Why was the Vice President created?

Czar Kaizer

Banned
What was the rationale behind the creation of the Vice President in the US?
I mean the office seems quite useless, explain.
 
What was the rationale behind the creation of the Vice President in the US?
I mean the office seems quite useless, explain.

Was it not to take over the position congress as before 1788, the position was called "President of the Continental Congress" so would be confusing to have two presidents, so the second one was called "Vice-President" and made to preside over congress?
 

Stolengood

Banned
Was it not to take over the position congress as before 1788, the position was called "President of the Continental Congress" so would be confusing to have two presidents, so the second one was called "Vice-President" and made to preside over congress?
I've always thought it would've made more sense if the Vice-President were also the leader of his or her party in the Senate -- gives them something more to do than just wait for a tie to come up.
 
What was the rationale behind the creation of the Vice President in the US?
I mean the office seems quite useless, explain.

You have to remember that the original method of selecting the vice-president was very different from the method used now:

"It has been thought extraordinary that the Constitution, as originally adopted, did not provide for a separate vote for the office of Vice President, and prescribed no qualifications for that officer. The explanation is simple. The Vice President was voted for as President and his qualifications were those of the President. That is the clue, seldom explained in our textbooks, to the whole system. As the Constitution then stood, each elector wrote the names of two persons on a ballot. The first was perhaps that of a local luminary, a favorite son of the district or state he represented; the second was that of a person not an inhabitant of the same state as himself -- presumably, therefore, a "continental character." Both of these names were of persons whom the elector and, we may be sure, his constituents considered qualified for the office of President. Either of them might be President, and the elector could not know which. No vote at all was cast for Vice President, but it was provided that "in every case, after the choice of the President the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President."

"The guiding principle of the system is plain. The man in whom the people reposed the highest trust was to be the President, and he in whom they placed their second confidence was to be the Vice President. Its convenience is also evident. This method selected two persons, both qualified to fill the Presidency. It solved the difficult problem posed by Benjamin Franklin when it was first decided that the Executive should be a single person: "The single head may be sick. Who is to conduct the public affairs in that case? When he dies, who are to conduct until a new election?" And it removed the need for a new election when the President died or resigned. Everything seemed settled by a mode of election designed, not to secure a competent President of the Senate, but (in Boudinot's phrase) "to obtain the second-best character in the Union to fill the place of the first, in case it should be vacated by any unforeseen accident."

"On paper the plan seemed perfect. In practice, however, it was soon discovered that great inconvenience might arise from this mode of election, and that it might not carry into effect the will of the people as expressed through electors. The trouble was that the electors did not in fact cast two undistinguishing votes for President, but discriminated in their minds between the persons whom they wanted for President and Vice President, casting one vote for each. This introduced a totally new principle into the electoral system, the effect of which was to divide the contest. Instead of one election with two prizes, there tended to be two elections with separate prizes. The difference is substantial. The runner-up for the world heavyweight championship is a very different order of fighter from the world flyweight champion; the man who comes in second in an Olympic contest is not to be compared with the winner of the same event in a Class B track and field meet.

"The attempt to choose the Vice President separately from the President destroyed the electoral system. For it made possible, in a particular circumstance, the election of a President and Vice President of opposite political parties. The case occurred in 1796 and was immediately seen to be an evil, at least by the majority party. It might have occurred again in 1804, and to prevent the repetition was the avowed purpose of the Twelfth Amendment, "the pivot on which the whole turned." The Constitution, it was said, could never have intended that a minor faction should, by any means, acquire the power of electing a Vice President, the possible successor to executive power; its purpose was that the election of the President and Vice President should be determined by a fair expression of the public will by a majority.

"There was another difficulty too. Even if A was intended by a large majority of the people for President and B for Vice President, yet the votes might be so disposed, or chance might operate so contrary to intention, that the votes for B would exceed by a vote those for A. John Quincy Adams stated the case hypothetically in 1808. It had come within an ace of occurring in the Jefferson-Burr election of 1800..."

