I think we need to amend our presidential terms.

[K1052]

Such a system would make the government even more susceptible to the tyranny of the majority. Republics are designed to be somewhat isolated from the whims of the people for good reason.

Re-election already presents its own problems in that regard. To basically demand that the President effectively campaign for his own job 24/7/365 for the duration of his term would do the country a great disservice.

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: K1052
Such a system would make the government even more susceptible to the tyranny of the majority. Republics are designed to be somewhat isolated from the whims of the people for good reason.

Re-election already presents its own problems in that regard. To basically demand that the President effectively campaign for his own job 24/7/365 for the duration of his term would do the country a great disservice.

As oppose to not giving a shit and takes lot of vacations?

We, the people, do not ask him to campaign for popularity, we're simply asking the commander in chief to do a good job. This is far from campaigning because campaigns are based on promises, while what I suggested is based on real results and not lip services.

So you're saying the PEOPLE do have a lot of power to elect a person based on what was promised, but when those promises failed to deliver, the PEOPLE can't do shit about it? I like your system, really.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: K1052
Such a system would make the government even more susceptible to the tyranny of the majority. Republics are designed to be somewhat isolated from the whims of the people for good reason.

Re-election already presents its own problems in that regard. To basically demand that the President effectively campaign for his own job 24/7/365 for the duration of his term would do the country a great disservice.

As oppose to not giving a shit and takes lot of vacations?

We, the people, do not ask him to campaign for popularity, we're simply asking the commander in chief to do a good job. This is far from campaigning because campaigns are based on promises, while what I suggested is based on real results and not lip services.

So you're saying the PEOPLE do have a lot of power to elect a person based on what was promised, but when those promises failed to deliver, the PEOPLE can't do shit about it? I like your system, really.

Depending on congress or other random events it could take longer or not be possible at all, neither circumstance would be his fault. Unfortunately your average American sheeple voter is usually disinterested in political complexities. A year really is not a lot of time to get anything done.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: 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.

In that case, we need to shift to a Parliamentary Form of government, wherein the Prime Minister can be ousted anytime by a "no confidence vote" from the parliament. The same system they have in UK, Japan and most of Asia and Europe.

 

[nageov3t]

this would result in presidents selecting the worst VP's possible, so that America would be too afraid to put the VP's in power.

 

[palehorse]

I believe we should leave the Presidential terms as they are.

 

[Moonbeam]

Thought and fear

thought and fear,

Go together like a

horse and buggy

 

[Throckmorton]

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

Didn't you say in the OP that you want people to vote? Which is it, results or popularity?

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

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

Didn't you say in the OP that you want people to vote? Which is it, results or popularity?

People vote on results, I thought that was clear enough? Gov. don't have earning calls, so deliver on their campaign promises. Maybe not one year, but perhaps midterm polls. This also prevent lame ducks from presiding on their second term, if somehow they get elected into office for the second term because of "sheeple" voting.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

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

Didn't you say in the OP that you want people to vote? Which is it, results or popularity?

People vote on results, I thought that was clear enough? Gov. don't have earning calls, so deliver on their campaign promises. Maybe not one year, but perhaps midterm polls. This also prevent lame ducks from presiding on their second term, if somehow they get elected into office for the second term because of "sheeple" voting.

People don't vote on results. Remember GWB won in 2004?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
I think we need to amend our presidential terms.

Why? Because your horse didn't win the race?

:laugh:

 

[alphatarget1]

how about extending the term to 5-6 years and do not allow reelection instead?

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: SSSnail
I think we need to amend our presidential terms.

Why? Because your horse didn't win the race?

:laugh:

That's idiotic at best, or just simply ignorant.

You honestly have your head so far up Obama's ass, it was amusing at first but it's now becoming an annoyance. I never had a horse in this race, and if anything, my suggestion was aiming at Bush and his failures for the last 8 years. But, way to go making an ass out of yourself, again.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: 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.

I would bold the parts i agree with, but then i would be bolding your entire post, which is probably a first

 

[MovingTarget]

Why not just take a page from the old CSA constitution - presidential term of 6 years, but limited to one term only. That way a president wouldn't have to base every decision on his reelection prospects and still have enough time to do what needs to be done.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: 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.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like a terrible idea. The entire purpose of term limits is to allow people to make unpopular decisions. Having a yearly referendum would cause chaos.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

The entire purpose of term limits is to allow people to make unpopular decisions. Having a yearly referendum would cause chaos.

I think you're referring to a multi-year term rather than term *limits* which generally refers to how often someone can run for re-election. But I agree, putting it on a yearly referendum would be chaos considering our 4-year election cyle, not to mention encouraging even more short-term governance and pandering to the electorate. There's also alot of logistical questions....what happens if the sitting President gets a thumbs down? do we immediately hold a new election to pick a replacement? How do we deal with the 25th Amendment (presidential succession)?

Not a comforting thought to people who are uneasy about the "permanent election" mentality in today's presidential politics.

 

[SirStev0]

I feel like something similar happened in California a few years ago... I wonder how that turned out... oh yeah... we got the Govenator.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: loki8481
this would result in presidents selecting the worst VP's possible, so that America would be too afraid to put the VP's in power.

Why does this sound so familiar to me?

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: 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.

This.

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: SSSnail

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

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

Didn't you say in the OP that you want people to vote? Which is it, results or popularity?

People vote on results, I thought that was clear enough? Gov. don't have earning calls, so deliver on their campaign promises. Maybe not one year, but perhaps midterm polls. This also prevent lame ducks from presiding on their second term, if somehow they get elected into office for the second term because of "sheeple" voting.

lol good one

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: 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.

I would bold the parts i agree with, but then i would be bolding your entire post, which is probably a first

 

[OFFascist]

I'd change it so that its one 6 year term, so we dont have the whole first term wasted on them running for reelection.

Unfortunately if that went into effect right now Obama would be getting an extra 2 years.