Marco Rubio? Nikki Haley? Chris Christie? Mitt Romney's VP choice is not just about ticket-balancing, which the evidence does not show as affecting election outcomes. Historical patterns show that with his pick for 'veep,' Romney will anoint a future presidential front-runner.
In 1885, a young political scientist named Woodrow Wilson wrote a path-breaking book about the intricacies of American government. Its 344 pages included just one paragraph on the vice presidency, and Wilson wondered if that was too much.
“The chief embarrassment in discussing the office is, that in explaining how little there is to be said about it one has evidently said all there is to say,” Wilson confessed. By the time Wilson became president in 1912, nothing had changed. Can you even name his vice president? I didn’t think so. (Answer: Thomas Marshall.)
But you probably can name the vice presidents after World War II, when the position became much more important. And not for the reasons you might think. Now that Mitt Romney is assured of the GOP nomination, news media have turned their focus to his selection of a running mate. There’s the inevitable talk of “balancing the ticket,” on the assumption that Mr. Romney’s choice will affect his own electoral fortunes.
Yet we have scant evidence that vice presidential nominees have made much of a difference in presidential elections. But they do make a difference once the election is over. Strange as it would have seemed to Woodrow Wilson, Romney is about to anoint a future presidential front-runner.
For most of US history, presidential candidates played virtually no role in choosing their running mates. That was left to the party conventions, which introduced the tradition of ticket-balancing. The vice presidential nominee almost always came from a different region than the presidential one, and if the party had strong internal camps, the “veep” choice could also provide balance on that front.
Page 1 of 4