How come the Vice President position isn't just given to the loser of the Presidential campaign?

Question

It seems like that would be good checks and balances and opposing parties would be represented. It's kind of like the runner up position.

Answer 1

This was the system early in our nation's history, when both the President and Vice-President were elected separately (but not by the population at-large) Refer to U.S. Constitution, Amendment X I I.
An argument for the change (paired elections) was that if the Prez. and V.Prez were from different groups (parties), upon the death of the Prez., the V.Prez.(usually the Prez.'s political opponent) would succeed . Also, the old system might encourage assassination.

Answer 2

The writers of the Constitution originally intended that the Electoral College choose the President and Vice President based on the number of electors in the College who voted for the candidates. Electors were appointed by Governors of States, or they were the Congressmen and Senators of a State, or they were popularly elected based on which Presidential candidate they pledged to vote for in the College. Popular election of the President was not considered by our Founding Fathers because they considered the average voter too uneducated and unsophisticated to choose a President directly.

So, in the early days of our country, that is EXACTLY how President and Vice President were chosen: the candidate with the two most votes in the Electoral College became President and Veep.

We still have the Electoral College, by the way. It has become more of a charming anachronism than any real, viable institution, although the Founding Fathers may have had it right about uneducated, unsophisticated voters.

Answer 3

Actually, for a while that is EXACTLY how they picked the VP 100+ years ago. The runner-up was made VP. Quite often the President (Lincoln for example) even chose his Cabinet members from opposing parties! However, this system was changed as the constant in-fighting between opposing party members was counterproductive....and that's why it's not done today...nothing would ever get accomplished.

Hope this helped.

Answer 4

That was the original plan, but it proved difficult as, typically, the losing candidate has a view the polar opposite of the president. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution, which passed during the Jefferson administration, called for separate presidential and vice presidential elections.

Answer 5

It used to be that way.

But you ended up with a president and vice president who had opposing political philosophies and goals, and that is very much not a good thing to have internal to one branch of government.

Checks and balances work between the branches, at least by design and in theory.

Answer 6

The checks and balances is Congress and the President. If you put two people from opposing parties in the White House, they wouldn't cooperate as we would want them to.

Answer 7

It used to be, but they made a law changing it to how it is now because the way you suggest would have opposing political party leaders as Pres and VP.

Answer 8

Nothing would get done then. You'd have constant bickering. Besides you would want more than just one person representing your values and party beliefs right? Enter your congressmen both representatives and senators.

Answer 9

Thats how it used to be, then they realized the libs wouldn't ever get anything done. We count on times like these with good republicans in office to get things done

Answer 10

I think they used to do that back in the days of Jefferson and such, but it got to be that it caused too much conflict, so they started having running mates.