No Vice President

This is a question that just popped into my head.

Like what would the United States be if the office of Vice President hadn't been created?
 
A stronger Secretary of State?

A stronger Speaker of the House?

Earlier spelled out succession lines?


What about the electoral college? Simplified, because there's just one position, but how does that effect things?
 
No Dan Quayle jokes? :D

Sorry - couldn't resist. I suspect that the Legislative Branch would be a little stronger, perhaps with a third constitutional officer named by both houses to be the first-in-line to succeed the President.
 
Actually Tennessee's state constitution lacks a lieutenant - governor: the line of succession falls to the President of the Senate. For the US, I'd imagine a similar arrangement. There is some question as to whether the Constitution would speak to the matter or simply leave it to Congress to decide the succession.

Also, I think you wouldn't see spelled out succession lines at first. Instead, the officer that succeeded would be Acting President pending a special election (this was how the 1792 Act of Succession worked in the event of a double vacancy). This is why I tend to think that Article II would simply leave it to Congress to make a succession law: including a special election in the Constitution itself wouldn't allow much give in the case of war or the like.

Furthermore, there's a chance that the electoral college remains, each elector having two votes. Part of the rationale behind the original scheme was that most electors would probably vote first for their state's favorite son and only then vote for someone else. This rationale is still valid even if you remove the Vice-President from the equation.

The effects to the political system are probably more due to what the OTL holders of the VPcy (particularly in the first decades of the Republic) would do if they hadn't been VP. I'd imagine John Adams probably ends up in the Senate; I seem to remember he was offered a seat. Adams probably likes being in the Senate quite a bit; as a fully-fledged member of that body, he will the chance to influence outcomes far more than OTL. There were also at least one vote that was tied OTL and which Adams as VP broke--TTL I'd imagine the Senate considers a tie to be a defeat for the motion at hand; that vote was the confirmation of the Jay Treaty, IIRC, an issue replete with consequence. However, there may be butterflies that prevents the deadlock (for instance, a vote may flip).

The next question is who wins the election of 1796. Jefferson is probably still Sec State and probably still retires in 1792. He may still end up angling for the Presidency in '96, incensed by Franklin's Slavery Petition and the Jay Treaty. Adams on the other hand will have had a very different career; he's probably still eager for the top job, though his chances probably depend on his working relationship with Hamilton. I'd imagine that relationship is...rocky. Adams and Hamilton probably agreed on things like the need for a National Bank and so forth, but Adams rejected Hamilton's partisan factionalism. OTL Adams only won by 3 votes in 1796; there's a chance he loses the election without having been VP for 8 years prior. However, I think he probably still wins: he'll have been in office for longer than Jefferson and will be more well known than Pinckney.

It's possible that Jefferson might be able to get a Senate or House seat having lost the Presidency, but I think it equally likely that he choses to remain at Monticello. Though it's also possible Adams asks him to serve in government, the two still being friends; Jefferson probably declines, citing his wish not to cloud his friendship with Adams with political intrigue, since its known they don't see eye to eye. If the offer occurs, it will be a key turning point: if Jefferson accepts, then Cabinet government might be more important in the precedents of US politics. As said, though, I don't think he will. Also, Adams OTL kept most of Washington's appointees, IIRC.

Nevertheless, if Jefferson stays out of politics in 1796, I think he's likely to return in 1798 (I believe a Senate seat was open then, but Senators often didn't serve their full term, particularly those from VA in the Early Republic). His opposition to Adams' policies is thus more open than it was OTL; oddly, this may save their friendship or at least prevent the degree of enmity that arose OTL. Certainly, having Jefferson in the Senate plotting with Madison about the D-Rs is quite different from having him as VP doing the same.

He's certainly a candidate for President in 1800, but there's no guarantees then. There will have been too many butterflies. If the Treaty ending the Quasi War is signed sooner or if the war turns hot, Adams is probably re-elected.

I won't go further, but even assuming a very similar course for butterfli-able events, the ripple effects of having certain key players not be VP (John Calhoun, Aaron Burr) will be big. Also, political parties will need different ways to constitute tickets: perhaps the Cabinet becomes a term to refer to those executive officers customarily announced as a slate by Presidential candidates (probably the Sec State, Sec Tres, Sec War, and AG). This may limit the later proliferation of Cabinet level offices. Alternatively, perhaps party platforms are more important (though they were pretty important to begin with, before the sound byte era of politics eroded all thought from the game). Perhaps Congressional caucuses never give way to primaries and nominating conventions.

And then assuming that a President doesn't die for some time, you'd have the butterflies caused by "special elections" and possible reforms related to that. Personally, I think if we'd had one such election, the precedent would be enough to allow more. There's not a real continuity issue until Cold War scenarios present "button" issues. Even then, the present system still has ample holes in it (what happens if you lose a quorum of the House, for example).
 
Last edited:
No Dan Quayle jokes? :D

Sorry - couldn't resist. I suspect that the Legislative Branch would be a little stronger, perhaps with a third constitutional officer named by both houses to be the first-in-line to succeed the President.



No Dan Quayle jokes?


Dammit...... I was thinking potatos (?) :p, for some reason.
 
No Dan Quayle jokes? :D

Sorry - couldn't resist. I suspect that the Legislative Branch would be a little stronger, perhaps with a third constitutional officer named by both houses to be the first-in-line to succeed the President.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court could appropriatly be inserted into the line of succession (I've never understood why he isn't).
 
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court could appropriatly be inserted into the line of succession (I've never understood why he isn't).

Well, there is some degree of conveince since as a lifetime appointee, the Chief Justice will know a lot about Washington and will probably be living in DC, thus able to take up power quite quickly.

However, the Court was a vastly inferior branch of the government and I think the easiest reason is that a Chief Justice was never involved in planning for the succession, while Secretaries of State, Speakers of the House, and Presidents Pro Tempore of the Senate were.
 
Top