US Elections, more vice president questions ...

Factual Questions
1

I know this has probably been asked before but I can’t find the answer.

When do the presidential candidates have to declare their running mate by? As I understand it they could declare their intention now, but is there a deadline for it?

I’d been assuming that running mates were declared at (or just before) the convention but something I read over the weekend gave me the impression that that’s not true.

Can they change their VP choice? What happens if something happens to their choice between now and the election? I’m guessing a VP has to accept the nomination, so can they change their minds later on?

Sorry for all the questions, I’m just fascinated by the mechanics of the election.

2

It can be done at any time. The convention makes it official, and then the name is put onto the various state ballots.

Back in 1972, McGovern changed his VP nominee from Thomas Eagleton to Sargent Shriver. I believe that was after the convention ratified the choice. In any case, the ticket in all states was McGovern/Shriver.

Further, it would matter if the VP candidate dropped out. People vote for electors, not the candidate, and the electors for the president would probably vote for whoever the party chose to replace the candidate who quit, even if he’s not officially on any ballot (of course, he isn’t).

3

Ah, gotcha.

What about restrictions for VP, they have to meet the same requirements as the president, yes? Apart from that anything goes?

What if a nominee decided to pick an utter whack-job for the VP slot, I take it the convention might refuse to ratify them then?
Is there anything to prevent the hypothetical situation where the Republican nominee picks the Democrat as VP and vice versa (i.e. giving the people a choice between Clinton/McCain and McCain/Clinton – or put Obama in there, I’m just picking one to illustrate my point).

4

[QUOTE=SpaceDog]
What if a nominee decided to pick an utter whack-job for the VP slot, I take it the convention might refuse to ratify them then?
[/QUOTE]

As a hypothetical, I don’t know, but realistically a candidate will not pick a total whackjob because they want to win. After spending tens of millions of dollars to get the nomination it is well nigh impossible that they will intentionally sabotage their chances of winning by picking a crazy running mate.

Besides, the people speak at the ballots, and electors are rarely faithless. There’s no reason to assume that an unhinged person would be able to make it all the way through the process without getting weeded out.

5

[QUOTE=SpaceDog]
Is there anything to prevent the hypothetical situation where the Republican nominee picks the Democrat as VP and vice versa (i.e. giving the people a choice between Clinton/McCain and McCain/Clinton – or put Obama in there, I’m just picking one to illustrate my point).
[/QUOTE]
No, and it’s already happened once. When Lincoln, a Republican, ran for re-election in 1864, he picked a Democrat, Andrew Johnson as his running mate. That was during the Civil War, and Lincoln wanted to pull as much pro-union support as he could.

6

[QUOTE=SpaceDog]
When do the presidential candidates have to declare their running mate by? As I understand it they could declare their intention now, but is there a deadline for it?
[/QUOTE]
Keep in mind that, formally, presidential candidates don’t “declare” their running mates. The vice presidential candidate is nominated by the party national convention. The presidential candidate merely makes a “recommendation” to the convention, which (in modern times) invariably rubber-stamps the recommendation.

When a president announces who will be his running mate–nowadays, usually in late spring, but in earlier years the announcement was withheld until the convention itself–he is announcing whom he will recommend to the convention.

Until World War II, and occasionally afterward, the convention exercised real decision-making authority. The presidential candidate wasn’t usually at the convention, and the party leaders and delegates might or might not seek his input in making a choice. If he gave input, they might or might not follow it.

If the VP candidate needs to be replaced, the party National Committee makes the choice. Again, in modern times, the presidential candidate would make a “recommendation”, and unless he recommended Charles Manson, the Committee would rubber-stamp it.

And yes, under the terms of the Twelth Amendment, “(N)o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States”.

7

[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
No, and it’s already happened once. When Lincoln, a Republican, ran for re-election in 1864, he picked a Democrat, Andrew Johnson as his running mate. That was during the Civil War, and Lincoln wanted to pull as much pro-union support as he could.
[/QUOTE]

It happened all the time in The Beginning - electors each cast two votes for the president, and the guy with the most votes became POTUS and the runner-up became VP.

The 12th Amendment took care of all that by arranging for separate ballots for each office.

8

Technically the national party convention is what nominates the V.P., but like the Queen/GG naming the Prime Minister in Britain/Canada/Oz, they “choose” from a list of one: the Presidential nominee’s choice.

Typically, a Presidential candidate tries to get a running mate whom he is comfortable working with, but also someone who “balances the ticket” – who appeals to that segment of prospective voter demographics who might be swayed to vote their ticket which he himself does not.

