# The position of Vice President of the US **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 28, 2016, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248 "2016-08-28T08:55:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DagNation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@DagNation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DagNation)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/1 "2016-08-28T08:55:06Z")
The Nation of Dag is having a constitutional convention, and has a question for the anti-ignorance crowd regarding the position of Vice President of the US. The VP currently is just the tie breaker in the Senate, and the replacement in case the sitting president leaves office. The the original system, before the 12th amendment in 1803, was basically a proportional representation style election, where every elector in the electoral college had 2 votes. The candidate with the most votes was President, and the second place was VP. The small amount of discussion in Wiki says that the FF added the parts about the VP being life insurance for the President and the tie breaking vote in the senate as reasons to not “throw away” the second vote on someone who can’t win. I have read (no cite) that some of the Founding Fathers expected the VP to be sort of an assistant president, the top cabinet member and adviser. I have also read that some FFs saw the president as a limited monarch, like in the parliamentary system in the UK of the time\* I can imagine that some saw the Senate tie breaker position as a second prize: It is not the big winner but there is a consolation prize. The president of the Senate could have been a smaller bully pulpit, and position to counterbalance the president’s bully, and it would be held by the biggest politician of the minority party. Again similar to some prime ministers. Senate rules prevent the VP from being / acting as a full senator. The Constitution is not clear or does not address this, so I think it could be changed without an amendment (unlike most of the stuff I am talking about here). I also think that if VP#1 Adams had been more popular in the senate than he was, the VP may have evolved to be more of a PM like-counterbalance to the President. This kind of VP could have been similar in stature to the speaker of the house, eclipsed the Speaker in prominence, or possibly together they might have rivaled the President. I can imagine that some saw the VP as a “shadow” president, like the shadow government in some parliamentary systems. No formal executive powers, but having access to the same information as the Pres, so the VP can step in and take over without missing a beat (the shadow knows). That original plan did not work out very well, so before 1804 they changed it so that the electors voted for Pres and VP on 2 separate ballots each with one winner, and since then the P and VP have been elected as a team. ``` and now the Question.... ``` Using the real US as the model, if you had the chance to change things regarding constitutional level law around the election and roles of the V-POTUS, what would you change? Why? Here are a few Ideas I have: \> Make the VP an explicitly responsible position in the executive branch similar to a cabinet secretary - something important like Sec of State (currently VP is treated as a legislative position in some ways). (+ assistant president +Shadow) \>Split the presidency into head of state and the head of nation roles, for instance P=top ambassador, CIC of military; VP= domestic executive, legislative executive (+ split responsibilities of pres is like having assistant pres) \> Make the second place P/VP candidates full congressional members, for instance loosing Pres candidate=pres of Senate; loosing VP candidate=pres of house (+ gives some power to the second place P/VP candidates) \> add another VP to add to the succession list (+ less chance of unelected presidents like Ford + the shadow of the shadow knows too!) Please tell me about writings of the FF that address this, and how other presidential democracies shape their VPs. Please tell me your own ideas. And finally (for now) do you foresee any unforeseen consequences of my suggestions? The many voices in the Nation of Dag thank you for your thoughtful advice. (fixing democracy, one useless job at a time) My primary source, Wiki: > **[Vice President of the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States)** > > The vice president of the United States (VPOTUS) is the second-highest officer in the executive branch of the U.S. federal government, after the president of the United States, and ranks first in the presidential line of succession. The vice president is also an officer in the legislative branch, as the president of the Senate. In this capacity, the vice president is empowered to preside over Senate deliberations at any time, but may not vote except to cast a tie-breaking vote. The vice The mod... \*Did the “UK” exist in the 1770s? If not the use “Britain” or “England” as appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![DagNation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@DagNation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DagNation)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/2 "2016-08-28T09:02:34Z")
This was supposed to be a debate - Mod please move. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![DonLogan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@DonLogan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DonLogan)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/3 "2016-08-28T10:20:20Z")
I think a weak VP is desirable to prevent conflict of interest (ie. undermining the P). P is free to give the VP any job he wants to, as far as I know. And VP, being elected, is free to turn it down. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/4 "2016-08-28T12:21:07Z")
