Against The Vice Presidency
Gene Healy, surveying the wreckage of the Cheney years and the odd answers given at the VP debate to questions about the scope of the Veep’s powers, says: “Here’s hoping that Vice President Biden or Vice President Palin will spend less time making policy and more time attending funerals.”
Alternatively, let me once again bring up the simpler solution to the question of the VP’s weird, ambiguous status — abolish the office. The scheme set up in the constitution doesn’t make sense. The office was originally designed as a prize for the second-place finisher in what was envisioned as a multi-candidate presidential field without running mates. Once the two-party system emerged, the procedure immediately created serious problems that had to be rectified by Amendment XII to the Constitution, but though that amendment prevented potential disasters it didn’t rectify the fact that the basic conception of the office is bizarre given our actual political institutions. It would be simple for the line of succession in the event of presidential death to pass directly from the President to the various cabinet officers in some order. Yes, it would take a constitutional amendment to make the change. But unlike with other process reforms that I think the country could use, there’s no entrenched interest group with a stake in keeping the vice presidency alive — it’s just sloth. But if everyone agrees that nobody understands what the VP is supposed to do the solution is simple — get rid of the VP.
44 Responses to “Against The Vice Presidency”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 6th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I disagree entirely…in fact I would counsel that we restore the original process to choose the VP. Can you imagine an Obama Presidency with a McCain Vice Presidency? It might actually improve the disastrous effect that partisanship is having on our political system. The Vice President attacking sensible Presidential prerogatives would be seen as unprofessional and partisan, while VP attacks on an out-of-control Executive would be another check on Presidential power. In all, the change might help to usher in a more sensible environment in Washington.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Well, the government has more or less functioned for a few centuries (the Civil War having little to do with the VP), so I’ll reveal my conservative bias by just keeping it as it is.
If Cheney were Secretary of State or whatever he’d still be the same problem.
Anyway, living in NJ, we haven’t been very happy with the government ending up in the hands of a random politician when the governor resigns in a sex scandal/crashes and doesn’t buckle up, even though Codey himself is fairly popular and respected.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
How do you break ties in the Senate? Shifting the responsibility to any other executive office (Sec State, POTUS, etc) creates the same potential for tomfoolery that Cheney has exploited. Also, creating a new “President of the Senate” creates either a new electable national office or an appointed office (by vote of Senate), which would create issues with 1) what is the candidate pool, because they cannot be sitting Senators and 2) what happens in a 50-50 Senate vote for that spot.
October 6th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I don’t understand why Cheney is an argument against a powerful VP (Healy) or having the VP at all (Yglesias). Bush and Cheney have been an astonishingly effective duo, with Bush as the benign leader and Cheney as the head-basher who gets shit done for the President’s agenda. The Democrats should find their own Bush-Cheney.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
There is some value in having a popularly elected “backup President” position. If something happens to the president, the nation is already in crisis. It behooves us in that situation to have a backup president who is already on board with the president’s style of governance to provide as seemless and stable transition as possible. Such a position should ideally be nominated by the president and ratified by the electorate, which is, lo an behold, the exact system we have now. If, hypothetically of course, people are wary of electing a ticket because the Pres candidate is really old and the veep is underqualified to lead should the need arise, isn’t that evidence of the system working?
October 6th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Hmmm… What would happen if the Secretary of State was second in line? Might that have an impact on how s/he performed in the position? Genuine question. I don’t know. Seems that with the Vice Presidency as is none of the cabinet officers think about being President in the near term. Any thoughts?
October 6th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Tie breaking in the Senate could be accomplished by giving DC one Senator.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
You’re quite wrong that there’s no constituency for the VP office. Every presidential candidate would want to keep the position around, as it gives lots of opportunities to exercise power, both as a presidential candidate as well as after the election. VP’s can help secure the odd state, mollify defeated opponents, serve as attack dog to deliver messages too intemperate for the top of the ticket, serve as legislative liaison, and be another adviser (if you pick a smart one). Plus you can send the VP to attend official-but-meaningless functions like funerals.
