Comments on: Vice Presidents and Lieutenant Governors: Should They Be Abolished?

By: David Stokes

David Stokes — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:25:37 +0000

That would require 50 explanations, or more likely about 45 as not every state has a Lt. Gov. But this fact sheet might help:

http://www.nlga.us/web-content/AboutNLGA/Fact_Sheets.htm

Personally, I like electing them separately. I have no serious policy reason for this, but I think electing them separately elevates the prominence of the position. That can be important in the cases where the Lt. Gov actually has to take over the post, like Roger Wilson did in 2000. If Missouri had too many statewide elected officials, I would feel differently, but with just six (fewer than average among states), I feel ok saying that without feeling like I am selling out to the machine.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:02:35 +0000

Can someone please explain why some states elect a Lt. Governor separately from the Governor while others combine them on the same ticket?

By: vroman

vroman — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 05:52:10 +0000

Is this even a question? If given the opportunity, of course VP/LG position should be abolished. One less salary paid for by my taxes.

By: David Stokes

David Stokes — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:51:34 +0000

Let ‘um wonder. I am secure enough to take it. It would not be very libertarian of me to be too concerned. Anyway, they can just go check out my bio at the main website if they really care to learn about my life partner (aka wife) and child.

By: Jacob Voss

Jacob Voss — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:08:36 +0000

Dave, while I agree that one of the VP Candidates (the Alaskan) is attractive, my girlfriend will argue that the other candidate is more attractive. But then again, this is the same girl who thought Kerry was good looking. And upon typing that, I suddenly have very low self esteem because (I assume) she thinks I’m attractive. I don’t want to be compared with those two. I was going to go into this whole spiel about how we should go back to the good old days when the presidential candidate whom came in second became Vice President, but now I’m just too depressed.

By: Eric D. Dixon

Eric D. Dixon — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:42:34 +0000

“They are both very talented people and one of them is also quite attractive.”

If you don’t tell people which one, they might start to wonder…

By: David Stokes

David Stokes — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:37:23 +0000

Mike,
Thanks for your comment. I agree completely with you in paragraph two. The author of the Times op-ed would, too. I just differ with the author of the op-ed in his solution to get rid of the VP position. I think the solution to the issue is for voters to demand, as demonstrated via their votes, a different type of qualities in a VP selection than merely what they can help deliver on election day. And if voters choose not to do this, well, we get what we vote for.

Note – my remarks above are of a historical / big picture nature and should not be taken as a comment on the two candidates up for election next month to the VP. They are both very talented people and one of them is also quite attractive.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:29:12 +0000

Dave,
Agree with you regarding the differences between our systems and those of a parliamentary nature – don’t get me started on the Minsiter of ….. title, especially my favorite, Minister Without Portfolio (sign me up for that one !)

I think the issue is the candidates now select their VPs purely for what they can deliver the 2nd Tuesday in November with little or no recognition of the role they play once in office, or the potential role they would play in case of death or impeachment (not that many people would want to think too hard about the odds of that occuring to themselves.) Maybe this has always been the case in the US, but it certainly seems magnified in these polarized times.