Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do we absolutely need a President?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Dees Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-05 06:08 PM
Original message
Do we absolutely need a President?
Can't we govern by council or some such entity?

We've got this sold out, struttin about ass thinking he's a brilliant
leader. The little bastard is in way over his head.

Couldn't democracy be better served by not having so much power in hands of someone as arrogant and deadly as *? It may be time to think about restructuring this whole government thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-05 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. Personally, I think the British model of government
is much more responsive to situations and the will of the people. For example, if Nixon had been PM instead of President, there would have been a vote of no confidence in '73 and he would have been out of office long before he resigned. The other thing is that the head of state is different than the head of government-so the danger of a cult of personality around the leader is less. Just think, we could elect a President for Life-somebody most everyone admires. He/She doesn't involve in politics, but does state visits, makes visits around the country, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CarefullyLiberal Donating Member (182 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-05 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
2. I just want...
1.) My trash picked up
2.) My water to be clean
3.) ...and my beer to be cold, ( sorry, had to add that one)


Time for a constitutional convention.

-Fergus

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selteri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-05 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. It would still have it's flaws, but a parlamentary system is
slowly looking like it would be better for the people since that tends to be a more liberally based system of govenrment.

Either way, the most important thing is education, something this country has forgotten.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oscar111 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-05 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Swiss have 3 prez's: we put three at head of Iraq too
Edited on Fri May-06-05 06:30 PM by oscar111
They could .. ours that is.. could live together constantly so any sudden decision could be always a vote two of three.

it's just too much power for one brain.

RULE: the more power flowing in the pipe to the faucet, the more people you put at the faucet handle.

eg, the Supreme Court has final power here. So they should have hundreds of elected judges.. similar to the House. Makes it harder to bribe so many. With a few , you could bribe all nine judges easily if you have a billion dollars. ten million each, just pocket money.

Plus, two heads smarter than one. A Single prez will not be as wise as three.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selteri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-05 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Parlamentar Triumvirate, what a classical seeming concept
and a very good idea, I could see it working much better, especially it we can ever gain a truely malti-party system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-05 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. elected as president does not make him God
do not know why there is no recall options built into our democracy, and why there is no real recount process in this country, the recounts were a total joke, also the electoral college should go, if the president is truly to represent the people of this country, then he should be elected by them and not the electoral college. This would eliminate the vote rigging of the swing states. Also I think there should be definite rules against nepotism. You should not run for president if you have a relative that is the governor of a state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 01:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC