We need a Constitutional Amendment to give the people a Vote of No Confidence process. Change my mind.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,880
1,550
126
If there's one thing this "administration" has shown me it's that the POTUS has too much power. The storied checks and balances aren't working so well. There's a second thing, too... we could use something better than impeachment to get a bad egg out of office, in particular the POTUS office. Yes, "no confidence" like they have in other countries.

I like the idea of having something other than a 2 party system. We don't have that officially AFAIK, but in effect more or less. More than 2 "major" parties would promote alliances, deals, factions teaming up to allow a no confidence situation and interim elections the way they do in other countries. Maybe we can get this going in the US. It would be destabilizing but the establishment is really corrupt here. We need to develop a way to freshen things up. Turmoil can be good.
Generally your remarks and those of others here contribute well to the discussion.

I've heard a former classmate expound at length on his "direct democracy" ideas. As a Californian, I've also seen the troubles we've had with aspects of this which were created after Frank Norris wrote "The Octopus".

I have to think about something in a seemingly unrelated area -- statistical testing in industrial applications or accounting. There are two types of errors: Alpha and Beta. One type is a "false positive"; the other is a "false negative" or "failure to detect". And some folks here have mentioned how the process could be driven by purely partisan sentiment and abused.

My concern about our current impeachment process is that it takes too long, while damage is being done to our country daily.

About many things, I have reservations that a majority vote always leads to the Truth or the wisest choice. And I've seen many recent arguments dismissing representative government as a vestige of times when time and distance alone made it necessary. I see it differently -- our highly-charged partisan polarity is a result of too much blather arising on the internet of Facebook and Twitter.

So I'd rather see representatives further removed from their constituents, or I'd rather see them paying as much attention to minority letters written from their opposition constituents as they do to their partisan supporters. They were supposed to represent a "place" as opposed to simply the place's winning partisans.

That's why I favor impeachment over waiting for an election outcome. Did Trump do wrong things according to the Law? Then I'd rather see a smaller body -- legislators as jurors -- make that determination.

But it takes too long, and it is nevertheless a "political" process. On the other hand, allowing swift recall elections in a highly-divided partisan environment leads to the opposite type of problem.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
Generally your remarks and those of others here contribute well to the discussion.

I've heard a former classmate expound at length on his "direct democracy" ideas. As a Californian, I've also seen the troubles we've had with aspects of this which were created after Frank Norris wrote "The Octopus".

I have to think about something in a seemingly unrelated area -- statistical testing in industrial applications or accounting. There are two types of errors: Alpha and Beta. One type is a "false positive"; the other is a "false negative" or "failure to detect". And some folks here have mentioned how the process could be driven by purely partisan sentiment and abused.

My concern about our current impeachment process is that it takes too long, while damage is being done to our country daily.

About many things, I have reservations that a majority vote always leads to the Truth or the wisest choice. And I've seen many recent arguments dismissing representative government as a vestige of times when time and distance alone made it necessary. I see it differently -- our highly-charged partisan polarity is a result of too much blather arising on the internet of Facebook and Twitter.

So I'd rather see representatives further removed from their constituents, or I'd rather see them paying as much attention to minority letters written from their opposition constituents as they do to their partisan supporters. They were supposed to represent a "place" as opposed to simply the place's winning partisans.

That's why I favor impeachment over waiting for an election outcome. Did Trump do wrong things according to the Law? Then I'd rather see a smaller body -- legislators as jurors -- make that determination.

But it takes too long, and it is nevertheless a "political" process. On the other hand, allowing swift recall elections in a highly-divided partisan environment leads to the opposite type of problem.
I'll never forget how they drove Davis out of office, with no legitimate basis then had a special election which is tailored made for those "concerned" citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
I'll never forget how they drove Davis out of office, with no legitimate basis then had a special election which is tailored made for those "concerned" citizens.
I felt the same way, Davis AFAIK didn't deserve to be unseated by The Terminator. Davis had a lot of enemies, but I didn't see, wasn't aware of him deserving the be driven out of office, period.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
I felt the same way, Davis AFAIK didn't deserve to be unseated by The Terminator. Davis had a lot of enemies, but I didn't see, wasn't aware of him deserving the be driven out of office, period.

He was driven out of office due to the energy crisis California endured which turned out to be caused by massive fraud by Enron.

As for recalls of the president or votes of no confidence or whatever it would probably need to include the entire Congress as well. That’s the problem with introducing this concept to our system though - in a parliamentary system the party in charge runs the whole show. In the US the president has his power split with Congress.

I think a better answer is either move to a parliamentary system (lol won’t happen) or for Congress to take back much of the power it has willingly ceded to the executive over the years.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
I think a better answer is either move to a parliamentary system (lol won’t happen) or for Congress to take back much of the power it has willingly ceded to the executive over the years.
I think that's a good idea.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,880
1,550
126
I think that's a good idea.
I second that motion. They wouldn't cede their power if they could embrace their job of "representing" a whole constituency, as opposed to their partisan constituency. Is shielding a president from criminal accountability in the interests of either the nation or the entire collective of citizens? It's only in the interest of their party as they perceive it, and that view of things is going to come back and bite them in the ass.

