Published: August 30, 2008 11:20 pm            

Biden time

“My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that even the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.” Thus did the man who first held the office — John Adams — describe the vice presidency. Adams went on, “I am nothing.” But even nothing is something, right? Where is Jerry Seinfeld when we need him?

Adams ended the thought with, “but I may be everything.” This sums up the paradox of the vice presidency. The vice presidency is a “do nothing” office, yet the vice president is a heartbeat away from the presidency.

What explains the media’s near obsession with who the presidential candidate selects as a running mate? The explanation is a constitutional modification which occurred between Adams’ statement and the fifth presidential election. Namely, the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804.

That amendment changed the way vice presidents are selected. Prior to the amendment no one ran for vice president (which explains why there are no qualifications for being vice president in the original Constitution).

Everyone ran for the presidency and whoever came in second was named vice president.

When Jefferson and Burr tied in electoral votes, with the election decided by the House of Representatives (the first of only two times this has occurred), the 12th Amendment was proposed so that electors would have to specify which of their two votes was for president and which was for vice president. Thus was a minor problem solved, and a huge problem created.

The huge problem was that the seemingly innocuous changes the amendment intended versus the unintended modification in the office of the vice presidency — for the worse.

Following the amendment, presidential elections now officially had presidential “tickets.” And as every reporter in America who covered the recent Biden selection knows, tickets must be balanced.

Barak is 47. Biden is 65. Barak is black and perceived as elitist. Biden is white and is associated with fighting for the concerns of the blue-collar voter, the working class. Barak is Protestant. Biden is Catholic. Barak is from the Midwest. Biden is from the East. Barak doesn’t have much experience in foreign affairs, and this is vulnerable to Republican criticisms about being weak on national security. Biden chairs, in the Senate, the important Foreign Relations Committee. Barak has been criticized for not being pro-Israel. Biden has been a staunch supporter of Israel. Barak is not known for rising his voice, even when arguing with is opponents who may be unfairly describing his positions. Biden is so easily engaged in debate, he is often criticized for talking too much (and prior to fully engaging his gray matter).

One would think that “balancing the ticket” makes sense. It seems intuitively correct. Presidential candidates are seeking a vote. They must, because of our Constitution, have a vice president. And tradition has it (not the Constitution) that presidential candidates have the say in selecting their vice presidential running mates. Thus, it seems only normal that presidential candidates would pick someone who will attract votes. And what better way to do that than by naming someone who “balances” their characteristics.

That way, if voters don’t like the presidential candidate they might want to still vote for the “ticket” because they find something attractive about the vice presidential candidate. As already stated, it seems intuitively correct.

It turn out, however, that it is incorrect.

The practice of seeking to “balance the ticket” as a strategy for picking up votes would make sense if voters voted on a ticket based on who the vice presidential running mate is. They don’t.

Richard Nixon knew this. When searching for a vice presidential running mate in 1968 he once remarked, “He can’t help you; he can only hurt you.” In spite of his failed presidency, Nixon had honed his political instincts. He selected Ted Agnew in 1968 because he knew Agnew as an unknown (the media kept asking, “Ted who?”). His strategy was since the vice presidential candidate only hurts a ticket, the way to minimize a ticket is by naming someone with the fewest negatives.

While intuition and hunches say one thing, objective evidence says something else. It turns out that data show that on average for every vote a presidential candidate picks up by having named a particular running mate, the presidential candidate loses three votes. So, it is true that voters aren’t inclined to vote “for” a ticket because of a running mate, but it is also true that voters are inclined to vote “against” a ticket because of a running mate.

This is what makes Obama’s selection of Biden as risky. Obama apparently took the complete opposite approach of Nixon. He calculated that Biden had already been severely scrutinized over the years, there were no surprises concerning his candidacy, and the ticket could live with Biden’s past.

In the final analysis, the presidential election will be determined by Obama and Sen. John McCain — not their running mates.

Dr. Danny Adkison teaches constitutional law at Oklahoma State University.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.