Should Presidents Be Nominated By Another Method?

I believe we could have a great system of governing, if only we were assured of
having leaders who had high qualifications. The writers of the Constitution specified
that the President would be selected by an elite body of electors, to eliminate the
possibility of the accession of demagogues to power. Unfortunately, they did not
specify how the electors were to be chosen, and eventually the electors were
chosen by popular vote. This method has made elections more costly, and today
money rather than merit determines who is elected as President. The entire process
should be reevaluated.
I would propose that the primary system be abolished and that nominations for
president be made by an elite body, perhaps anyone who has served as the governor
of a state. This group would then select several highly qualified persons, who would
then be placed on the ballot. The voters would have the option of approving one or
more individuals. If no one received an absolute majority, there would be runoff elections.
The incumbent president would have a place on the ballot.
This country cannot afford any more mediocrities like Bush. His policies will end up
increasing the federal debt by 4trillion dollars, much of what will be loaned by
foreigners, as well as lowering the reputation of this country.

But is America ready for a:

Lesbian vegan who teaches mid 1600s Japanese religion at a small college in Oregon as she
practices yoga drinking 10 cups of coffee a day and lives with 14 cats?


Just saying ..... :rofl:

then you could think about reforming the selection process.

This principal should be applied all the way down to state and county level.

I agree that the selection process for lower offices could be improved. The writers of the Constitution specified that Senators would be selected by the State legislatures. Generally, they selected people with high qualifications. This was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for direct elections by the public. The caliber of the Senate has been lowered since this was done, and the public has elected people like McCarthy of Wisconsin, Bilbo of Mississippi (rated by reporters of that time as the worst man in the Senate) and many others. I would like to see a Senate made up of people who were STATESMEN.

they used to do it until the reforms of the 60s.

The party hacks would get together in "smoke-filled" rooms and pick the nominees.

Every now and then, the system needs to be reformed. But it doesn't matter what the reform is, sooner or later the political pros, the ones who care about their careers more than what is best for the country, will figure out a way to corrupt the system. Probably sooner.

Still, do we want rule by the people, akademocracy, or rule by the elites? What if we choose democracy, and the "people" reject our ideas? What if we choose elites, and the elites look after themselves, instead of us?

I got no answers, just questions.

and that big media is really big corporate manipulation of the public's apathy.
The media belongs to the people. therefor, media access for public elections is necessary.
that would free up the need for so much of the corrupt money. If media access was open to the presentation of ideas- as we recently saw in Canada's elections- that would change a lot of the dynamics. also, New Hampshire, Florida and Iowa, should not tell the rest of the nation whom to select. We need less influence by media mouth pieces, such as Fox or MSN hacks, we call jornalists.

The public would have the final say on whomever is elected from a slate of several possibilities. The nominating body, if it was composed of all present and former governors, would never allow an oddball to be placed on the slate. They would have input on potential candidates from many sources, such as Congresspeople, or from private sources, such as MoveOn.org. The Candidates would be chosen on the basis of their intelligence, experience, and communication skills. The number that of candidates they can select would be limited from five to seven. We would need a Constitutional Amendment, to abolish the need for an Electoral College, and provide for direct election. Extending suffrage to all citizens, including those living in territories should be considered.

There would be no primaries, which are extremely costly, and do not always select the best candidate. The nominating body could solicit the names of potential candidates from selected organizations, and select a slate of several of the best on the basis of intelligence and experience. Final decision would be made by the voters, using the approval method, where the voters have the option of selecting more than one candidate. There would have to be a runoff election of the candidates receiving the most ap provable votes, and the one who gets the highest number would be elected president. It would run much more smoothly. We would see little or no negative attack ads. In fact, any candidate having to run an attack ad would end up being defeated.