Comments on: Get Rid Of The VP Slot? http://donklephant.com/2008/08/18/get-rid-of-the-vp-slot/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Should We Get Rid Of The Vice-Presidency ? http://donklephant.com/2008/08/18/get-rid-of-the-vp-slot/comment-page-1/#comment-418183 Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Should We Get Rid Of The Vice-Presidency ? Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:52:20 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=6943#comment-418183 [...] Gardner makes a similar point in his response to Yglesias’ version of the eliminate-the-Veep argument: I don’t know about you, but I want to be able to know who’s a heartbeat away from being [...] [...] Gardner makes a similar point in his response to Yglesias’ version of the eliminate-the-Veep argument: I don’t know about you, but I want to be able to know who’s a heartbeat away from being [...]

]]> By: Doug Mataconis http://donklephant.com/2008/08/18/get-rid-of-the-vp-slot/comment-page-1/#comment-413601 Doug Mataconis Tue, 19 Aug 2008 13:00:16 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=6943#comment-413601 <blockquote>initially, the candidate who came in first became president, while the one who came in second became vice-president…maybe a way to do away with the partisan gridlock is to go back to that formula. That way, if Obama won, he would be President, but McCain would be VP or vice versa…meaning, a unity ticket. Though, if I remember my history, that didn’t work out so well either, hence the change…</blockquote> As I'm sure you're aware, the 12th Amendment was passed after the Election of 1800 nearly left the country without a President (and resulted in Aaron Burr almost becoming POTUS) and, before that, after the Election of 1796 left two bitter political rivals --- Adams and Jefferson --- as President and Vice-President. It became fairly clear fairly quickly in our history that the original method of POTUS and VPOTUS election wouldn't work once political parties came into being.

initially, the candidate who came in first became president, while the one who came in second became vice-president…maybe a way to do away with the partisan gridlock is to go back to that formula. That way, if Obama won, he would be President, but McCain would be VP or vice versa…meaning, a unity ticket. Though, if I remember my history, that didn’t work out so well either, hence the change…

As I’m sure you’re aware, the 12th Amendment was passed after the Election of 1800 nearly left the country without a President (and resulted in Aaron Burr almost becoming POTUS) and, before that, after the Election of 1796 left two bitter political rivals — Adams and Jefferson — as President and Vice-President. It became fairly clear fairly quickly in our history that the original method of POTUS and VPOTUS election wouldn’t work once political parties came into being.

]]> By: Alan Stewart Carl http://donklephant.com/2008/08/18/get-rid-of-the-vp-slot/comment-page-1/#comment-413549 Alan Stewart Carl Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:06:53 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=6943#comment-413549 NYkrin: Yeah, the 12th amendment spells out the election of the president and vice president, with VP being chosen by the electoral college separately from choosing the president. Originally, whomever received the 2nd most votes for president was vice president -- that created a bad political situation whereby the VP was constantly undermining the president's agenda. The amendment was ratified in 1804, so you can see how long the original method lasted. Unity tickets would be worthwhile but they probably shouldn't be forced. NYkrin: Yeah, the 12th amendment spells out the election of the president and vice president, with VP being chosen by the electoral college separately from choosing the president. Originally, whomever received the 2nd most votes for president was vice president — that created a bad political situation whereby the VP was constantly undermining the president’s agenda. The amendment was ratified in 1804, so you can see how long the original method lasted.

Unity tickets would be worthwhile but they probably shouldn’t be forced.

]]> By: NYkrinDC http://donklephant.com/2008/08/18/get-rid-of-the-vp-slot/comment-page-1/#comment-413547 NYkrinDC Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:37:42 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=6943#comment-413547 Correct me if I'm wrong, but the framers did not specify that a candidate running for office needed to select another as his VP candidate. Rather, that was a later addition to our constitution, since initially, the candidate who came in first became president, while the one who came in second became vice-president...maybe a way to do away with the partisan gridlock is to go back to that formula. That way, if Obama won, he would be President, but McCain would be VP or vice versa...meaning, a unity ticket. Though, if I remember my history, that didn't work out so well either, hence the change... Correct me if I’m wrong, but the framers did not specify that a candidate running for office needed to select another as his VP candidate. Rather, that was a later addition to our constitution, since initially, the candidate who came in first became president, while the one who came in second became vice-president…maybe a way to do away with the partisan gridlock is to go back to that formula. That way, if Obama won, he would be President, but McCain would be VP or vice versa…meaning, a unity ticket. Though, if I remember my history, that didn’t work out so well either, hence the change…

]]> By: Brainster http://donklephant.com/2008/08/18/get-rid-of-the-vp-slot/comment-page-1/#comment-413543 Brainster Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:27:23 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=6943#comment-413543 Matt comes up with these goofball ideas every now and then. Remember him suggesting that the US would be "even awesomer" if we'd remained a colony of Great Britain? Matt comes up with these goofball ideas every now and then. Remember him suggesting that the US would be “even awesomer” if we’d remained a colony of Great Britain?

]]> By: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Eliminate The Vice-Presidency ? http://donklephant.com/2008/08/18/get-rid-of-the-vp-slot/comment-page-1/#comment-413537 Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Eliminate The Vice-Presidency ? Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:12:34 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=6943#comment-413537 [...] Justin Gardner   [...] [...] Justin Gardner   [...]

]]> By: kranky kritter http://donklephant.com/2008/08/18/get-rid-of-the-vp-slot/comment-page-1/#comment-413530 kranky kritter Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:23:45 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=6943#comment-413530 Why bother taking a fundamentally unserious idea seriously? It's not going to happen. Vice President is a government job, it's never going away. :-) It would probably take an amendment to get rid of it, and it's not the subject of controversy. The raison d'etre for Yglesias's piece comes from this: • VP is a current topic of conversation • we all think the VP is lame and doesn't do much •that's all been said before a gazillion times, so the rhetoric has to be amped up to gather eyeballs: a new slant is needed Therefore: "Let's get RID of the VP." Ta-daa! All that time wasted! That it will never happen and really shouldn't is beside the point. Bottom line is that POTUS is an important enough job that the country needs a VP hanging around doing the stuff they do (showing up at most meetings the President goes to, mostly watching and listening, chatting with people, etc) so that if anything happens to the President, <i>we have a replacement who has been in basically all the same political loops as the President</i>. The Secretary of State and the Speaker of the House etc don't have that. The VP is the back-up server. He provides the sort of functionality that you hope you never need, but are hopefully smart enough to plan for. JUST. IN. CASE. Why bother taking a fundamentally unserious idea seriously? It’s not going to happen. Vice President is a government job, it’s never going away. :-) It would probably take an amendment to get rid of it, and it’s not the subject of controversy.

The raison d’etre for Yglesias’s piece comes from this:
• VP is a current topic of conversation
• we all think the VP is lame and doesn’t do much
•that’s all been said before a gazillion times, so the rhetoric has to be amped up to gather eyeballs: a new slant is needed

Therefore: “Let’s get RID of the VP.” Ta-daa! All that time wasted! That it will never happen and really shouldn’t is beside the point.

Bottom line is that POTUS is an important enough job that the country needs a VP hanging around doing the stuff they do (showing up at most meetings the President goes to, mostly watching and listening, chatting with people, etc) so that if anything happens to the President, we have a replacement who has been in basically all the same political loops as the President. The Secretary of State and the Speaker of the House etc don’t have that. The VP is the back-up server. He provides the sort of functionality that you hope you never need, but are hopefully smart enough to plan for. JUST. IN. CASE.

]]>