QUOTE=SaintCad] [hijack] There are some good arguments that the PPTOTS or the SOTH acting as President is unconstitutional anyways and that the office would go to the Secretary of State after a quick trip through SCOTUS as _Rice v. Pelosi_. [/hijack] [/QUOTE] [hijack]And after a crisis that leads to the death/resignantion/removal of both POTUS and VPOTUS is the **wrong** time for any ambiguity over who’s in charge.[/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vp-be-an-appointed-position/388530/29 "2007-01-20T14:34:55Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Gore certainly wasn’t that involved in policymaking, and neither was Quayle. I wasn’t around then, but I’ve heard that Clinton looked to Gore for a lot of his foreign policy, since Gore had far more experience in that area than he did. From Quayle’s Wikipedia page: > [@](#): > > In contrast with his successors, Vice Presidents Gore and Cheney, Quayle had a limited role in policymaking. ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2007, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vp-be-an-appointed-position/388530/30 "2007-01-20T16:06:49Z")
[QUOTE=DrCube] Effective? What do VPs do except for sit around and wait for the president to die? As far as I’m concerned it might as well be the guy who got the second most votes getting the second shot at the presidency if the first guy dies or whatnot. [/QUOTE] It’s already been mentioned that the VP breaks ties in the Senate, a power that was employed as recently as December of 2005 and that has huge consequences when the Senate is evenly divided (as it was in 2001/2002 and is only Tim Johnson’s heartbeat away from being so again). See [here](http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/VPTies.pdf) (pdf) for a full list of VP tie-breaking votes. Additionally, the VP is by statute a member of the National Security Council, Chairman of the Board of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and a Member of the board of the Smithsonian Institution. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vp-be-an-appointed-position/388530/31 "2007-01-21T02:30:51Z")
[QUOTE=flurb] It’s already been mentioned that the VP breaks ties in the Senate, a power that was employed as recently as December of 2005 and that has huge consequences when the Senate is evenly divided (as it was in 2001/2002 and is only Tim Johnson’s heartbeat away from being so again). See [here](http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/VPTies.pdf) (pdf) for a full list of VP tie-breaking votes. Additionally, the VP is by statute a member of the National Security Council, Chairman of the Board of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and a Member of the board of the Smithsonian Institution. [/QUOTE] I did not know all that. I knew about the VP’s tie-breaking vote in the senate of course, but didn’t think it was all that important. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2007, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vp-be-an-appointed-position/388530/32 "2007-01-21T22:32:41Z")
[QUOTE=DrCube] I did not know all that. I knew about the VP’s tie-breaking vote in the senate of course, but didn’t think it was all that important. [/QUOTE] Usually it isn’t. Most votes in the Senate are not particularly close; the tie-breaking vote is important more when there is an exact balance party-wise in the Senate, and in that case the VP can break the tie for his party for determining chairs of committees and so on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-vp-be-an-appointed-position/388530.md?page=1)