Cheney is a bit of anomaly given that the president he served was an empty suit’s empty suit; a decently in-charge president wouldn’t have tolerated the fourthbranch nonsense.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
As an American who came of age around the Clinton impeachment and a Californian who sat through Grey Davis debacle, I worry about impeachments based solely on the unpopularity of the president. I fear a partisan congress looking to impeach a sitting president for entirely political reasons under cover of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Whether or not you believe the public would approve of such a maneuver, I think you need to acknowledge that it’s legitimate concern.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
The reason everyone obsesses over the VP selection during the campaign is that it’s the only appointment the candidate has to make before the election, and thus the only slightest glimpse into his/her philosophy of governance.
I’d go the opposite route and require more pre-election appointments; i.e, the Shadow Cabinets that Matt’s always hankering for.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Every single Senator imagines themselves President or Vice President someday. There’s your base of opposition.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Shochu John is 100% correct. Matthew, for the 200 years since Aaron Burr, we had Vice Presidents who worked out fine until Cheney. In fact, the role of the VP to take over in the event of a vacancy in the Presidency has come into play numerous times and has generally turned out OK. The problem is Cheney, not the office of the VP.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I agree with several other responders in that these extreme situations don’t make the VP a bad position in and of itself. Yes Palin was a bad pick. Yes, Cheney has done darm to the US as VP. But these problems have nothing to do with the office of the VP. A quick look at comparisons will establish that. Al Gore managed to make effective contributions to the government without superceding his authority. Obama made a solid VP pick during his campaign. Rather than a moral about the problems of the office of VP, Cheney and Palin offer different lessons:
1) Don’t be evil.(Cheney)
2) Don’t be an idiot. (McCain picking Palin)
In short, the problem isn’t the VP, it’s the current conservative movement, which is so morally and intellectually bankrupt that it can’t make use of any office or structure, the VP or anything else.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
True. Had there been no VP, Bush could have hired him as a staff member, chief of staff or counsel. Neither David Addington nor Karl Rove were elected to the vice presidency.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
You don’t have to arrange the system to require a tie-breaker in the Senate; you could just say you need 50%+1, or 2/3 rounded up to an integer, to pass anything.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
The notion is worth thinking about, but I was convinced by your comments section last time you brought it up that getting rid of the VP’s office is a bad idea. Given the chaos and uncertainty that would necessarily attend the death of any president (esp., god forbid, if through violence), it is a very good idea to have someone waiting in the wings who is politically sympatico and has been getting the same briefings and watching the same developments every day. It’s like your spleen — you **hope** it never comes into play, but on the rare occasion when it’s needed, it’s really needed.
Moreover, given the ever-increasing size of the Executive Branch, it’s not a bad idea to have a deputy president. It’s a big job, sitting in that chair, and it’s constantly getting bigger. It’s useful to have someone who can meet foreign dignitaries, bring the wrath of god down on recalcitrant Cabinet secretaries, and press the flesh on the Hill while the president is busy on another of the five thousand crises that appear every day.
Finally, it’s a good thing that the president has around at least one guy — of his political persuasion — who he can’t fire.
The problems you identify with Cheney are, as noted upthread, about the men at issue, not the institution. If there were no VP, there’d still be a vastly powerful unsurpervised Dick Cheney at the heart of this Administration; they’d just call him Sec’y of State, Chief of Staff, Special Assistant to the President, or something else. The solution to this problem is to make clear that the various open government and disclosure rules that apply to the Executive Branch also apply to the OVP, not to get rid of the office altogether.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
If McCain never had to pick Palin, would you consider him as reckless and stupid as you do now? I think it tells you a lot about the person.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
This kind of post just isn’t thought through. First, there will be some successor, who will thus have weight in a campaign for office (especially with a candidate of McCain’s age and secret medical records) and in an administration. So what is to be gained by making that person a cabinet officer other than reducing the number of senior level administration advisers by one?
Second, making it the secretary of state might require more sweeping changes. Since the cabinet exists entirely as a matter of tradition, the Constitution would first have to change in some way to recognize and formalize it, no? Exactly how would that be done? Is it a good idea?