Finally, the job of V.P. is what the President allows it to be. Mr. Bush puts a lot of reliance on Mr. Cheney. For Pres. Eisenhower, Nixon (his V.P.) was “honorable hatchet man” – Ike kept the party together and gave out the warm fuzzies; Dick handled the dirty tricks and firing side of politics. JFK minimized LBJ’s influence – as did FDR with all three of his VPs. In fact Cactus Jack Garner, the first FDR VP (1933-41), used to tell the story: “A man had two sons. One ran away to sea, and the other was elected Vice President of the United States. Neither was ever heard from again.” :slight_smile:

9

JFK gave LBJ a lot to do compared to LBJ’s treatment of Hubert Humphrey. There were jokes at the time about Humphrey’s most important task being serving as official dog-walker because there was a news photo taken once of him walking one of the Whitehouse dogs.

10

[QUOTE=RealityChuck]
Back in 1972, McGovern changed his VP nominee from Thomas Eagleton to Sargent Shriver. I believe that was after the convention ratified the choice. In any case, the ticket in all states was McGovern/Shriver.
[/QUOTE]
The Eagleton nomination is a good example of how the VP selection process changed, and why.

In 1972, conventions still mattered, and George McGovern wasn’t sure he had nailed down the presidential nomination until the first night of the convention. He didn’t give any thought to a running mate until the day of the VP nomination, at which time, after cursory investigation, he and a small coterie of advisors determined upon Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri.

The nomination then went before the convention. In that era, delegates felt free to challenge McGovern’s last-minute surprise choice, and seven other candidates were given nominating and seconding speeches. One of them was Mike Gravel, who resurfaced after 36 years to run for President this year. In addition, delegates cast at least one vote for 62 other candidates, ranging from Dr. Spock to Eleanor McGovern to Martha Mitchell, the crotchety wife of Nixon’s Attorney General.

Eagleton eventually prevailed, with 1,742 out of 3,016 delegate votes, but the proceedings delayed McGovern’s acceptance speech until 3:00 a.m. Eastern time. A few days later, it was revealed that Eagleton had long-standing psychiatric problems and had undergone electro-shock therapy. He resigned from the ticket. The Democratic National Committee, on McGovern’s recommendation, nominated Sargent Shriver as his replacement.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter wasn’t anxious to repeat this fiasco. He wrapped up the nomination in June and immediately began a lengthy vetting and interview process. He announced Walter Mondale as his VP choice before the National Convention, and the convention quickly and efficiently rubber-stamped Mondale.

This has been the model for every VP selection since.

11

So, the convention could refuse to rubber-stamp the candidates choice and nominate someone else. I.e. if the Democratic race continues to be tight the convention could force a Clinton/Obama ticket or a Obama/Clinton ticket.

Although I’m guessing that would more likely be done behind the scenes so it can look like the candidates choice.

I take it the VP nominee has a choice? They can refuse the nomination (not that it’d ever get to that point).

12

Nowadays, the Presidential nominee chooses his running mate virtually on his won. But the party leaders used to make the decision. I’ve been reading a book on the secession crisis of 1860 and it mentions in passing that Lincoln had never even met his running mate Hannibal Hamlin until after they were elected.

13

In 1956 Adlai Stevenson left it to the Democratic Convention to select a Vice Presidential nominee. On the third ballot the convention selected Estes Kefauver, who had run against Stevenson early in the campaign.

14

[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
No, and it’s already happened once. When Lincoln, a Republican, ran for re-election in 1864, he picked a Democrat, Andrew Johnson as his running mate. That was during the Civil War, and Lincoln wanted to pull as much pro-union support as he could.
[/QUOTE]

Technically, what happened in 1864 is that most of the Republicans (with the exception of the Fremont faction), in order to get the support of war Democrats, created a new party, the “National Union” Party. So, in 1864, both Lincoln and Johnson ran as National Unionists.

15

[QUOTE=SpaceDog]
So, the convention could refuse to rubber-stamp the candidates choice and nominate someone else.

[/QUOTE]

It’s possible, but the last time it’s happened, to my knowledge, was in 1920, when the Republican delegates rebelled and nominated Calvin Coolidge rather than the organization choice of Irvine Lenroot.

16

[QUOTE=SpaceDog]
I take it the VP nominee has a choice? They can refuse the nomination (not that it’d ever get to that point).
[/QUOTE]
Of course they can refuse. How could you force a person to accept a nomination they didn’t want? Persons chosen tu run for VP by a major party convention have declined in 1844 (Silas Wright, Democrat), 1860 (Benjamin Fitzpatrick, Democrat), and 1924 (Frank Lowden, Republican).