I think we need to amend our presidential terms.

[SSSnail]

Instead of a four years term unless they screw up loyally, I say we should come up with annual reviews by the people. Every year on the anniversary of his/her inauguration, the people vote to either keep him/her to stay in office or the vice president takes over.

It won't be a full blown election, just a review, if the disapproval percentage falls under a certain threshold, that presiding person should step down.

I think this process while could be costly, but it saves us from having to deal with some one that's so incompetent at leading the greatest nation in the free world, and run it aground for their term's duration. Four years is a long damn time to do a lot of damage.

 

[udneekgnim]

the decisions a president makes are largely influenced by the people around him and the people he appoints (his Cabinet) unless the VP decides to do a major overhaul, things will likely remain the same

 

[TallBill]

Terrible idea. Having a President play to the people every year is not good. They will have to make unpopular decisions, it's part of the job.

 

[SSSnail]

Well, I don't think this is based on popularity but based on results, just like CEO of any corporations.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

The final nail in the grave of the Republic you say? I'll pass on such a system as it sounds like just a little more mob rule mentality to me. There are going to be times throughout history where unpopular decisions are going to have to be made. When you've got a 4 year term, it gives time for the initial sting to wear off before you're up for reelection.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Well, I don't think this is based on popularity but based on results, just like CEO of any corporations.

Except that a corporation's #1 goal is to make money. Kind of hart to measure results when they will mostly be opinion based.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
Well, I don't think this is based on popularity but based on results, just like CEO of any corporations.

lol

 

[Darwin333]

Politicians already spend WAY too much time campaigning for reelection instead of actually doing the job they currently have.

 

[BoomerD]

This plan could result in annual elections for President. NOT a good idea.

I WOULD however, support the concept of the PEOPLE voting to impeach the President or any elected official instead of leaving it up to his/her peers. Perhaps with a large percentage of majority, such as 67% or even 75%.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
This plan could result in annual elections for President. NOT a good idea.

I WOULD however, support the concept of the PEOPLE voting to impeach the President or any elected official instead of leaving it up to his/her peers. Perhaps with a large percentage of majority, such as 67% or even 75%.

I agree. The same way we got rid of that ass-clown Gray Davis here in CA.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
This plan could result in annual elections for President. NOT a good idea.

I WOULD however, support the concept of the PEOPLE voting to impeach the President or any elected official instead of leaving it up to his/her peers. Perhaps with a large percentage of majority, such as 67% or even 75%.

Yes, something like this is what I want. People vote to throw out the deadbeats, same way that they voted to bring him to office.

 

[cyclohexane]

Annual elections? This is the worst idea ever.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: BoomerD
This plan could result in annual elections for President. NOT a good idea.

I WOULD however, support the concept of the PEOPLE voting to impeach the President or any elected official instead of leaving it up to his/her peers. Perhaps with a large percentage of majority, such as 67% or even 75%.

I agree. The same way we got rid of that ass-clown Gray Davis here in CA.

Actually, Davis wasn't that bad. He just had the misfortune of getting the double-whammy of Pete Wilson's energy deregulation backfiring on the state and Enron (and others) bending the state over the barrel.
Sure, he was pretty liberal, in the pocket of the prison guards union, and kind of namby-pamby, but he was still better than Ah-Nold Schwartzenactor...who pretends to be tough but rolls over at the first sign of resistance.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: BoomerD
This plan could result in annual elections for President. NOT a good idea.

I WOULD however, support the concept of the PEOPLE voting to impeach the President or any elected official instead of leaving it up to his/her peers. Perhaps with a large percentage of majority, such as 67% or even 75%.

I agree. The same way we got rid of that ass-clown Gray Davis here in CA.

Yea, but then we ended up with the Governator..

How bad was Gray Davis anyway? I didn't really follow politics much at the time, but what I gathered was that he got recalled because of the energy crisis and rolling blackouts, but then that turned out to be because of Enron and their bullshit so.. What else did Davis fuck up?

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
Annual elections? This is the worst idea ever.

Not election, just a review. This is where people cast their approval or disapproval vote, if the disapproval falls below a detrimental threshold, get him out of the office.

 

[SagaLore]

Conceptually a cool idea, but realistically all that would do is force the president to run on what's "popular" at any given time.

Our government is really more a republic than it is a democracy. Plus what you're talking about is closer to a Polity, which is not a bad idea, but can't be implemented properly with our current infrastructure.

Ideally we ought to extend the term to 6 years, and limit terms to 1. That way they aren't spending the 4 years they have just trying to figure out how to get re-elected.

 

[Stunt]

I think Mike Gravel proposed something like this where people voted on individual policies rather than one of two very different political ideologies. This would be terrible to start because people are misinformed for the most part apathetic. But over time as the crappy policies affect people's lives negatively I think you will get people more interested in the political process. Now this is complicated as it does turn into majority rule and some issues cannot be turned into majority votes like rights related issues that affect a minority. And then there is the logistics of ensuring everyone has the opportunity to vote. There are huge costs associated with the polling and voting process; I mean this year's race was over $2billion dollars; that's a huge waste of money to just inform the uneducated and get a population motivated.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
Annual elections? This is the worst idea ever.

Not election, just a review. This is where people cast their approval or disapproval vote, if the disapproval falls below a detrimental threshold, get him out of the office.

