Why is the Vice President of the United States elected? Why can’t the Presidential Nominee just select his vice president and have him approved by the United States Senate? The President still wouldn’t be able to fire him, but it will ensure that the presidential nominee didn’t waist his time choosing him should the Vice President fail to be elected by the electors.
I just turnd 18 this year and I still have yet to register to vote for the President and Vice President. I just want to know if their is any reason the Vice President has to be elected.
You don’t “register to vote for the President and Vice President.” You just register to vote, period. It’s good for all elections, Presidential or local or whatever.
Original idea was that the runner-up for President would become VP, but that didn’t work out.
Still, people used to die a lot and having a backup President on hand was seen as a good idea.
So you have to vote for somebody who really just hangs around in case someone else dies.
One obvious answer: so that if the Vice-President is forced to assume the office of President, the people aren’t subject to being ruled by someone they didn’t elect (though it can still happen in exceptional circumstances).
It was originally part of a convoluted scheme to keep Electors from only voting for candidates from their own states and grid-locking. They were each given two votes, and had to cast one for someone outside their state. But then there needed to be a second “important” job (so the Electors would vote for someone they actually liked instead of just tossing the votes away to keep their local candidate from losing), so the VP position was invented.
Which is why it’s such a seemingly random set of duties. It wasn’t invented to fulfill any particular function, they Founders just needed an important sounding job to absorb second votes.
So getting elected is basically the whole point of the job as originally conceived, taking over for the Prez, being head of the Senate, etc. were all secondary considerations.
Do you have a cite that that was the reasoning behind the office being elected? I’ve read that it was the reason I laid out in my earlier post several places (it’s the reason mentioned by the Senate’s webpage, for example), while I haven’t seen your reasoning attested anywhere.
Here’s Alexander Hamilton answering more or less this exact question:
So basically what I said, what Human Action said, and the added fact that the VP was seen as being analgous to the Lt. Governors which were generally elected positions.
We don’t have cites for most of the reasoning that went into the making of the Constitution. The writers decided it would be better to work in secret and then deliver a finished product to the states without revealing the arguments and deal-making that went into it. The only reason we know anything is because Madison cheating and took some notes (which weren’t published until 1840).
So I can’t say as a fact this exact argument was made or who might have said it. But it is clear that issues of making sure no branch had too much power over the other two were a major concern and the position I gave is too obvious for nobody to have noticed it. Give the Senate the power to appoint the Vice President and remove the President and you’ve made the executive branch subordinate to the legislature.
I’m not sure exactly what the debate is here, but one advantage of the Presidential candidate selecting his running-mate is that it gives us an early chance to see his Presidential decision making. The aging John McCain’s choice of youthful Sarah Palin, for example, gave us insight into that great man’s mind and sense of self-sacrifice.
The U.S. Constitution was written in 1787. Ratified, and a new government elected, in 1789. Two years to discuss who/what/why/how the new government would function. While the convention deliberations were done in secret, the members of the Philidelphia Convention still had to report to their State governments. The publication of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers provided justifications and background information to “the people”, along with numerous editorials, of what had been discussed and what the authors considered important.
In case anyone would like a refresher concerning the Constitutional position of VP.
The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, finally provided for the replacement of the Vice President in the event that the Vice President dies in office, resigns, or succeeds to the presidency.
Article Two of the U.S. Constitution created the executive branch of the government, consisting of the President, the Vice President, and other executive officers chosen by the President.
Aaron Burr was almost President. In the 1800 election he and Jefferson tied with 73 Electoral College votes each. There was no choice of President or VP, the candidate with the most EC votes became President. The House decided the Election.
The 1824 Election also had NO EC majority winner, and John Quincy Adams took it by a House Vote.
Now, a person SPECIFICALLY runs for President and VP, to bypass this.
If you want a rundown on a weird election, research the R. B. Hayes fiasco.
I can’t tell if the OP understands that you don’t vote for the Prez and VP separately; they are voted for together as a team. So the president’s selection does have to be approved: by the voters. And if the President wins the election, it means his choice of VP has won also, so he didn’t waste his time choosing someone.