On The Absence Of A Public Mandate In The Selection Of A Vice-Presidential Running Mate & The Possibility Of The Elimination Of This Appointment Process-By-A-Constituency-Of-One, Thusly Facilitating A Necessarily More Approximative Democracy
By Michael Vazquez
The above-stated proposition requires a best practices buy-in (emphasis added to make lucid the intended use of this word “buy-in”, given that it’s a heartbreakingly relativist term when speaking of American elections — see “Citizens United”) namely, that one accept that premise that every elected official holding office be there exclusively by the sole jurisdiction bestowed via a sanctioning mandate from The People, as a practicable requirement of a democracy.
Thus, with this as founding premise and principle, there may be required a modification of political parties’ primary practices which at present create, by way of the false paradigm of winner-take-all, a vacuum into which there insidiously rushes a self-bestowment by and upon political party hyper-elites, of the exclusive right to select a vice-presidential candidate, as if this process was the same as the selection of a cabinet member, which it is not. Indeed, the difference is arguably, fundamentally one of existential consequence to a working democracy.
Nor is it even akin to the selection of a Supreme Court Justice — a process which, being one-step-removed from one-person-one-vote has proven toxified by mis-/mal-/non-feasance (please see: On The Timely Nomination, Consideration And Appointment Of A Supreme Court Justice) with respect to the essential job description of an elected public servant — and this ongoing failure of human nature to serve the principles — indeed, the defining mechanics of a democracy — serve as cautionary example warranting the requirement for a mandate backing a vice-presidential candidate (if the hue and cry and electoral backlash against previous political party conventions and elections haven’t at times already served as such).
By phrasing the pre-existing mindset thus, I’m endeavoring to hyper-elucidate the extent to which the vice-presidency, by definition of its penultimate ranking in the line of succession to the presidency (an office to which one would most obviously have preferably been elected), is again, categorically and irrefutably not the same as a cabinet appointment, and as such, requires a mandate. Only the practice of recognizing the candidate with the second greatest number of votes ensures a legitimacy of succession, starting correctly, in the primary.
Lest you think this is exclusively ideological, I noted nearly a decade ago in an essay examining the untenable absence of a mandate in the assumption of the office of senator via gubernatorial appointment that a vacant senate seat necessitates special elections. Put in gross terms, it is the height of absurdity that the fundamental realities of human maliciousness and opportunism are implicitly accepted within the current institutional malpractice stipulating that whatever governor happens to be in office can select a senatorial replacement.
Put logically within our democratic framework, the idea that one democratic outcome (the election of an individual — not a political party — to a senatorial office) has to, in the instance of the preemption of said elected senator’s completion of her or his term, subsequently necessitate a democratic forfeiture by way of a gubernatorial appointment (read: a constituency of one), is untenable.
To be certain, it fully stands to reason that if a public mandate is required to sanction, make valid the eligibility of nearly all persons in the presidential line of succession (it is only after a series of five elected individuals that we arrive at the Secretary of State, whom is an appointee), then it must certainly also be required to recognize this line of electoral ascension to the presidency in the primaries, particularly when it is uniquely and necessarily representative of the best approximation of a national consensus (especially since the Speaker of the House, president pro temp, and majority leader are regional offices, and as such, unfortunate accelerators of a mandate’s half-life).
It is worthwhile to note at this very point in the advancement of this argument that, as recent history has — partially through the greater and faster distribution of information — rendered the establishment of consensus an ever-rarer feat, in this age when majority rule is, at present and for the foreseeable future, splintered, the process of earnest (as opposed to lip-service) coalition-building within the loyal opposition is essential, and building it into the election of a vice-president during primaries rather than reductively permitting the mere selection of a vice-president (again, by a constituency of one, or a few) after The People have spoken, is also untenable.
And while this might seem a vague suggestion, more specificity and utility can be found in the simple bedrock reality that when one-person, one-vote doesn’t net majorities, then coalitions — even if at times they are self-sabotaging, often glacial, and at other times, deceptively lava-fast changelings in allegiances of high-consequence votes and or symbolic votes — serve an essential democratic function.
Coalitions also, by according earned representation to the greatest possible number of advocacies, serve as a cooling mechanism for a democracy at risk of overheating. Speaking of which, suffice it to say that the (to my mind, abhorrent) scorched-earth absence of voter turnout for Hillary Clinton (whom I did not support, yet voted for; I am an independent and could not vote in the Democratic primary, or I would have voted for Sanders) might have been preempted by a primary system recognizing the validity of a mandate, thusly making Bernie Sanders the duly-elected vice-presidential candidate — and in a preceding turn, also by way of a mandate, electing Clinton as Barack Obama’s vice-president (instead of their pre-concession negotiations — which should, within the framework of a representative democracy, be considered an abdication of the necessary recognition of the pre-existing mandate — instead netting Clinton the position of Secretary of State).
