End the US presidency
Debate Rounds (3)
Three things are likely to happen if we discontinued the American presidency.
1) We would no longer have one man standing behind a pulpit, as a symbol of one specific set of ideologies, dividing our country. We would only elect people from our home state that some of us actually know personally, to represent us. We would never again vote for just one man for the whole country that, by proportion, few of us know anything about.
2) Congress would begin to receive the spotlight of the media, making them more accountable. It would be harder for them to vote themselves a pay raise, for instance, without suffering the political consequences, i.e. getting voted out of office.
3. Possibly the most important, this action would secure the power of law making in Congress" lone hands. Those pesky executive orders that potentially make our president a king (remember what the American Revolution was all about?), would go away. The Supreme Court, as well, could no longer be stacked with appointees from one person (the president), from one party, unless the American people saw fit to elect a large enough majority in the Senate so that one party could have the appointee they wanted.
A pipe dream though this may be, it is a good one. It would once again bring us the separation of powers for which we originally fought. So, that only those who truly represent us would be allowed to make laws for us. No executive orders. Maybe even one day, no judicial activism (a subject for personal research, not something I wish to expound on here).
I look forward to the day when the American people are paying enough attention to make this happen.
1. A Congress cannot be elected by Millions of People wanting to see his Friend to be part of a Congress. Think over how much Votes would be for other Million People who are very Unknown. (Like to a Hobo...)
2. I understand that"s easy to buy a Person ( that he does / Says something what I Order ) but what can we do about that?
a Congress is still Payable to do a Law. (100 People Gets 50K and they set up a Law against abortion)
3.When a Congress are all talking about removing the Consuming Drug Law and a half are for it and the Other half are against it, then what can we do? There is a President needed. And a Citizen vote about the Law would make it clear that more than 60% are going to be against it.
I am a German guy but I lived in the U.S for a While so that a excuse for the Grammar
P.S I would say, my Opponent has good arguments.
Thank you for accepting.
I don't quite understand your first point. Perhaps you could explain. Congress is elected by state citizenship. That would continue even without a president.
On your second point, I do agree that interested parties will continue to attempt to circumvent 'government by the people' by buying votes. However, since the media would have no president to gossip about in a given news hour, their focus as pertaining to politics would naturally fall on Congress. This would, as I've said, turn the spotlight on Congress and make it harder for Congress to conduct 'business as usual' when it comes to corruption. While corruption would continue, it would require even more creative maneuvering to keep it out of the media. Even then there are leaks and other sources the media will use to make the news.
As for your argument concerning the 50/50 split vote scenario, I would personally like to see any vote that is closer than a 60/40 split placed in a referendum to the people in each state. However, if ending the tie is the goal I believe the best course of action is to NOT PASS THE BILL. If Congress cannot agree, and no one can be convinced using alternate means within the law they will simply have to start over. I am all in favor of Congressional inaction.
I look forward to your rebuttal.
1.About my First Point, the government has its problems with elections when it come"s to electing someone unknown ( with that I mean , you going to vote for your Friend, because you know him personally and he isn"t a Politician )
2. About the 50/50 Vote and your idea with NOT PASSING THE BILL ... I agree, that's a good solution.
3.I don't know it that counts as a argument, The President takes daily files from the CIA or FBI and from the NSA and the Files in it are for only one Person assigned: The President. Why just only he gets the files? Because , when the Files are on the wrong hands or "Many" hands then it would have a leak to the Citizen and imaginate if the file contains a Nuclear Weapon Program and the People reads it on the News Papers... It would have a bad end.
P.S I Live (as I said) in Germany and our time is 01:20 so you can expect my Answer only in 1 Day.
I"m looking forward for your Answer.
On your first point, the problem with voting for unknown candidates is exactly my point. We need to know the people we vote for as much as we can. Let me put it this way, while in office they have the power to learn quite a bit about us and our activities. In order to hold them accountable for how they use this power and the information they gather with it, we need to know as much about them as possible.
The above paragraph also speaks to your third point. Whether in the hands of the Executive or Congress, sensitive information has many avenues of misuse. It does seem to be the case that if more people know about it then there are more chances for leaks and misuse. However, I think it remains to be the case that the best way for us to ensure the appropriate use of this kind of information is to end the presidency, decentralizing power and dividing it amongst representatives in Congress and among the states. This decentralization of power coupled with increased accountability would place more power in the hands of the people to affect political change.
If I were to commit to a specific idea about how to handle sensitive information I suppose some kind of convention of state governors for this purpose could work, but ultimately this may lead to the same problem of over centralized power. However, with those powers spread among 50 states the threat of centralization seems less significant, at least at the moment.
I've enjoyed this debate.
Acctually you are right and i Enjoyed the Debate.
About the Presidency ... i can"t argue against you"r Idea anymore because it all depends on IDEAS.
How is it going to be?
When is it going to be?
is it the Right time for a Congress?
All These Questions are Really needed to Accept this Idea.
But Still there are some Problems where only the Presidency can Go against.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.