Third, this is all hot air anyhow. Since amendments so rarely have a chance, and then only when there’s a felt need most often owing to a perceived crisis, speculation over one’s ideal tweaking of the American government might best be directed at something halfway important. I could name plenty of other changes I’d be more passionate about, from reviving the ERA to fairer representation for DC to abolishing the electoral college, and even then I don’t waste my breath on it.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
The problem with all alternative succession formats is that they either A) put unelected officials into an elected office (cabinet succession) or B) put the other party in power (congressional leadership succession). Neither is good for democracy. The office of Vice-President ensures governmental continuity and the necessary link to a national electoral mandate.
Now, of course, once you get past the VP on the current succession list you get into exactly the two problems raised above, but I reckon if we ever find ourselves in a spot where both the Pres and VP are dead we’ll be glad just to know that someone is running the show and worry about mystical democratic legitimacy issues later. But there should be a built stop-gap between “The President we all really like is dead” and “That President’s bitter political rival who nobody likes is now President” or “Some guy who we barely glanced at when he sailed through his Senate confirmation hearing is now President.” Gerald Ford and Glen Walken notwithstanding, it’s a recipe for disaster.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
On the other hand, I will say there’s no need to “break ties.” A tie would simply be a victory for the no votes.
Admittedly, organizing the senate would be more difficult with a 50-50 tie, so there’d have to be some thought there on the majority leader, etc.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Why do we need someone to break ties in the Senate? What happens if there is a tie in the house? In any case the whole balance of power has been thrown off. In the past the opposition party to the President got to cast the deciding vote. Now, a member of the President’s party gets to cast the deciding vote.
I would like to see us return to the original proportion of representatives to population. The constitution called for representatives not to exceed one per 30,000 citizens. Per this rule we could have up to 10,000 representatives rather than the paltry 435 we have now. Congressional districts could be much smaller than they are today.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
A few points: prior to the 25th Amendment, there was no provision to replace the vice president if he died/resigned the office or ascended to the presidency. The result is that the country has functioned perfectly fine WITHOUT a vice president for a total of over 50 years.
Some above argue that the need for a “deputy president” in these days of a larger and more powerful executive strengthens the case for a vice presidency. I’d say it strengthens the case for an appointive deputy confirmed by Congress. It allows the president easier ability to fire the deputy and allows Congress to have complete oversight over the person (no ambiguous legislative/executive position). Most importantly, it would allow the president to select a deputy based on GOVERNANCE, not on electability. By making the vice-president and elective office, but one that’s tied to the president, you make it likely that the presidential candidate will pick a deputy based on electoral considerations instead of governing considerations.
As for succession: there’s no reason it couldn’t pass through the cabinet, and it only has to be on a temporary basis. Most constitutional scholars agree that even under the current arrangement, there’s no constitutional bar to Congress calling a special election if both the presidency and the vice presidency are vacant. In fact, the Act of Succession that was in effect prior to 1947 explicitly called for that.
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. called for precisely this in a 1974 article in The Atlantic.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
All that being said, I think the case for abolishing the vice presidency was stronger years back. Even in the wake of Cheney, I think the fact that the vice president has grown into a fairly powerful role would make it difficult to change. Whether we like it or not, at this stage it is simply a system people are used to. It will take another couple of Cheney’s before people really began to ask that the office be radically altered or abolished. For that reason, talking about changing the vice presidency strikes me as a pipe dream and not entirely relevant in the end. If we’re talking constitutional changes, I would much rather see abolition of the electoral college and a judicial term limit.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I think the fact that the vice president has grown into a fairly powerful role
Powerful “role.” Not “office”.
If Cheney had been an unpaid, unofficial adviser, his acts would have been exactly the same. And there would have been the exact same lack of accountability. (Shame on Congress.)
