I think this is the right forum: Question about VP selection

[forgethell]

I notice in several forums that people will come up with tickets, say Dean/Clark or Kucinich/Clinton, or whatever, that they think will improve the electability of their preferred candidate. Now my question is this: why on earth would anybody be more likely to vote for a ticket based on the vice-presidential candidate? I realize that they do. I understand the appeal of say, a Jewish, or a woman, vice-presidential candidate, or a favorite son from a certain state, or a balance between a liberal/conservative (moderate?) ticket.

But I do not understand why anyone would change their vote because of it. The vice-president has no more power than the President allows him. Let's take it from the Republican side, as an example. Would having a liberal Republican (say they offered it to Jim Jeffords, who would switch back) as vice-presidetial candidate make anyone on this board more likely to vote for * ?

So does anybody have a better reason thanc "the sheeple are stupid?" Why are they studpid?

[Faygo Kid]

1. Andrew Johnson. Lyndon Johnson. Theodore Roosevelt. Harry Truman.

Also John Tyler, Gerald Ford and Chester Arthur. All became president while serving as veeps. And, none had more power than their presidents allowed them, until their presidents died (or resigned).

[Dookus]

2. A couple of considerations

The biggest, presented in the post above, is that the VP candidate must be seen as capable of assuming the presidency. I think George H.W. Bush was hurt a lot by his choice of Quayle.

Second is that at least in the past two administrations, the Vice President has been given powers far above what was traditional for the office. The Vice Presidency is now worth a lot more than the traditional "pitcher of warm piss".

Third is the electoral gain from choosing wisely. A lot of voters seem to be inclined to support a ticket with a native son on the bill. Which is why we rarely have VP's from very small states (Cheney, from Wyoming, is the major exception in recent times). It's also regional as much as state - a Northerner will usually try to balance the ticket with a Southernor, for instance.

[heidler]

3. VP selection.

You can always fantasizes that the president will die and your man will be in and besides it works.

[Yupster]

4. Not a big difference

I don't think anyone thinks the Vp makes a huge difference, but he can certainly help carry his home state.

A few extra percent of people will go out to vote because they heard the guy or met the guy a while back. A few people who are undecided may decide to vote for the guy they've voted for the last 25 years.

Anyway, maybe it makes a 5 % difference in that one state, but think of last election. Gore picks Breaux, Gore wins Louisiana and no one cares who wins Florida. Or maybe Gore picks Gephardt, and he wins Missouri. Or Gore picks Daschle and he wins S Dakota (?).

Anyway, it usually doesn't matter, but it could have last time.

The first rule is still to do no harm with the pick.

[SheilaT]

5. There's been a theory out there as long as I can remember

that the VP spot provides "balance" to the ticket and gains more votes that way. Somehow I have never been able to imagine any undecided voter looking at the two sets of candidates and deciding who to vote for based on the VP slot.

But the reality of elections is that about 40% of the vote for each party is fixed, and that both are really battling over 20% of the vote, and since we have this stupid electoral college system, they're really battling over a few thousand (at most) voters in three or four crucial states.

Which means, in the end, your vote doesn't count unless you're an undecided voter in one of those states.