> [@DagNation](#): > > Here are a few Ideas I have: > \> Make the VP an explicitly responsible position in the executive branch similar to a cabinet secretary - something important like Sec of State (currently VP is treated as a legislative position in some ways). (+ assistant president +Shadow) > \>Split the presidency into head of state and the head of nation roles, for instance P=top ambassador, CIC of military; VP= domestic executive, legislative executive (+ split responsibilities of pres is like having assistant pres) > \> Make the second place P/VP candidates full congressional members, for instance loosing Pres candidate=pres of Senate; loosing VP candidate=pres of house (+ gives some power to the second place P/VP candidates) > \> add another VP to add to the succession list (+ less chance of unelected presidents like Ford + the shadow of the shadow knows too!) Aside from your final point, can you give a reason to support any of your first three points? In what ways would any of these suggestions actually improve the governance of the country. I am afraid that they appear to be just “_Hey! Let’s give this guy a real job_” suggestions that do not really provide a serious improvement to the governance. (I am not sure that your fourth suggestion is that practical, either. We have only had the Ford situation occur once in 227 years–and, given the nature of Nixon, it seems likely that if Nixon had had a vice-vice president, he too would have been sufficiently corrupt to have been removed from office.) ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/5 "2016-08-28T14:51:11Z")
> [@DagNation](#): > > \> Make the second place P/VP candidates full congressional members, for instance loosing Pres candidate=pres of Senate; loosing VP candidate=pres of house (+ gives some power to the second place P/VP candidates) Is this intended to enhance gridlock? Is there any country where the election _losers_ are given special legislative power? The U.K. Speaker of the House is required to be non-partisan (and. following with _Speaker Denison’s rule_, can’t even break a tie to pass a bill). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/6 "2016-08-28T20:07:41Z")
I’d give him a full, real vote in the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/7 "2016-08-28T20:19:03Z")
I have long been a proponent of a “triple President” model - three positions, elected at two-year intervals for a single six-year term. The most senior President would be “President” in every way not otherwise defined, the same role as currently, but would confine him/herself to oversight and foreign policy on a working basis. The second most senior President would be responsible for domestic policy. The junior President would be much like the VP - largely ceremonial, in on-the-job training and for a selection of routine duties like presiding over the Senate. I think there’s a lot of advantages to the notion; steady and continual turnover without literally radical changes between administrations; better continuity and backup of experienced candidates; efficiency from division of labor… ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2016, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/8 "2016-08-28T21:23:44Z")
The Nation of Dag has already started with a flawed premise. > [@DagNation](#): > > Senate rules prevent the VP from being / acting as a full senator. The Constitution is not clear or does not address this, so I think it could be changed without an amendment (unlike most of the stuff I am talking about here). Actually, the Founding Fathers were pretty clear on this. [QUOTE=U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 3] The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. [/Quote] No matter what way you slice, dice or make julienne fries out of it, the fact the the VP doesn’t get to vote makes it crystal clear the framers of the Constitution disn’t want the VP to be a “full senator.” It’s probably true that the FF intended the VP to be the second-best candidate for President. But the law of unintended consequences being the same in the 18th Century as the 21st, they first (in 1796, only the third election) ended up with a Pres and VP who didn’t get along (Adams/Jefferson) and then (1800) had two candidates who were supposed to be running mates (Jefferson/Burr) locked in a tie. The House was supposed to break the tie, but it deadlocked for 35 ballots before FF Alexander Hamilton convinced his fellow Federalists that Jefferson was “not so dangerous a man” as Burr. Ergo, the idea of having the VP either a _de facto_ senator OR a true assistant President was doomed from the start. The only real option is to maintain the office as the compact spare tire of democracy. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/9 "2016-08-29T02:03:32Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > No matter what way you slice, dice or make julienne fries out of it, the fact the the VP doesn’t get to vote makes it crystal clear the framers of the Constitution disn’t want the VP to be a “full senator.” OTOH what actual non-purely-ceremonial functions of presiding the Senate could be vested in the VP (beyond the tie-breaker) is dependent on the rules of the chamber, by which the Senators long ago decided that the actual running of the Senate was to be directed by the Majority Leader. No chance of them changing that, but one would have to believe they could make changes to make the VP do some more presiding. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/10 "2016-08-29T02:11:07Z")
A VP who votes only in the event of ties has exactly the same amount of voting power as an ordinary senator who always gets to vote. Or to put it another way, the only time the VP can’t vote is when his vote doesn’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![DagNation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@DagNation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DagNation)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/11 "2016-08-29T02:22:13Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Aside from your final point, can you give a reason to support any of your first three points? In what ways… [does this] …provide a serious improvement to the governance. Th advantages I see are in parentheses (+ advantage referred to in above text), although I can see that they may not be valuable enough to actually make a change. ---
**Author:** ![DagNation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@DagNation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DagNation)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/12 "2016-08-29T02:29:54Z")
> [@DonLogan](#): > > I think a weak VP is desirable to prevent conflict of interest (ie. undermining the P). > > P is free to give the VP any job he wants to, as far as I know. And VP, being elected, is free to turn it down. The last few presidencies have had a P-VP team that worked together, but in the past that has been less true. When the Senate picks a new VP there is little chance that the VP will be a good fit for the P. So I agree that the way we replace a VP now does not go well with my idea here, and would need to be changed to accommodate this kind of VP additional responsibilities. ---
