Idea Options

[Oasis]

A lot of people talk about revamping the party system. It won't work, democrats and republicans have been around for too long that a third party will never gain enough popularity to become a viable political force.

How about revamping the presidency instead? When this country was formed and our political system was put in place, there were FAR fewer problems (both foreign and domestic) facing this country. It was feasible for one man, the president, to effectively lead this country.

That was the 18th century. This is the 21st century. The political, technological, environmental, etc landscape of this country and the world is light years away from what it was 200+ years ago.

With everything, both nationally and internationally, facing our country in 2008, I think it's too much for a singular leader to deal with. I don't particularly like Bush, but I don't think he's as inept and shitty as everyone makes him out to be...I think he's just overwhelmed. I think if Kerry was in office, we'd be saying the same thing about him because he would be equally as overwhelmed dealing with everything. The war in Iraq, problems with foreign terrorism, domestic healthcare, environmental issues, illegal immigration....there's just too much shit for one man to deal with and put forth full effort into solving/fixing. At least in my opinion

Not that this will ever happen, but I think it'd be a step in the right direction: Eliminate the presidency. Or, at least, eliminate the presidency as one man (or cunt, if Hillary manages to win). Have several "presidents," each with a specific task to oversee/deal with. For example, one to lead the military and make war decisions with Iraq, etc; One whose task is dealing with domestic issues such as healthcare, taxes, gay rights, etc; One to deal with foreign relations, such as illegal immigration, trade restrictions, foreign aid, etc; One to deal with economic issues facing our country....something to that effect

I think it'd destroy the centralized power of one partisan president and balance power more evenly. It would lighten the workload facing the president if we had several, each one with a more focused list of tasks to oversee. And with our country being a two party system, it would greatly reduce our current lack of voting options. I can never consider myself republican or democrat because their are far too many issues for only two parties to support. I agree with some republican issues and am against others. Same with the democratic platform. Subsequently, I find it very hard to find a decent candidate to vote for because their are so damned many issues they have to take a stance for or against. For instance I'd want a republican president for certain issues like border patrol and gay marriage; I might want a democratic president for foreign/military issues. And I'd want a libertarian for social and civil rights issues. With several presidential candidates, each running for a specific "job," I could vote for which one fits the best for that specific job. Right now, it's impossible to rationally back and agree with or support every platform that one political party offers. Since we won't be seeing an independent or someone from a smaller party that I happen to fully agree with elected to office, how about solving the problem by splitting up the presidency? Plus, it would balance republican/democratic power and representation in our government. Our population as a whole is split between republicans and democrats. For example, three republican and two democratic presidents running our country is a much better representation of who the voters want in office than an overly single party in office governing a population evenly split in political ideas



Just a thought

[FORSAKENR320]

revamp congress instead of the president

[impala454]

interesting idea but I don't really care for it. the president's position is the way it is so you have someone who can actually make decisions. congress is supposed to be conflicted.

[Billy]

I really like the current system. It was intended to be a bunch of local governments regulated by one central authority. I do think more power needs to shift to states away from the federal government. That would aid in your proposed problem of the States being too complicated for one agency to govern.

[Dogmeat]

elect me King and the world will be a utopia....

[James]

You already have this in the Presidential Cabinet. The Secretaries are the ones with all the detailed knowledge then they give executive summaries to the President and he then makes a decision. It's really better this way, otherwise, Foreign Relations President and War President might come into conflict with each other.

[Seeker]

A lot of people talk about revamping the party system. It won't work, democrats and republicans have been around for too long that a third party will never gain enough popularity to become a viable political force.

No, a third party will never be viable because people espouse self-defeating trite drivel like the above. If you want a viable third party then don't sit around going "ohh woe is me, the political system sucks". When enough people realize their in-action is the cause of the two party system and get off their ass to create a third party then we'll have a viable third party.

[The Fanatic]

Actually lance the system has a lot to do with the failure of third party candidates. Our country operates on the single member district system, in other words a winner take all system, in which it does not matter what percentage other candidates receive the only thing that matter is which candidate has the plurality of the votes in any given election. Third parties will continues to fail because they lack the funding and legitimacy that the two major parties have monopolized since the inception of our republic. The only way to change this trend would be to implement a proportional representation scheme which seems unlikely given the history of our political system and the cost to the two major parties if such a system was adopted.

We could always adopt the system that countries like france have in voting for their president in which there are 10 or so candidates on the ballot and then the top three or four candidates go into a runoff election in which the candidate with the plurality of votes becomes president. This would however eliminate the primaries and the interests of individual states and party leadership.

[chook]

judge Dredd anyone?

[THECHICKEN]

Federal government needs to go back to its originally intended purpose of being less important than state governements. States are supposed to be FULLY seperate entities than both the federal gov. and other states, so long as they don't infringe on certain rights (freedom against persecution, right to move between states, equality in treatment of state residents and visitors, etc.). Yet the Federal Gov. has been given power it was never meant to have via. bad Supreme Court rulings (like laws passed under the commerce clause, and the "unwritten" rights found within the constitution).

In the past supreme court judges left the Federal Supreme court to go to STATE courts.

[chook]

Federal government needs to go back to its originally intended purpose of being less important than state governements. States are supposed to be FULLY seperate entities than both the federal gov. and other states, so long as they don't infringe on certain rights (freedom against persecution, right to move between states, equality in treatment of state residents and visitors, etc.). Yet the Federal Gov. has been given power it was never meant to have via. bad Supreme Court rulings (like laws passed under the commerce clause, and the "unwritten" rights found within the constitution).

In the past supreme court judges left the Federal Supreme court to go to STATE courts.

If you look back at it. The supreme court wasn't intended on having constitutional interpertation.

[THECHICKEN]

If you look back at it. The supreme court wasn't intended on having constitutional interpertation.

Well its debateable at least. Since Marbury vs. Madison established the right of constitutional review, the court, in effect, gave itself the power.

[chook]

Well its debateable at least. Since Marbury vs. Madison established the right of constitutional review, the court, in effect, gave itself the power.

Seth you need to take that back, Vault Dweller style!