WI The Vice President was elected apart from the President

With the alternate idea of the VP just elected out of cycle with the President, they'd likely be from the same party:
- First 2 years of VP -- 50% of the time
- Second 2 years of VP -- 50% of the time
- Whole VP term -- 25% of the time

Why would you assume that these things are uncorrelated? In fact, midterm elections tend to go well for the opposition party, so the second two years of VP would be members of the president's party considerably less than 50% of the time. And the first two years, you're not taking into account that "no VP, because the VP was elected president" is going to be a pretty common outcome.
 
Well, this is more or less what they did. They chose a president pro tempore, who typically served for the remainder of the congress, and then chose a new one (or re-elected the old one) when the new congress convened. Since the Senate is a continuing body, the old one would stay as president pro tempore until a new one was elected, or a vice president took his seat. So, until the Succession Act in 1886, in the absence of a VP the Senate would effectively choose one of their number to fulfill all of his functions - presiding over the Senate and succeeding the president if necessary.



Agreed, except that in those days the Pres-pro-tem was chosen only for a particular session. Not until 1890 did they decide that it was constitutional for him to continue in office "until further decision of the Senate. So there were long intervals when the position was vacant. This created a dangerous situation at Garfield's death in 1881, when both the Senate and HoR were in recess, so that there was neither a Ppt nor a Speaker. Had Chester Arthur died at this point, he would have had no lawful successor.

A further problem is that the Senate can choose a new Ppt at any time, so could not only choose the Acting-POTUS, but remove him by a simple majority whenever so inclined - a pretty serious infringement of the Separation of Powers.

Also, since the Ppt remains a member of the Senate, he has a vote in any impeachment trial, and if there is no VP, can seek to promote himself by voting for conviction, as Ben Wade did at the trial of Andrew Johnson. [1] That's why I felt it would have been better to let the Senate "go the whole hog" and simply elect a new VP, rather than empowering one of its own members to act as such.


[1] It would have been even worse in the case of a Vice-President being impeached, since in that case (unless the VP were allowed to preside at his own trial) the Ppt would actually be in the chair.
 
There are some nations in which president and vice president are, or were, elected separately rather than as a ticket.

My country, the Philippines, is among them, and apparently, there's no rule preventing a President or former President from running for Vice President.
 
Agreed, except that in those days the Pres-pro-tem was chosen only for a particular session. Not until 1890 did they decide that it was constitutional for him to continue in office "until further decision of the Senate. So there were long intervals when the position was vacant. This created a dangerous situation at Garfield's death in 1881, when both the Senate and HoR were in recess, so that there was neither a Ppt nor a Speaker. Had Chester Arthur died at this point, he would have had no lawful successor.

A further problem is that the Senate can choose a new Ppt at any time, so could not only choose the Acting-POTUS, but remove him by a simple majority whenever so inclined - a pretty serious infringement of the Separation of Powers.

Also, since the Ppt remains a member of the Senate, he has a vote in any impeachment trial, and if there is no VP, can seek to promote himself by voting for conviction, as Ben Wade did at the trial of Andrew Johnson. [1] That's why I felt it would have been better to let the Senate "go the whole hog" and simply elect a new VP, rather than empowering one of its own members to act as such.


[1] It would have been even worse in the case of a Vice-President being impeached, since in that case (unless the VP were allowed to preside at his own trial) the Ppt would actually be in the chair.

Hmm...my understanding was that the Ppt stayed on until a new one was chosen if there was no VP. Looking at our actual instances, Crawford held the position for the entirety of the gap between Clinton's death and Gerry's inauguration; Gaillard for the whole period from Gerry's death to Tompkin's inauguration; White after Calhoun resigned; Southard then Mangum after Harrison died; King, then Atchison after Taylor's death; a bunch of people, but always someone, after King died; Foster, then Wade after Lincoln's assassination. I don't see any real gaps, although I might be missing something.

The problem in 1881 looks to have been that there wasn't a sitting president pro temp when Garfield died, apparently because Arthur had been presiding personally throughout the special session. Congress didn't reconvene until a couple weeks later, so there were a few weeks without a Ppt. But that would've happened in the event that there'd been a provision for the Senate to choose a new VP, too, since the problem was that the Senate wasn't in session when the President died, not that the president pro tempore's position had lapsed due to the Senate no longer being in session.

Also - while the senate can of course elect and remove a president pro tempore at will, I'd assume that any president pro tempore who actually succeeded to the presidency would pull a Tyler and assert the full powers and his independence of any further Senate control. Interestingly, though, the 1792 Presidential Succession Act actually provided for a special election within the year if both the president and VP died. The Special Election was only removed when the 1886 act diverted succession to the Secretary of State.
 
Hmm...my understanding was that the Ppt stayed on until a new one was chosen if there was no VP. Looking at our actual instances, Crawford held the position for the entirety of the gap between Clinton's death and Gerry's inauguration; Gaillard for the whole period from Gerry's death to Tompkin's inauguration; White after Calhoun resigned; Southard then Mangum after Harrison died; King, then Atchison after Taylor's death; a bunch of people, but always someone, after King died; Foster, then Wade after Lincoln's assassination. I don't see any real gaps, although I might be missing something.

The problem in 1881 looks to have been that there wasn't a sitting president pro temp when Garfield died, apparently because Arthur had been presiding personally throughout the special session. Congress didn't reconvene until a couple weeks later, so there were a few weeks without a Ppt. But that would've happened in the event that there'd been a provision for the Senate to choose a new VP, too, since the problem was that the Senate wasn't in session when the President died, not that the president pro tempore's position had lapsed due to the Senate no longer being in session.

Also - while the senate can of course elect and remove a president pro tempore at will, I'd assume that any president pro tempore who actually succeeded to the presidency would pull a Tyler and assert the full powers and his independence of any further Senate control. Interestingly, though, the 1792 Presidential Succession Act actually provided for a special election within the year if both the president and VP died. The Special Election was only removed when the 1886 act diverted succession to the Secretary of State.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presi...dents_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate

The gap is small, sometimes as small as only a month, but it does exist. Until 1890.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presi...dents_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate

The gap is small, sometimes as small as only a month, but it does exist. Until 1890.

Look at the list again. There were certainly gaps. As long as the 1792 presidential succession act was in force, though, there were not any gaps when there wasn't a Vice President, except in the sole case of when Arthur became president in 1881 and the Senate wasn't in session and there was no sitting president pro tempore.
 
Look at the list again. There were certainly gaps. As long as the 1792 presidential succession act was in force, though, there were not any gaps when there wasn't a Vice President, except in the sole case of when Arthur became president in 1881 and the Senate wasn't in session and there was no sitting president pro tempore.


So probably an ordinary Act of Congress would have sufficed, providing for the Senate (and maybe the HoR as well) to convene automatically in the event of the Vice-Presidency falling vacant.
 
Top