Before the 12th amendment, the presidential candidate who got the second most electoral votes became the vice president. This meant they were usually different parties.
It occurred to me that one thing this achieved was always ensuring that there was someone in the room who would be willing to disagree with the president. He couldn’t surround himself with yes-men.
You had my curiosity, but now you have my attention.
In all seriousness, what’s the actual risk of the VP assassinating the president, given their vastly disparate levels of power?
IIRC that’s basically the plot of “House of Cards”. /s
Depends on if we’re talking Mexican style or Russian style assassinations. IMO the only way a bullet goes in the direction of the US president(ial-candidate) is if they want one to.
But a clandestine conspiracy using the full spectrum of technology from auditory weapons, to poisons, to windows… Gets a little dicey.
EoD what is the acceptable % increase in risk? Cuz it’s the undeniable increase that’s unacceptable from a security perspective.
From a practicality perspective, at what point does mitigating this risk make the entire partnership unproductive and pointless?
Well, by current standards, nothing the president does is illegal. So once the VP ascends, there is nothing anyone could do about it.
Well, except the next guy in line to be VP I guess…
So he can assume the role of president? That’s a large carrot to dangle before some really sketchy types.
Yeah, I get the motivation. I just meant that the VP seems to have miniscule power compared to the president.
It probably wouldn’t be the vice president themselves organizing the assassination, it would be people who benefit from them being in power.
Fair enough. I could see a corporation or billionaire offing the president by using the VP’s security clearances.
That’s why they’d be motivated to kill the president