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/pres/wilmer.htm

So we got the Twelfth Amendment which established the system of electing the president and vice-president on a single ticket. Some Federalists warned that this would lead to undistinguished vice-presidents, people who were chosen just to help the presidential candidate carry a particular state or region. The next few decades amply justified this warning.

See Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s ""Is the Vice Presidency Necessary?":

"The abolition of the "valuable mode of election" canceled the purpose of the Founding Fathers in having a Vice President at all. Separate voting ended any prospect that the Vice President would be the second man in the country. The office could no longer be counted on to attract men of the highest quality. It would become, as was immediately noted, a bargaining counter in the presidential contest—"a bait to catch state gudgeons," in Gouverneur Morris' contemptuous phrase. Samuel White, a senator from Delaware, summed up with admirable prescience the consequences of the Twelfth Amendment: "Character, talents; virtue, and merits will not be sought after in the candidate. The question will not be asked, is he Capable? Is he honest? But can he by his name, by his connections, by his wealth, by his local situation, by his influence, or his intrigues, best promote the election of a President?" Roger Griswold of Connecticut said that the vice presidency would thereafter be "useless, worse than useless." A number of political leaders, Republicans and Federalists—John Randolph of Roanoke, former Speaker of the House, now Senator; Jonathan Dayton; Mathew Griswold; Samuel W. Dana—drew the logical conclusion. The vice presidency was an organic part of a particular mode of election, and that mode of election had now been constitutionally abolished; therefore let us abolish the vice presidency too. Unfortunately for the republic this effort failed.

"But the dismal predictions were correct. The Twelfth Amendment sent the vice presidency into prompt decline. The first two Vice Presidents had moved on directly to the presidency. After the amendment was enacted, the vice presidency became a resting place for mediocrities. Who can remember Burr's successors-George Clinton, Elbridge Gerry, Daniel D. Tompkins? For a generation the office of Secretary of State became the stepping-stone to the presidency; thereafter Presidents were elected from anywhere except the vice presidency..."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1974/05/is-the-vice-presidency-necessary/305732/
 

jahenders

Banned
In effect, the VP might actually be called the "Backup President" or "Assistant President." His primary role is to take over if the president dies and to fill as many presidential roles/appearances as the president wants him to.

If we followed the original theory (where the VP was the 2nd highest vote getter of any party) he'd be another seasoned politician with lots of support and a different point of view to add to critical decisions. Now, he just enhances a president's "echo chamber" for better group think.
 
the role of the Vice President is basically just to be around in case something happens to the President, he/she's as someone said above; a "backup" President essentially.
 
In addition to serving as backup to the President the Vice President also presides over the Senate, and serves as a tie-breaker in Senate votes should that be necessary.

Unofficially he also serves to marshal support for the President's policies in the Senate, apprises the Senators of the President's views and desires, and keeps the President informed on Senatorial matters.

In addition, as said above, he stands in for the President at functions where official attendance is required, often serves as official or unofficial head of temporary commissions, and carries out other extraordinary duties as required. Sort of the President's errand boy/troubleshooter.

So while his official duties are few, he performs many unofficial duties as well, so is actually quite useful.
 
I think to get rid of the office of vice-president, the U.S. would need to have more of a parliamentary system. So that if the President died or became incapacitated, the Speaker of the House would be from the same political party.

And a good place to start might be to ask, how has the United Kingdom handled cases where the Prime Minister died or became disabled?
 
And a good place to start might be to ask, how has the United Kingdom handled cases where the Prime Minister died or became disabled?

The last time it happened was Lord Palmerston in 1865. He was succeeded by the Foreign Secretary, Earl Russell. I'm having a hard time finding details, but it looks like Russell was probably just chosen by Queen Victoria as her favorite among the senior members of the majority party in Parliament.

If a modern Prime Minister were to die in office, his party would probably hold a snap leadership election to choose a successor. If the death took place in the middle of some sort of crisis, the Queen might appoint a temporary caretaker PM.