One could certainly argue the proposition that had Clinton been Obama’s vice-president, their party might have seen two successive two-term presidencies. I say this not as an advocate of any candidate (though I’ve respectfully disclosed my vote), but rather, as an example of how a political party, by respecting a mandate, might have organically benefitted from same — however, this digression on a given party’s political gain is not, and must never be considered as in league with the infinitely superceding essentiality of respecting the emerging mandates in a primary, if it is to be taken seriously as a component of a democracy. In its present state, it cannot be.
If we’re willing to, by necessity, make such a funneling compromise of diminished proportions and ratios of mandate-to-public-servant in in our goal to assure essential continuity via a line of succession that respects and reflects a mandate as much as humanly possible, it is thus illogical to not apply the same rationale and caretaking in the ascension to office, and in doing so, we best approximate democracy by ensuring that the next in line is backed by the greatest possible mandate from The People at a national level.
Thus there should — by necessity — exist the requirement of an electoral mandate for the vice-presidential candidate before the general election. Of equal importance, thusly should we do away with the presumption that (at-times) totally disparate worldviews between first-place and second-place candidates in a party’s national primaries have some superceding impact over the manifest destiny of a mandate, no matter how different the candidates — again, even and especially before the general election.
Put more simply, it is their respective duty to work together in the sacred trust of a mandate. Put even more simply, a national consensus is far too rare, and in its dangerously chasmic absence, coalitions serve as a bulwark against impasses, tyranny, and the attendant resentments and other toxic fallout from both. Majority rule within a paradigm dominated by only two parties is an impractical and imperfect goal in a country as large and (increasingly) ideologically diverse as the US, circa now. We have seen the ideological enemy and it is our siblings, our neighbors, our co-workers, and of course, our (well, not mine; again, I am an independent) fellow party members…now begins the real work of living in and evolving our democracy, and the singularly noble job of respecting our sacrosanct loyal opposition.
History shows us how the petitions and philosophical grievances that a citizenry or any group harbors do not vanish the day after an election, and the underpinning wisdom of best democratic practices implore us to recognize that the democratic capital they have accrued can’t be discarded by an untenable, arguably oligarchic, closed circle of party operatives. I believe it is through this enlightened relativism of a sloping majority rule and multi-consensus coalition that we find a path forward — thankfully, one which was always there, and atop which the current overgrowth is easily groomable by way of a relatively simple adherence to common sense.
Perhaps the gravitas of these unresolved, long-overlooked vacuums in, and schisms twixt our democratic and electoral process will be grasped, and the current administration will be the last to ever have a non-elected vice-president. This is typed with no malice whatsoever toward the civil servants currently serving office and running for re-election — indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if our current president and vice-president agree en toto with this essential appraisal of the inextricable, unique, exclusively validating equivalent of a mandate, especially, given our current vice-president’s conscience-based adherence to protection of the minority, whether religious or secular — and this mindset can, of course, be seamlessly superimposed by way of moral imperative onto the ramp-up towards common-sense best democratic practices. Indeed, whilst respecting the sacrosanct principle of freedom of religion, it also sagely disassembles a possible contemporary Caesaropapism, thusly preempting the absolutism that has proven so destructive of other civil societies which have fallen into decline through religio-fascism.
I should now like to re-state that although a vice-president is part of a nationally elected two-person ticket, she or he did not, a priori the general election, arrive at this position-in-waiting for the most important job in America via a public mandate, and this creates a disconcerting, jarring anti-democratic disconnect between the first in line of succession and The People.
The most solemn role within the job description the of vice-president — to serve as president in cases when the line of succession must be invoked — is by definition categorically preempted from being left to a presidential candidate and her or his advisors whom essentially comprise an electorate of one (or, a few; same difference), and thus, by definition an untenable hyper-elite, subverting the will of The People by instantly disqualifying millions of votes.
If one replies to this by noting that the job of vice-president is also to advise and consent at the request and pleasure of the president, it is already plain — and playing out in our current history — that a president has limitless options for selecting whosoever she or he wants as presidential advisors. And perhaps seeking counsel from a vice-president with whom she or he strongly disagrees is also a moral imperative, by way of respecting a mandate from millions of nationwide voters whose rights and grievances, again, do not cease to exist after an election.
