What do you think of my plan for a new US government?

Question

It's mostly a reform on the executive branch. so: the president is chosen just like s/he is now except there will be less of a focus on their political sentiments and more of a focus on how good they are at pleasing the public. voters would go to vote in november, and would vote for, against, or neutral to various issues. The president's responsibility is to make sure these issues are resolved with the peoples' demands in mind. with a near tie, the president will have the responsibility of choosing the path that s/he believes is best for the country and its people. congress can impeach the president at any time, and the president will recieve an evaluation by the people every 4 years. If s/he revieves a disapproval rating greater than maybe 65%, s/he will be impeached, and the vice president would take over for the next term. the presidential nominee would not choose the vice president. the people would. any adjustments? do you hate it? any way I can buy an island and try it?

Answer 1

If you have the people choosing vice president why don't you also add them actually choosing the President? The electoral college picks the president not the people. Needs thought through ALOT more.

Answer 2

that's pretty much exactly the way it is now.  and by the way, it's okay to just write "he".

Answer 3

I read 3 sentences and it allready sux. First of the Country does not elect the president each state votes and then according to the members of the Senate (2) and the memebers of congress as few as 1 and as many as 51 they then cast their votes (all of them go to the candidate that wins the state and the accumulated total equals 278 or so the winner is then declared. The presidential candidate is NOT DECIDED BY POPULAR VOTE and this is not a DEMOCRACY and the president can not be voted on for each sentiment because that is simply stupid. The President can not pander to enough people to achieve the aproval rating and besides the rating is based on a rather small number of people and is questioned to get a specific response. California has a similiar system of recall and they threw out Brown and got Arnold but yet California is more screwed up then before because they keep electing the same nimrodes to the state congress.

Your idea is silly and infeasable. nough said.

I find it interesting that you were against going into Iraq when most of the people were for it at the time when patriotism was sweeping through the land and do not forget many of your dem comrades in both the house and senate voted for it and the idea of regime change in Iraq was issued by Bill Clinton but he was a panderer of the worst kind and governed by polls which is not leadership. Say what you want to about Bush but at least he sticks with his decision and actualy admited he was wrong when the surge was instituted but all of us and the media have the vision of forsight meaning we can go back and say this and that but once the decision is made HE alone has to live with it. I find it funny you call him and cheney corrupt but yet you mention nothing about how the Clintons got rich and the numerous scandels they are and were involved in. The Bush and Cheney money was put into a trust and they have no control of what so ever and Cheney sold his shares in Haliburton not to mention what other company out there is capable of doing what they do? The answer is a French company but remember they decided to keep voting against the Iraq situation in the security councel because they were bought off by Saddam and were kneck deep in the OIl for Food Scandel that mostly took place under Clinton.

Your hatred of Bush makes you irrational and your thought proccess has too many bugs in it too fix.

I do not remember all the hatred for CLinton or Carter but both Bushs and reagan have been pounded on by the likes of you for years. Give it a break or change your citizenship and move to your beloved France of England. America is just fine and does not need the wholesale changes your propose.

Answer 4

Not sure what problems you're trying to fix, and you seem to be making some problems worse. The obsession with "issues" is already overblown, and you want to make it the basis of choosing the president. At the end of a 4-year term, the issues the president is forced to deal with are never the ones that were talked about in the previous election, and it's not because all those problems have been dealt with. Things like character and experience help you determine how a candidate will deal with new issues that arise, not a library of position papers.

Answer 5

It does not include me being President so it sucks.

Answer 6

This plan still results in money controlling everything.  

Actors please the public, that's why we read about Angelina Jolie fighting with her boyfriend on the front page, not her role in the CFR.  I wouldn't want to vote actors into office based on their acting skills.

Answer 7

The name [gwb] doesn't hold power. However, he is a perfect example of how to misuse the power he has been given to govern the US. He should have told the truth about his plans for Iraq in the beginning and then let the people decide what should or should not be done. I have not yet heard anything about any members of congress or the senate volunteering to leave their families behind to go fight in Iraq. If they believed in it so much, why didn't they lead the charge? President Kennedy directly challenged Castro that if he didn't back down he would lead his Navy against him.

Answer 8

I think that's a bad plan, no offence. Not stupid by any means, just naive and not very likely.

If you want candidates that aren't generic rich people, many of whom have never actually lived amongst the very people that they claim to represent, then the sheer expense of running for the Presidency needs to be addressed. If more ordinary people could afford the costs, we might actually get some free, independent people running for President, not rich and pampered people who want to try to apply a textbook solution to an ever-changing world.

Do you know how difficult it would be to maintain an approval rating of 65%? Regardless of your political views, 50% of the population are bound to hate you.

I think the idea of having someone in charge pleases us because then we can wash our hands of the decision making. Whether or not increased responsibility in the government would improve voter turn-outs is questionable.

It's wrong, but it's what we're accustomed to and many are probably fine with it.

Answer 9

What you're suggesting is basically a form of democracy. It sounds good on the whole, but our forefathers didn't think democracy was a smart idea because the people aren't informed enough to make intelligent decisions. They were probably right! What we have now is a Constitutional Republic that is also a Polyarchy. Our system (Constitutional Republic) actually works well if it's not filled with corrupt politicians. You might as well have a Democracy if our leaders are all going to be corrupt.

From Wikipedia: According to William I. Robinson, democracy is a contested concept. He argues that when U.S. policymakers use the term democracy, they mean polyarchy - a system in which a small group rules and mass participation in decision-making is confined to leadership choice in elections carefully managed by competing elites.

Answer 10

I disagree. To be impeached the president must actually do something illegal.  Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath (immoral and illegal), not because he had s*x with an intern (immoral, but not illegal).

Bush may be a bumbling idiot, granted, and i dont have to write a bunch of bush-isms to make him sound dumb, but on the other hand, he has yet to actually break a law.

Secondly, I think our plan of government is just fine... its the people running the institution that should be kicked out.  Our forefathers got the plan right the first time.

Answer 11

How can you leave out the Constitution?

Answer 12

I don't think I like it.

Quite frankly, there are too many liberals today with "demands," and I don't want any president who's going to give in to them. Rather, I want a president who will keep them restrained from destroying our country, and who will put a bit in their mouth, so to speak, like a donkey.

Answer 13

na.....put shorter term limits on congress members...thats where most of the scum in this country resides......do not let retired government workers be come lobbyists either