I don’t pretend to understand my own country’s politics and the US political system confuses me more. If each party has two main candidates for party nomination, why does the winner nominate someone else as their vice-presidential running mate? Wouldn’t it make sense for the losing candidate to assume that role?
Archives
Categories
Blogroll
Pages
Calendar
Meta
craniac's place 
Actually each party has more than to candidates, but it later normally – though not always – boils down to two. This presents a problem when the primaries are heated and close. Each of the major candidates ends up doing too much harm to whoever finally wins the nomination to be considered a good running mate in the general election.
Ah, that makes sense.
The US vice president’s primary function is to step in as president should the president die or resign – it would be a bit strange if the guy who lost suddenly became president right?
Also could you ever imagine a government with Helen Zille as Jacob Zuma’s deputy?
woops misread the question … jonolan has the right answer – feel free to delete…
Now if you want to get both historical and a little weird – the US’ first elections had the winner as President and the runner up as Vice President. A very nasty election cycle caused us to revise that procedure because there was so much hatred between the two candidates that there was no way they could serve together.