If, for example, one sees wisdom in advising a presidential candidate to select a running mate possessing strengths she or he does not, the first (and again, really the only democratically justified) strength would obviously be millions of voters’ mandate — though again, irrespective of strategizing complementary skill sets (see advisors’ role), the sacrosanct first and sole principle is the electoral mandate. Put another way, much like Star-Kist, a working democracy doesn’t want tunas with good taste; it wants tunas that taste good — and the palette of a democracy finds any menu option other than one backed by a mandate, unsavory, un-digestible — indeed, cannibalistic, poisonous.
Thusly, while an elected vice-president (even one at loggerheads with the president, though again, remedying differences is the post-election moral duty superceding the recurring hollow rhetoric after each election) does not preempt the function of counseling the president, however, again, a self-appointed electorate of a few, deciding, to the exclusion of the votes of millions, whom should be the next president if the first choice of The People is unable to continue, does categorically and irrefutably preempt and untenably negate, usurp, misplace the foundation of a democratic election.
And perhaps a meditation on the viability of presidential and vice-presidential alliance before the primary is one worth having. To those whom would categorize this as putting the cart before the horse, it is not; rather, it is a necessary ergonomic refinement via the most naturally-accorded energy transfer, to best suit democracy. And again, if it seems odd to do so, then this might be applied to very recent history, when Biden (with good intentions) turned a debate into a vice-presidential gender-reveal announcement party. Simply put, what he did was to select a vice-president in the primary, which is what I am advocating — though, again, not by an electorate comprised of one person.
Additionally (by way of what I believe to be a relevant digression), with regard to the role ascribed to the vice-president as tie-breaker in the Senate, perhaps we might consider investing the presidency with the tie-breaking function — which is logical in any event, given that she or he already has veto power, and as the signer of bills into law, and as the elected official with the superceding mandate over the vice-president, would necessarily have the duty of casting the deciding vote. And if the step of investing the president with tie-breaking authority doesn’t emerge as democratically logical, then certainly, at an absolute minimum, the tie-breaking vice-president should be, must be, duly elected with a mandate (again, before the primary) by millions of Americans, as opposed to being appointed by a handful of non-elected advisors — again, the democratic mechanism of a mandate firstly established by the primary electorate is an essential component of a real democracy.
Perhaps the tie-breaking function should be reconsidered en toto, by considering it not as an expedient resolver of the juggernaut ensuing from chaos-creating conflict, but rather a challenge necessarily taken to the point of equilibrium, the currently imperfect remedy of which by a single vote in a winner-take-all gross calculus ultimately foregoes the fundamental challenge of the loyal opposition required in working together. While some might consider it a reductive calculus to view a tie in the Senate not as impasse, but as near-equilibrium, then it is also incumbent upon them to prove how the “remedy” by a single partisan vote is a refinement of the equation, rather than a devaluation, however, that is another topic, the exclusion of which beyond assigning tie-breaking power to the president does not undermine the rationales listed herein for there being a mandate backing a vice-presidential candidate.
And by way of another short, admittedly humorous (though earnest) digression, I find myself musing on how the filibuster’s intended protection of the minority voice, should require — as do high school and college debates — topicality…and if we extended this topicality to sanction legislative parameters, we could eliminate pork-barreling. Sigh.
Again — though irrespective of harmony or discontent — I’ll elucidate the matter by way of a grounding question: of what value is the will— as quantified at the ballot box — of a substantive and representative number of Americans as to constitute the closest approximation of a majority, via the protection of multiple and varyingly sized minorities in the service of a functioning democracy? Positing this in the real world: are voting blocs within the American electorate not dually legitimate presagers and affirmers of what it means to have a democracy, with democracy being defined as the evolving manifestations of a sacrosanct bedrock principle representation?
By answering this question and reinstating the rightful — indeed singular and unique place a mandate has in the ascension to the presidency (at least within the grim relativism of a two-party paradigm — we must remember: we are not a two party system; we are an infinite party system) we can thus appreciate that what might ostensibly seem an archaic modality — choosing a primary runner-up as vice-president — is again, in our fractured-yet-remediable present, the indisputably best approximation of a mandate within a flawed system.
Specifically, there is no organic right (irrespective of mis-written laws and non-jurisdiction-holding/unsanctioned party bylaws) for a presidential nominee to not be backed by a mandate. The theoretical, practical and moral democratic reality compels us to embrace exactly the opposite.