In the absence of a caretaker appointment, the PM is actually a bundle of separate positions which happen to be (by tradition) always held by the same person. Each office has a different subordinate office that could theoretically fill in:

  1. Leader of the majority party in Parliament. Depending on how you look at it, the #2 is probably either the Party Chair or the Chief Whip.
  2. First Lord of the Treasury. The Second Lord is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Third Lord is the Chief Whip.
  3. Chairman of the Cabinet. The #2 here is probably the Lord President of the Council.
  4. Primary advisor to the Queen. I'm not really sure who would be #2 here.
  5. Head of Her Majesty's Government / Chief Executive. This could be looked at as a combination of roles 3 and 4, or it could be looked at as a separate position. If the latter, the #2 might be the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet, who is also Head of the Home Civil Service.
  6. Commander in Chief of the military. I think the Defense Secretary is second in command.
 
The Vice President, aside from presiding over the Senate, was also able to steer debate via the prestige of his position. This lasted all of about four years as the 1st US Senate voted for the presiding officer to be neutral - much to John Adams's chagrin.
 
The last time it happened was Lord Palmerston in 1865. He was succeeded by the Foreign Secretary, Earl Russell. I'm having a hard time finding details, but it looks like Russell was probably just chosen by Queen Victoria as her favorite among the senior members of the majority party in Parliament.

If a modern Prime Minister were to die in office, his party would probably hold a snap leadership election to choose a successor. If the death took place in the middle of some sort of crisis, the Queen might appoint a temporary caretaker PM.
Thank you.

And in practice, the smoothness of the transition might depend who how successful the PM has been in assembling a team which works well together --- and some of this is luck of course for you never really know how people are going to handle new positions.
 
I've always thought it would've made more sense if the Vice-President were also the leader of his or her party in the Senate -- gives them something more to do than just wait for a tie to come up.
Wasn't that how it was originally under Adams, but he aggravated the Senators so much they stripped him of his powers?
 
Wasn't that how it was originally under Adams, but he aggravated the Senators so much they stripped him of his powers?

I'd say a less prickly inaugural VP could have established a much more activist role for the office, maybe even a sort of 'Government House Leader' type position, given time. Essentially what LBJ wanted to turn the vice presidency into.
 
Thank you.

And in practice, the smoothness of the transition might depend who how successful the PM has been in assembling a team which works well together --- and some of this is luck of course for you never really know how people are going to handle new positions.

I've done a bit more poking around and turned up some recent news articles, mostly about one MP's perennially push for a bill establishing a formal line of succession. Some of the articles quote various members of the current cabinet as saying something along the lines of "arrangements for a succession are in place" but refusing to discuss details. I'm guessing from this that the current cabinet has privately decided among themselves what the line of succession should be for caretaker PM and informed the Queen whom she should appoint should the occasion arise.

http://www.ibtimes.com/who-would-succeed-david-cameron-if-he-suddenly-died-office-386184
 
The Vice-Presidency might not be necessary, but is it bad? The major complaints seem to consist of "a politician might achieve their position from political considerations".
 
The Vice-Presidency might not be necessary, but is it bad? The major complaints seem to consist of "a politician might achieve their position from political considerations".

Well, John Nance Garner, one of FDR's VPs, described the office as "not worth a bucket of warm spit". Basically it's like being first runner-up AND miss congeniality in a beauty pageant; someone that can schmooze but doesn't have any real responsibility until something happens to the winner. The VP may preside over the Senate, but the parties have their own leadership structures and the VP can't propose any legislation. Any executive branch power he may have is at the pleasure of the POTUS.

The VP nominee usually serves as a counterweight in the election. Sometimes ideological (conservative Palin for the more moderate McCain), sometimes geographical (southerners LBJ and Lloyd Bentsen for northerners JFK and Michael Dukakis), sometimes generational (Bush/Quayle or Eisenhower/Nixon), sometimes someone with strengths where the president is weak (outsider Clinton and insider Gore, Cheney for Bush 43's lack of foreign policy experience). Too often political expediency takes precedence.

Does anyone know if there were alternative methods proposed for selecting a VP?
 
Top