October 6th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
If we are talking constitutional changes let forget abolishing the VP and just move to a parliamentary system and stop electing the ‘Guy you most want to have a beer with’ (TM) or the’Gal you most want to eat a mooseburger with’ (TM-pending). Imagine people voting on a party’s policies not on which candidate is more ‘folksy’.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
If nothing else, by forcing the nominees to name vice presidential candidates before the election, they are forced to make decisions that the voters can evaluate. Any small chance Perot had in 1992 evaporated with his selection of Stockwell. This year, ultimately the same thing is happening.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Besides the “making the Presidential candidate make a key decision during the campaign” argument which seems persuasive now but I don’t think really is (why not pass different laws requiring Presidential candidates to make decisions, if it is), Publius had a great post the last time Matt Y. said the V.P. should be abolished which certainly convinced me that Matt was wrong. In particular, his point about legitimacy of the V.P. in a crisis following the President’s death being conferred by the fact that V.P. was elected is very persuasive.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
If there’s a tie in the House, somebody didn’t show up; 435 isn’t divisible by two. I think the thread outweighs Matt’s argument, especially with respect to the importance of an emergency succession being backed by votes. I’d love to see any increase in the utility of the Cabinet, but I don’t think removing the VP helps.
If there are ongoing concerns about the power of the OVP, I think they can best be handled by legislation & budgeting.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I made my own comments about abolishing the VP spot on my own blog months ago. And this was before Palin showed up to scare the bejeezus out of everybody…
October 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
If we are talking constitutional changes let forget abolishing the VP and just move to a parliamentary system
Hear hear! If we are going to the trouble of passing a constitutional amendment, let’s do something substantial instead of just tinkering with minor issues like the VP. BTW, with a parliamentary system Dubya would have lost a vote of no confidence long ago and we’d be rid of him already. And he would have gone abruptly so he wouldn’t have had a chance to pardon everybody on the way out, as he will undoubtedly do this January. Not to mention it’d be a hoot seeing him try to handle Prime Minister’s Question Time.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Keep the VP, have him be literally president of the Senate, voting in every vote, the end.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Re: It might actually improve the disastrous effect that partisanship is having on our political system.
I like the idea, but I’m not sure that that would be one of the benefits. The Adams-Jefferson pairing produced huge partisan fireworks, despite the fact they were personal friends.
Re: The problem with all alternative succession formats is that they either A) put unelected officials into an elected office (cabinet succession) or B) put the other party in power (congressional leadership succession).
“B” is fairly common in many other democracies where the executive must have a majority in the legislature or he must stand for election. I’m not sure that having a way to dump an unpopular president would be a bad idea. George Bush would have been out the door two years ago.
October 6th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Reconvene the Electoral College (the same one that elected the President) the same day the office is vacant and have them choose a replacement. The Secretary of State can be acting president for one day to deal with criseses. Most other countries don’t have VPs, unless they were deliberately imitating the US when writing their constitutions.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
here are some good reasons to keep the veep:
1) it’s good that a presidential candidate is held accountable for their choice of successor (coughpalin).
2) it allows the president to be in two places at once - ie, all those funerals (a show of respect can mean a lot!).
3) it forces presidential candidates to give the voters information about what kind of decisions they make in important situations and how they make them.
4) it’s a flexible office, which means that a good president could hypothetically put a vp to good use, even if it’s a single issue or administrative function.
5) the vp helps stabilize the 2-party system, allowing parties to reach broader coalitions on a single ticket (i think coalitions constantly fracturing and reassembling and fracturing causes too much chaos for government to function).
6) it’s good for the parties, since you can use it to promote talent not just with the pick but with the audition process (tim kaine got a big boost this year).
7) it’s fun! vice-presidents are cool! i kinda think it would be fun to repeal the 12th amendment, though, just for shits and giggles. i mean, the mccain ticket is already a wacky sitcom, so why not the entire executive branch?
October 7th, 2008 at 1:39 am
If one vice president is good, why not have two or three?
If we had a second and third vice president then the succession would be easier in cases like Nixon where Agnew was even worse and had to be taken out first.
It would be better in case of nuclear war.
Instead of unelected cabinet members we’d have several elected backups.
The senior vice president wouldn’t be so important for the nomination after a two-term president. Usually the vice president automatically gets the nomination in that case, but with three of them there would be more room for dissention.
If one spare wheel is good, three spare wheels are better.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:02 am
viagra
Great site. Good info
March 1st, 2009 at 7:02 pm
cialis
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:53 am
I want to say - thank you for this!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 18th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
This is what I was looking for
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:32 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra