Amazon.com Widgets
  • Mmm. Yes, and no but more yes

    The whole issue is that the United States developed what we have now come to know as the 'presidential' system of government. Other countries later adopted this system, incorporated their own institutions, and adapted to their specific needs.

    One part of the issue is how to elect the President (or Chief Executive). This was a contentious issue during the Constitutional Convention in the 1780s, with some people advocating for a popularly-elected Executive and others supporting an indirectly elected one.

    Alexander Hamilton was the biggest proponent of indirect election. He believed that the people were not informed enough to be able to make such a decision, and so he believed in empowering a smaller group of people who would make the decision ON BEHALF OF the people in each of the States. Whilst Hamilton's explanation in the Federalist 68 seems undemocratic, I can certainly see the wisdom in Hamilton's ideas based on the current presidential primaries. This is the sort of thing which Hamilton wanted to protect the Presidency from.

    The way the presidential system of Government is supposed to function (at least in my view), is that the Chief Executive has be completely independent with no affiliation to any specific party or faction. Of course, the advent of political parties threw this idea out the window and today political parties have hijacked the supremacy of the legislative branch. On the other hand, I understand that it's difficult, if impossible, to have a non-partisan head of state - it could certainly be much better than what it is today; and this would require some very stringent rules.

    There are several changes that I would propose: first, make it compulsory that all nominees or aspirants for the Presidency MUST resign from his or her party as a condition to run for office. Second, do not have pledged electors - instead, the electors should be chosen by an independent Committee and shall be chosen from amongst people having special skills and talents; the people then cast their vote for the electors based on the elector's profile. Third, the elections for Congress should be held prior to the elections of the electors, so that elections for Congress are not influenced by the Presidential candidate; this also means that aspiring nominees for President cannot be known publicly until the electors have been chosen and sworn in; this way, the people won't be influenced by potential candidates when voting for electors, which serves to enhance the independent nature of the electoral college.

    If the US adopted this kind of system; absolutely I'd be in favour of it, as there are so many advantages.

  • The people aren't qualified to vote for the right person.

    Which is beautifully illustrated by the current elections, where people are voted for the obnoxious short fingered Donald Drumpf. People are idiots, 99% of them are absolute idiots and arseholes, and they should not decided who the head of state is. 8 more words are needed so pinky dinky winky.

  • It's clear as day the people control nothing.

    I've honestly reached a point where I've lost complete hope in this country were slaves to our government even the rich are prisoners of this country. They care not for us but only for there own personal greed. What's to be gained, World Control, I'm tired of it. It's idiotic to think we have any control of who becomes president and even more idiotic to think one greedy person will put millions of people's lives they've never known ahead of themselves or there own families. Ive considered suicide when I think of how awful this country is where just so evil.
    Thank you for your time sincerely,
    The voice of the forgotten.

  • The Establishment politicians",Insiders," selects the candidates for president.

    Its becoming quite clear that the candidates running for the office of President are selected by the "insiders," in Washington,not by the ordinary citizens. The candidates running for office are in reality picked by the party and paraded before the public as if they were the people's choice and they alone, were to decide which ones among the chosen few preselected in the back rooms of Washington won office. Does any politician who advances, done so without the political machine being behind that politician. Sometime a supposedly independent maverick is presented to the people to give the illusion that the candidate is their own person, not beholden to any one but as it turns out, they too have strings attached that their puppeteers manipulate them with.
    Is the U.S. government any different than the Russian government where votes are taken but the election are all ready determined by the Insiders. Remember,""It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes," Joseph Stalin
    Its becoming quite clear that the candidates running for the office of President are selected by the "insiders," in Washington,not by the ordinary citizens. The candidates running for office are in reality picked by the party and paraded before the public as if they were the people's choice and they alone, were to decide which ones among the chosen few preselected in the back rooms of Washington won office. Does any politician who advances, done so without the political machine being behind that politician. Sometime a supposedly independent maverick is presented to the people to give the illusion that the candidate is their own person, not beholden to any one but as it turns out, they too have strings attached that their puppeteers manipulate them with.
    Is the U.S. government any different than the Russian government where votes are taken but the election are all ready determined by the Insiders. Remember,""It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes," Joseph Stalin

  • Power to the People

    You know, there are certain forms of government where the government decides the leaders for themselves; they're called monarchies and dictatorships. That's it.

    The moment you give the government that much power of it's citizens, the only outcome is tyranny, oppression, and totalitarianism.

    Our democracy has been working fine for more than 200 years, why change it?

  • We should have a right to choose

    If this is a free country we should have a right to determine who should be president not the government system . Which is broken what happened to we the people? If this is true we the citizens should decide who runs the country. Not a machine or the government.

    Posted by: A.37
  • What then is the point of a democracy

    A democracy is all about the people choosing and having a choice. If you make the government choose then it just completely obliterates that point. It's stupid to do that. Also, the ruling party (Democrats) would just keep choosing democrats which would be unfair to all republicans in the USA

  • Fuck off faget

    Ayy lmao lads im best in tatratgj awt' ra'j t'at 'jwatjaw'et wja'tjwe' tj'awetj'eawt'rjteawj't'wja tj'eawej'tj 'wataj' twaej't awj'twej't jaw'tj'wetj'aw j'awtj' w' a'w tjawt j'awtjw'j jatj' awtaj'tj'awt'jj' j' atj'wertj' awt'jwat jawtj'awetj'tj'awtjawt'jwej'tawj't awe'jt we'tjk'awt jawetj'awlt jlawetjaweltj awe'tl jweat' lwjet' awejlt eaw'tljaw't jawe't lawe;jt aw'letjawe'tlj awe[tiawet'a a'wkl tajw'tl kawej'weatlawej't jaewt' oaj t'otjar't art' a'tjawko'e


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.