Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

It's bad enough that there have been presidential candidates running around this country shouting "VOTE FOR MEEEE!" for a year and a half already — never mind that the election is still ten months away. Now the media are releasing polls practically every twenty minutes announcing which candidates are in the lead. This whole presidential nominating system is for the birds, utterly. That no one is seriously questioning it is inexplicable. This is no way to choose candidates. I'm totally, completely turned off, and I cannot be the only one. If all 22 presidential candidates and the state of Iowa disappeared tomorrow, I would cheer. And I've BEEN to Iowa; it's not a bad state.

No candidate should be allowed to declare his/her interest in the presidency until January 2nd of the year of the election. And the present primary/caucus system should be abolished in favor of... something. ANYTHING would probably be better.

Yes, rash statements with not much backing to them. I drove 8 hours in snow today and my brain is tired. Highly irritated, yes, but the logic circuits won't be functional for at least another ten hours, and that's if I start sleeping now.



( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 2nd, 2008 07:47 pm (UTC)
I really think the authors of the Constitution intended something quite different from what this has developed into. They envisioned the Electoral College as a sort of mini-parliament or something.

Personally, I'd favor a substantial amendment to do away with electing the president this way, and instead use a parliamentary method in which Congress itself chooses the president, from among their own duly elected members (no appointed members, only elected ones) and he serves for a maximum of four years. Period.

The office of the presidency was never intended to be as powerful or influential as it is today. The executive branch should not be a policy maker, only a policy implementer. Policy decisions are the domain of the legislative and judicial.
Jan. 2nd, 2008 08:24 pm (UTC)
Not only was the first president quite a modest fellow, in his way, and reluctant to exercise power as president, he was watched like a hawk by a whole lot of people who didn't want anything like the monarchy we'd just declared our independance from. If Washington had tried anything, they would've had his head. (At least that's the impression I have, looking back at history I read way back when.)

I wonder myself whether a parliament would give better results. I suspect it could, if only because an election campaign could not last terribly long. We could still elect a president, but if it was only a ceremonial role, the presidency could not cause so much trouble (both in terms of the actual exercise of the office and in the race to get there).

The executive branch should not be a policy maker -- hear hear! There's already plenty of leeway just in interpreting the will of Congress, as needs to be done once they pass a law and it's time to implement it. But to be as activist in what laws should be made or not made is ... well, to go much further argues against FDR's New Deal and much of what presidents have done since, but... it is inconsistent with the intent of separation of powers.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2017

Page Summary


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner