Does it make sense for a nominee to choose a VP with a diffierent ideology?

[I support Sanders]

A lot of people say that it is necessary to balance a ticket to win. For example, if a libertarian Republican like Rand Paul chose Rick Santorum as his VP, there would be a libertarian southerner and a socially conservative (arguably, theocratic) northerner to balance the ticket. Or if a progressive Democrat like Martin O'Malley were to win the nomination and chose Hillary Clinton, the young progressive from the Mid-Atlantic region would balance his ticket with the older moderate from the North. These tickets may be diverse geographically and ideologically, but if the President were to actually die in office or resign, isn't the point of a VP to carry on the same program of the President they served. If Paul comes into office and legalizes all drugs and prostitution, and cuts aid to Israel, then is assassinated, Santorum's program will likely be the exact opposite. If O'Malley brings back Glass-Steagall and halts completion of the Keystone XL pipeline, and is then assassinated, Hillary would just love to overturn both of those policies. Wouldn't it make more sense for consistency on a ticket (think, Sanders/O'Malley or Paul/Johnson)?

[Abraham Reagan]

Not really. Presidential candidates want a running mate that is ideologically similar in order to maintain their principles and goals if at some point that VP needs to fill the presidential role.

[Mister Mets]

It depends.

The second most important part of the veep selection is to pick someone who doesn't harm the ticket (most important part is selecting a plausible President.) Someone with a different ideology could make the presidential nominee seem like a sellout in a General Election, which could be problematic since the guy won the primary by convincing voters he had a better direction for the country.

Picking someone with a similar ideology also ensures that there is a new national surrogate for those policies. It avoids difficulties later should a reelected Vice President become a presidential contender.

[Kingpoleon]

To an extent.

For example, Howard Dean/Birch Bayh or vice versa in 2004/2008 would be a great ticket. A moderate on economics combined with an overall moderate to appeal to independents. Jon Corzine/Claire McCaskill? Not so much.

In other words, it's a balancing act. Obama and Biden contrast very well without being sharp about it. McCain and Palin contrast too sharply.

To quote Chris Christie, "Everything in moderation."

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

As a general rule, any sort of overelaborated funny business going in with your veep selection (GEOGRAPHIC BALANCE SWING STATE IDEALOGICAL BALANCE MINORITY OUTREACH) will end in tears. Do you really want to have the media drag out every statement your own veep nominee has made that Essentially calls your actual nominee a piece of crap?