**Author:** ![DagNation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@DagNation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DagNation)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/13 "2016-08-29T02:40:48Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Is this intended to enhance gridlock? > Is there any country where the election _losers_ are given special legislative power? The U.K. Speaker of the House is required to be non-partisan (and. following with _Speaker Denison’s rule_, can’t even break a tie to pass a bill). Gridlock? I don’t think it would have too much effect, but it would change the balance of power in a 50/50 vote from the sitting pres to the second choice president. When we usually have only 2 contenders, there is a winner and a looser. When there are more than 2 contenders, there is a winner, and a second place. For me, this is part of a larger “thought experiment” that includes proportional representation and thus more than 2 parties. I agree that giving power to the looser does not make sense, but there are ways to give second place some power in other systems, primarily proportional representation… but I am hoping some of you will show me other examples that I have not seen. I do not want to have an unwieldy discussion on too many topics at one time, but I am sorry for leaving out some assumptions about the possibility space. ---
**Author:** ![DagNation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@DagNation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DagNation)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/14 "2016-08-29T02:45:28Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > The Nation of Dag has already started with a flawed premise. > … > Ergo, the idea of having the VP either a _de facto_ senator OR a true assistant President was doomed from the start. The only real option is to maintain the office as the compact spare tire of democracy. > [@JRDelirious](#): > > OTOH what actual non-purely-ceremonial functions of presiding the Senate could be vested in the VP (beyond the tie-breaker) is dependent on the rules of the chamber, by which the Senators long ago decided that the actual running of the Senate was to be directed by the Majority Leader. … Well, at least you can see my confusion on the topic ---
**Author:** ![DagNation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@DagNation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DagNation)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/15 "2016-08-29T02:54:46Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > A VP who votes only in the event of ties has exactly the same amount of voting power as an ordinary senator who always gets to vote. Or to put it another way, the only time the VP can’t vote is when his vote doesn’t matter. Mostly right, but if the VP was able to submit bills and debate, there would be a possibility that the position could have become more powerful. Also, there is a lot that happens that was not explicitly in the constitution, and might have gone other ways. Even with the constitutional limitations as they are, the President of the Senate was not fated to be as minor a position as it has turned out to be. Conceded: I was not aware of the exact limitations in the Constitution, I just took the wiki article at face value. ---
**Author:** ![DagNation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@DagNation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DagNation)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/16 "2016-08-29T03:01:06Z")
Were there any FF writings about the position of the VP? I would like to know about their thoughts around it. and thanks for all the thoughtful responses so far - the Nation of Dag thanks you. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/17 "2016-08-29T05:19:16Z")
[Federalist 68, written by Alexander Hamilton: "The Mode of Electing the President](https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-68) > [@](#): > > The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter. [ie - the Senate elects the V-P, if no candidate has a majority of the electoral votes, while the Reps elect the President, if no candidate has a majority.] > > The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President. That’s about it in the Federalist. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/18 "2016-08-29T05:22:45Z")
I believe that Farrand says that the office was created as a way to require electors to vote for two people for President, one of whom had to come from a different state than the elector. In other words, the need to have a national figure elected as President carried with it the need to require electors to vote for at least one person from another state, so the office of V-P was created to support this voting requirement. Going by memory here - will hunt out my copy of Ferrand and see if I can find it. ---
**Author:** ![DagNation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@DagNation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DagNation)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/19 "2016-08-29T08:35:35Z")
So, it appears that I put more thought into it than the FFs did… Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![DagNation](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@DagNation](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DagNation)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2016, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248/20 "2016-08-29T08:57:29Z")
I am seeing that those of you who commented about the tie breaking vote in the senate did not support giving the vote to the loosing presidential candidate. If we were to ignore the NEED for a tie breaker in the senate, would you still support the party of the winning president getting a (sometimes) vote in the senate? Would you also extend this to the House if the option were there (with no other considerations)? The razor I am trying to use here is: do you think that the president should have a little extra power in the legislature, do you just accept it as part of a compromise in the constitution, or would you remove that feature if you could? And of course the essay question: Why? Thanks! [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-position-of-vice-president-of-the-us/764248.md?page=2)