OK, you toss him/her out...then what? If this happened annually, you'd need annual elections to replace him/her.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
Annual elections? This is the worst idea ever.

Not election, just a review. This is where people cast their approval or disapproval vote, if the disapproval falls below a detrimental threshold, get him out of the office.

OK, you toss him/her out...then what? If this happened annually, you'd need annual elections to replace him/her.

Let's say if this happens and the presiding person steps down, contingencies should be in place to deal with this systems. You'd have vice president step up, just like we have now, and perhaps under this system, the speaker or majority/minority whip leaders can take up this responsibility as well (this should be all that's needed) until the next full blown election.

This process shouldn't be as costly as a full blown election, it can even be done electronically. It's simply a poll, really, not an election.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Conceptually a cool idea, but realistically all that would do is force the president to run on what's "popular" at any given time.

Our government is really more a republic than it is a democracy. Plus what you're talking about is closer to a Polity, which is not a bad idea, but can't be implemented properly with our current infrastructure.

Ideally we ought to extend the term to 6 years, and limit terms to 1. That way they aren't spending the 4 years they have just trying to figure out how to get re-elected.

Another way to keep them from running while in office is to allow for multiple, nonconsecutive terms. I think our current system has worked well, though, we are the most powerful country in the world.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
Annual elections? This is the worst idea ever.

Not election, just a review. This is where people cast their approval or disapproval vote, if the disapproval falls below a detrimental threshold, get him out of the office.

OK, you toss him/her out...then what? If this happened annually, you'd need annual elections to replace him/her.

Let's say if this happens and the presiding person steps down, contingencies should be in place to deal with this systems. You'd have vice president step up, just like we have now, and perhaps under this system, the speaker or majority/minority whip leaders can take up this responsibility as well (this should be all that's needed) until the next full blown election.

This process shouldn't be as costly as a full blown election, it can even be done electronically. It's simply a poll, really, not an election.

Wouldn't work, especially if the VP is considered worse than the president (Cheney anyone?).

 

[Stunt]

One thing we have these days that the founding fathers did not is technology; the ability to poll and transmit information quickly.

I've noticed that every US President in recent history has served two terms; perhaps it's the money given to the incumbent, maybe it's rallying support of the nation through war, maybe it's loyalty to the commander in chief (exception being Perot spoiler, Carter's big screw up, Nixon's big screw up, JFK shot) so why not give him a 10 year term off the bat but have a check and balance to force an election through polling?

So you have a 10 year mandate and if you drop below 40% approval rating an election begins to replace you. I can't believe how fast election cycles happen and there are only two parties with the same players...Like Kerry's platform was no different than Obama's...Bush just got more unpopular...that was the only difference.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
Annual elections? This is the worst idea ever.

Not election, just a review. This is where people cast their approval or disapproval vote, if the disapproval falls below a detrimental threshold, get him out of the office.

OK, you toss him/her out...then what? If this happened annually, you'd need annual elections to replace him/her.

Let's say if this happens and the presiding person steps down, contingencies should be in place to deal with this systems. You'd have vice president step up, just like we have now, and perhaps under this system, the speaker or majority/minority whip leaders can take up this responsibility as well (this should be all that's needed) until the next full blown election.

This process shouldn't be as costly as a full blown election, it can even be done electronically. It's simply a poll, really, not an election.

Wouldn't work, especially if the VP is considered worse than the president (Cheney anyone?).

Well, then it'd give people more of a reason to elect vice presidents, just like they did with the last election...

 

[Pastore]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
Annual elections? This is the worst idea ever.

Not election, just a review. This is where people cast their approval or disapproval vote, if the disapproval falls below a detrimental threshold, get him out of the office.

OK, you toss him/her out...then what? If this happened annually, you'd need annual elections to replace him/her.

Let's say if this happens and the presiding person steps down, contingencies should be in place to deal with this systems. You'd have vice president step up, just like we have now, and perhaps under this system, the speaker or majority/minority whip leaders can take up this responsibility as well (this should be all that's needed) until the next full blown election.

This process shouldn't be as costly as a full blown election, it can even be done electronically. It's simply a poll, really, not an election.

How many people would vote to throw Bush out...? Cheney as POTUS anyone?

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Stunt
One thing we have these days that the founding fathers did not is technology; the ability to poll and transmit information quickly.

I've noticed that every US President in recent history has served two terms; perhaps it's the money given to the incumbent, maybe it's rallying support of the nation through war, maybe it's loyalty to the commander in chief (exception being Perot spoiler, Carter's big screw up, Nixon's big screw up, JFK shot) so why not give him a 10 year term off the bat but have a check and balance to force an election through polling?

So you have a 10 year mandate and if you drop below 40% approval rating an election begins to replace you. I can't believe how fast election cycles happen and there are only two parties with the same players...Like Kerry's platform was no different than Obama's...Bush just got more unpopular...that was the only difference.

umm, NO...Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon, (well, 1-1/2) Ford, Carter, and Bush Daddy were all one term presidents. (but I believe that Kennedy would have easily been re-elected except for the whole "Voting from the Rooftops" thing...

The US Constitution says 4 years. It'd take a MAJOR upheaval to un-do that. Even as much as I'd like to see the idea of citizenry-impeachment, it just ain't a-gonna happen in these United States...too many divisions between the people, too much political power to throw in favor of the current system.