Whilst there are numerous analogies one can make that might further elucidate the untenable wasting of votes and superceding of a mandate, I believe we are already in an age burdened by analogs, and that the most urgent matters can only be damaged, not helped, when even the most poetic comparisons are made, because the numerical one-person, one-vote specificity of electoral mechanics suffice, and withstand the scrutiny of analysis (if we ever decide to fix our voting machines and other logistical processes, loopholes, etc.,), and thus, any comparison to another modality is instantly invalidated by the grim and untenable current reality of the selection of a vice-presidential candidate lacking a mandate.
And so, what if, at the upcoming Democratic party’s convention, the second-place candidate were to automatically be the vice-president? Well, some would claim that there’d be an inorganic relationship — however, the harmonious relationship between a president and vice-president is of no concern at the ballot box, which in a real democracy, compels them to work together for the good of the people who voted for them.
While this may sound harsh on its own, it is an unignorable superceding democratic reality, though, of course, self-serving interests will nonetheless somehow justify the superceding of a mandate by a party’s distasteful machinations. The presumption — indeed, the sworn obligation to civility between a president and a vice-president as ordained by a representative mandate of The People creates, makes sacred, the requirement for this civility.
Additionally, the election of the second-most popular candidate in a presidential primary to the position of vice-president on the ticket in the general election serves a democracy very well by virtue of the best possible calculus representing the most persons — the conundrum of which begs the question of how best to reform and rewrite party bylaws so that they never supercede an organic and manifest mandate, which, for too long, and to our nation’s increasing woes, has been subverted.
Should party bylaws be required to comply with Constitutional law and spirit? Procedurally and jurisdictionally (read: in sophistic, lawyerly, self-serving terms of entrenched interests), no, because they don’t exists as government agencies — that said, in every other way that actually matters, indeed, the only ways which are of legitimate democratic consequence, yes, insofar as the goal and purpose is that a candidate be elected by mandate to take the oath of office wherein she or he swears to protect and serve the Constitution.
And perhaps eliminating certain lobbying practices and implementing a wholesale modification of the current system which invites questionable, indeed, objectionable campaign contributions by corporate entities, and replacing it with public funding would, in legal terms, create the mechanics for finally making party bylaws subordinate to, and compliant with, the laws and spirit of our Constitution.
We do not, at present, have in place a public mandate-based selection of a vice-presidential candidate, however, as noted before, this is no inkhorn musing; it is an elemental preponderance of what democracy means at the ballot box, with resepct to the management of vastly differing electorates’ inherent preeminence, rather than the attendant interests of a party cabal to its financial backers.
Ending on a hypothetical is not the intent herein; any possible debate over this will be burdened with the sophistry that already over-informs our legal and electoral systems, reducing them to bankrupt, threadbare chess games played in advance — and never in the interests of a democracy.
Simply put: any vice-presidential candidate not backed by a mandate is the result of electoral mis-/mal-/non-feasance — at best, an accident of history, and at worst, a self-interested contrivance born of an ostensibly realistic, but in reality, anti-democratic logic, requiring immediate remedy.
Let’s face it: too often political conventions put the “con” in convention, and despite recent ostensible reforms, remedy very certainly can’t be arrived at in the second round of voting; rather, as such, they are an exponential worsening of the problem, creating a degenerative laziness and cynical resignation to a gross calculus of rank utilitarianism, precisely at the time when greater diligence is required.
Furthermore, a candidate can’t throw her or his support behind another; this means nothing; a candidate can only do one thing: serve the people who voted for her or him — and this also means to fight for their votes in support of her or him. The candidate is their voice, chosen by them, and the only sound responsibility is to ensuring that this mandate be properly accorded its inherent place and function on the ticket.
And so, in this election, while some see fractures, I see an unprecedented opportunity for the kind of real coalition-building that lives up to the rhetoric of a big, respectful tent — and this is a valid democratic requirement for all political parties, present and future.
And it is this ethos, along with the (not at all archaic and indiscriminate as previously perceived) practice of a mandate-based selection of presidential and vice-presidential candidates, that I believe can serve to remedy the emerging and un-democratic shortcomings of a winner-take-all (and ultimately, The People win nothing) primary.
I submit this working draft in good faith, and with the earnest recognition that it is nothing more nor less than one person’s opinion, which needn’t be attacked, and instead, refined, responded to, countered, with the civility required by the sacrosanct principle of loyal opposition.
