Second-place finisher of presidential election becomes Vice President

Hi!

How would American politics (and American history) have evolved if the runner-up in the presidential elections automatically became Vice President?

Wasn't that originally how things worked?
 
The original mechanism was for each elector to cast two votes for separate candidates (at least one of whom needed to be from outside the elector's state). The top vote-getter would be President, and the runner-up would be Vice President.

This never really worked as intended. In the first two Presidential elections, it mostly worked, but only because there was a strong consensus in favor of Washington for President: every elector cast their first vote for Washington, making the second vote effectively a vote in a contested election for Vice President. The 1788-9 election had a wide open field with no organized campaigns, with Adams winning with a strong plurality (just short of a majority). The 1792 election was a two-way partisan contest between Adams (backed by the Federalists) and Clinton (backed by the Democratic-Republicans).

After Washington retired, the parties contested both seats, which is what wound up breaking the system. Each party ran two candidates for President, with the understanding that one was to be President and the other to be Vice President. The plan was for 1-2 electors to cast their second vote for someone else instead of the VP candidate, ensuring the top-of-ticket candidate would win. In both elections where this was attempted (1796 and 1800), the parties botched the job.

In 1796, too many Federalist electors cast their second vote for a different candidate, and the D-R candidate (Jefferson) ended up getting the second-most votes. And having a President and VP of rival parties turned out to be a bit of an undesirable mess.

In 1800, the two D-R candidates (Jefferson and Burr) wound up tied with each other, leaving the lame duck Federalist-majority House of Representatives to break the tie. A large faction within the House tried to break the tie in favor of Burr, producing a prolonged deadlock, during which Jefferson threatened civil war if Burr were elected.

If you want to preserve the runner-up system, I think one of the following needs to happen:

  1. Avert the emergence of a two-party system. This is very difficult, since Presidential systems lend themselves to an administration vs opposition party dynamic, and since two-party politics was already firmly rooted in the Anglo-American political tradition.
  2. Make the parties get the coordination job right in 1796 and 1800. This would preserve the constitutional mechanism, but subvert the practical application into something still very close to the modern mechanism of separate ballots for the two offices.
  3. Adopt a different runner-up system that's too hard for the parties to try to subvert. For example, something like Borda Count might work (each elector's first vote counts for 2, while their second vote counts for 1, so a party would need a 2/3 majority of electors to capture a majority in both slots). Or just have each elector cast a single vote, but that could break down in the first election if Washington were to win unanimously, leaving no runner-up.
 
Maniakes nicely summarizes why the system broke. But let's assume that somehow they do get it to work the way that you want it to, where the losing party's candidate becomes VP.

Obvious effects:

1. Ties in the Senate now go AGAINST the administration instead of for it. That's not usually relevant, but there have been cases where the Senate is split 50-50 and the President's party gets control via the VP's tiebreaking power. This now goes the other way.

2. It makes impeachment a far more attractive option if the opposing party controls Congress. Right now, if a President were removed from office, he would be replaced by a Vice President from the same party, so nothing much would change in terms of party control. Thus, there is very little incentive to impeach a President unless (a) they actually did something really illegal or (b) you have some sort of personal animosity towards that President in particular. But if the Republicans could get McCain or Romney in office by impeaching Obama (or the Democrats could have gotten Gore or Kerry in office by impeaching Bush), there might be more support for it.

3. Maybe some politically motivated assassinations? I'm pretty sure most assassins are motivated more by irrational crap than politics, but with the Presidency potentially switching parties upon the President's death we could see fanatics taking shots at the President more often. It's the same logic as the impeachment thing, just a more violent means.
 

jahenders

Banned
Obviously the system had some issues, but I think it could work and be a positive. If handled well, it could help promote a degree of bipartisanship, with the VP being a voice for the concerns of the other side and a voice to help rally his party in Congress to support measures he thinks should be supported.

The original mechanism was for each elector to cast two votes for separate candidates (at least one of whom needed to be from outside the elector's state). The top vote-getter would be President, and the runner-up would be Vice President.

This never really worked as intended. In the first two Presidential elections, it mostly worked, but only because there was a strong consensus in favor of Washington for President: every elector cast their first vote for Washington, making the second vote effectively a vote in a contested election for Vice President. The 1788-9 election had a wide open field with no organized campaigns, with Adams winning with a strong plurality (just short of a majority). The 1792 election was a two-way partisan contest between Adams (backed by the Federalists) and Clinton (backed by the Democratic-Republicans).

After Washington retired, the parties contested both seats, which is what wound up breaking the system. Each party ran two candidates for President, with the understanding that one was to be President and the other to be Vice President. The plan was for 1-2 electors to cast their second vote for someone else instead of the VP candidate, ensuring the top-of-ticket candidate would win. In both elections where this was attempted (1796 and 1800), the parties botched the job.

In 1796, too many Federalist electors cast their second vote for a different candidate, and the D-R candidate (Jefferson) ended up getting the second-most votes. And having a President and VP of rival parties turned out to be a bit of an undesirable mess.

In 1800, the two D-R candidates (Jefferson and Burr) wound up tied with each other, leaving the lame duck Federalist-majority House of Representatives to break the tie. A large faction within the House tried to break the tie in favor of Burr, producing a prolonged deadlock, during which Jefferson threatened civil war if Burr were elected.

If you want to preserve the runner-up system, I think one of the following needs to happen:

  1. Avert the emergence of a two-party system. This is very difficult, since Presidential systems lend themselves to an administration vs opposition party dynamic, and since two-party politics was already firmly rooted in the Anglo-American political tradition.
  2. Make the parties get the coordination job right in 1796 and 1800. This would preserve the constitutional mechanism, but subvert the practical application into something still very close to the modern mechanism of separate ballots for the two offices.
  3. Adopt a different runner-up system that's too hard for the parties to try to subvert. For example, something like Borda Count might work (each elector's first vote counts for 2, while their second vote counts for 1, so a party would need a 2/3 majority of electors to capture a majority in both slots). Or just have each elector cast a single vote, but that could break down in the first election if Washington were to win unanimously, leaving no runner-up.
 
Top