Anyway, losing Davis to get Schwarzenegger wasn't the worst outcome. The Terminator at least had a semi-enlightened view of the public interest. Maybe he got it from his former better half.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
Anyway, losing Davis to get Schwarzenegger wasn't the worst outcome. The Terminator at least had a semi-enlightened view of the public interest. Maybe he got it from his former better half.
Arnold is quite an anomaly, not your typical anything. He was utterly impoverished as a youngster in Austria. Had less than nothing. He discovered body building somehow and just embraced it. He had amazing will power and a genius for gaming people. He'd not just outwork his competition, but when he couldn't do that (some of those guys were just as dedicated and accomplished) he'd outsmart them, get in their heads and figure out a way to one-up them, either back stage, or maybe on stage. He won 7-8 Mr. Olympia contests in a row. Only Lee Haney was in his class for domination in the "sport." Pumping Iron is a documentary dealing in this.

Also interesting is Arnold literally dreamed of dominating people. He had dreams of dictators, probably being a dictator himself. So, it's interesting that he later ousted Davis and became governor of CA. As interesting is the fact that although a Republican he is far more liberal than most Republicans and continues (I think) to show that he has a soul. And all this doesn't even mention his exploits as a cinema super star, and he must be a very wealthy man!

His better half? I can't remember who he married. I know he had some out of wedlock child or children, there was just no containing him.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kage69

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,880
1,550
126
Arnold is quite an anomaly, not your typical anything. He was utterly impoverished as a youngster. Had less than nothing. He discovered body building somehow and just embraced it. He had amazing will power and a genius for gaming people. He'd not just outwork his competition, but when he couldn't do that (some of those guys were just as dedicated and accomplished) he'd outsmart them, get in their heads and figure out a way to one-up them, either back stage, or maybe on stage. He won 7-8 Mr. Olympia contests in a row. Only Lee Haney was in his class for domination in the "sport." Pumping Iron is a documentary dealing in this.

Also interesting is Arnold literally dreamed of dominating people. He had dreams of dictators, probably being a dictator himself. So, it's interesting that he later ousted Davis and became governor of CA. As interesting is the fact that although a Republican he is far more liberal than most Republicans and continues (I think) to show that he has a soul. And all this doesn't even mention his exploits as a cinema super star, and he must be a very wealthy man!

His better half? I can't remember who he married. I know he had some out of wedlock child or children, there was just no containing him.
Maria Shriver -- from the Kennedy clan.

One thing you forgot to mention: he earned a degree -- I think it was Business and Economics -- from U of Wisconsin. When asked about it, he said "I wanted to be taken seriously."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muse

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
Maria Shriver -- from the Kennedy clan.

One thing you forgot to mention: he earned a degree -- I think it was Business and Economics -- from U of Wisconsin. When asked about it, he said "I wanted to be taken seriously."
Typical, and I'm sure it was true.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,745
40,187
136
Congress needs tools to deal with cults that have taken office. We cannot tolerate the office of president being used for personal and foreign interests.

The office of AG needs to answer to someone else? Tax release and drug screening for all candidates? There should be more people the president can't fire? I'm open to ideas. Vote of No Confidance, a la Parliamentary system, would be cool with me. I won't be arguing against it slim though the odds.

Next up, War Powers Act.
 
Last edited:

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
I think a better answer is either move to a parliamentary system (lol won’t happen) or for Congress to take back much of the power it has willingly ceded to the executive over the years.

There's a great point there, but there's a significant reason why Congress has ceded authority to very specific outfits to handle duties that fall into that category. Most of those in Congress are lawyers, not studied experts on the many various topics that dominate industry and the economy.

It's a mixed bag, because in a way it almost makes sense that these working bodies should be under legislative control and not the executive, but then again this is entirely how the powers were meant to be distributed: Congress makes the rules, or defines the broad range of powers that a department should have, and then said department then executes based upon those rules. If they breach the rules, nominally Congress and the Judicial system then need to get involved to enforce the law. But in the end that's the point of the Executive branch, to execute policy based on the laws as structured.

But for instance, like the pain that can be the BS in the FCC and other regulatory bodies, there's the very real and persistent threat of regulatory capture. And yet it is difficult to truly control for that without further checks and balances, and it requires some conviction from the rest of the government to put a stand up to utter BS.

And that's where I think it becomes important for the people to have the ultimate and final word via recalls and perhaps policy referendums (both of which would require a significant number of voter signatures to even get to the ballot), because there will be times when the entire population is ready to accept something and move on from other things, yet because of corporate and party-first goals moving can be a foreign concept. So instead, put the power in the people, and if we can collectively petition and then decide by super majority that the government just hasn't been doing fuck all for us, we can put a stop to that.

That was the power the founding fathers expected us to grab onto and wield with intent, and yet we let non-voting voices play decisive roles in our affairs as citizens. That was the true civil unrest they had expected, and they had tried to do everything to shape that path forward while minimizing the risk of armed insurrection. And oddly enough, while many think that the 2nd Amendment was intended as a means to deter strong government here stateside, that was not remotely the intent; there is a reason that right wasn't spelled out in the Constitution, and it was only included in the Bill of Rights because these were strong-armed concessions some states were able to wring out of the rest. The real intent was to maintain a ready and willing coalition of friendlies to defend the united territories, at least that was what was argued once the BoR became something of an urgent necessity to win over the remaining states.
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,410
3,183
146
How do you explain multiple parties in so many countries that have first past the post. Like, for example, Canada or England.

Canada has some oddities. The bloc is explained by Quebec separatism. Greens are new and will either displace another party, be swallowed by one, or become irrelevant. NDP was being said that they needed to merge with the LPC not that long ago. I think in another 100 years Canada will be down to 2 parties (and in a way we are as only two parties and their predecessors have ever held power.

I fully admit I don't understand the UK.