NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking. These last two elections were very, very close. Bush was elected at 51%, so what about that 141 million, that voted Kerry? Would America be better off, if the primaries were an election of president for each party. That way, each party is better represented, and so that things like the Patriot Act, would never be passed, without the agreement of most of the others. What do you think? Should there be a president for the Democrats, Republicans, Greens, ect. in the White House, instead of one, who would favor his parties veiws. So that we could have a more distributed Suprem Court?

No, because then nothing would be accomplished as the various presidents fought over whose agenda would take precedence.

No, because then nothing would be accomplished as the various presidents fought over whose agenda would take precedence.

Simple solution; Thunderdome. :)

Simple solution; Thunderdome. :)

You want Mel Gibson to be president?

That's kind of the way we have it in Switzerland, we have 7 federal councils, and one 'head council' (for a year at a time).
...It does work :)

We want the executive function of government to be swift and decisive. Having the power of the executive vested in more than one person would defeat that goal.

You do know that 2 million more people wanted Bush then Kerry?

Ya, there would be debates cutting into my shows EVERY... SINGLE.... DAY... :mad:


I think that a president get only one term that lasts 6 years, so he wouldn't spend his last 3 years as president worrying about the election. thats why presidents always do better in their 2nd term.

You want Mel Gibson to be president?

No. I want Mad Max to be President. ;)

That one wrestler was govener of minnesota.

that was just sad.

DOn't knock Jesse Ventura. If he had one flaw, it was honesty. He was too honest to be a politician.

WHen asked if he died and could come back as anything, what would he choose, he chose 'A double-D bra.' His description of religion was that it was 'a crutch for the weak willed'. There is nothing wrong with either of these opinions, but he would have been better off lying about them. ;)

DOn't knock Jesse Ventura. If he had one flaw, it was honesty. He was too honest to be a politician.

WHen asked if he died and could come back as anything, what would he choose, he chose 'A double-D bra.' His description of religion was that it was 'a crutch for the weak willed'. There is nothing wrong with either of these opinions, but he would have been better off lying about them. ;)

Exactly. Politician just CANT be that honest, it doesnt work that way.

BTW, he sued a guy because he thought he stole his speedo.

Just sick

I cant agree with the idea of two Presidents, would just be a reciepe for getting nothing accomplished. OK so not that much different than now lol.
Americans wont like it, but I for one prefer our Canadian form of government where the Prime Minister is answerable to the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament. I think if Bush had to answer direct questions to Kerry in the house the American people would make their own conclussions.
Of course our system (based on the British) isn't perfect by any stretch. I prefer the US senate to our "house of the cronies" any time.

That one wrestler was govener of minnesota.

that was just sad.

Hey, Ventura had good policies. Who cares if he was a wrestler.

We want the executive function of government to be swift and decisive. Having the power of the executive vested in more than one person would defeat that goal.

-_-Funny, I didn't know we had a King. We do have more than one person in the executive branch, buddy. And with good reason. Granted, they're all under direct authority of the prez, and usually pawns of him anyway, especially now, but they're there.

No, because then nothing would be accomplished as the various presidents fought over whose agenda would take precedence.

See, we used to have this thing called "checks and balances" that made sure nobody's agenda got pushed on the rest of us, but that's been kinda done away with, or at least crippled mortally. Thanks, Bush. Actually, I sort of like the idea of the two being at eachother's throats too much to screw things up for the rest of us...

Politician just CANT be that honest, it doesnt work that way.

Um, it's supposed to...

By the way, 151 million people didn't vote for Bush. That assumes 100% population turnout. There were maybe 51 million people for Bush. If I recall correctly about 1/3 of the U.S. voted. Yes. We are pathetic and apathetic.

That one wrestler was govener of minnesota.

that was just sad.
Wasn't he the guy who ran as an independant and took $0 in corporate contributions?

actually I have long thought that there should be about 5 presidents... each an expert in different things such as foreign policy, economics, health, environment and such - although they all voted on each bill that came to their desk to get a majority decision. So noone person had the entire say and nearly each segment of society would have someone representing them. Plus it woudl be harder to buy them all off.

Wasn't he the guy who ran as an independant and took $0 in corporate contributions?

That's him. Former governor of Minnesota. There's rumors that he is considering a run on the Presidency in 08.

I'd vote for him. As I said, if the man has any real flaw, it is honesty.

actually I have long thought that there should be about 5 presidents... each an expert in different things such as foreign policy, economics, health, environment and such - although they all voted on each bill that came to their desk to get a majority decision. So noone person had the entire say and nearly each segment of society would have someone representing them. Plus it woudl be harder to buy them all off.
Yeah, but the problem is, some issues affect more than one area (health and environment, and economy and environment for example) and if each went for their own agenda on everything, they could damage the opportunities of another, and if they colluded, it'd be very similar to the situation we have now.

Another problem is that Independants would never get in office. Now Babylon 5's method was interesting. The Person with the highest vote became President. The next Highest, Vice-President.

In the U.S., you used to vote for the President and Vice-President separately. That didn't last long.

Yeah, but the problem is, some issues affect more than one area (health and environment, and economy and environment for example) and if each went for their own agenda on everything, they could damage the opportunities of another, and if they colluded, it'd be very similar to the situation we have now.

Of course these "experts" wouldnt know ONLY of their field but they would have a great understanding about said field. They would also be knowledgable of the other issues and be able to make opinions based on what impact those issues might have on their area of expertise. At least we would have people in office that knew something.

And each SHOULD have their own agenda (like keeping the environment clean or keeping the economy healthy or foregn relations tight) and they would fight for their agenda by being able to intelligently explain to the other presidentials why something should be this way or that (because they are experts you see). Thats why there would be 5 of them so they could break ties and whatever the majority of them thought would be the best course of action would be teh ultimate decision made.

this should be appealing to people to are lets say fically conservative but socially liberal or whatever. you can actually vote for someone who follows your ideology in certain areas.

the debates should be better too. they could lay out their ideas on how things shoudl be with greater clarity and probably better plans. The debates would be shorter and more in depth on a specific subject and ont all over the place.

I can't see this working... it'd get to the point where people would nitpick enough that you'd have to have a 'president' for every political party out there, of which there are hundreds.

First off, having a system where agendae take considerable effort to pass was always the point--it prevents tyranny.

And could someone tell me how Kerry as co-president would prevent the PATRIOT Act, the DMCA, and other such nonsense that he voted for in the first place?

By the way, 151 million people didn't vote for Bush. That assumes 100% population turnout. There were maybe 51 million people for Bush. If I recall correctly about 1/3 of the U.S. voted. Yes. We are pathetic and apathetic.

So are you saying that 100% should vote, even the people under 18 (especially infants)? Don't forget the people in comas. And people who don't want to vote.

So are you saying that 100% should vote, even the people under 18 (especially infants)? Don't forget the people in comas. And people who don't want to vote.

No, 151 million people that didn't vote for Bush are all the people of voting age who voted for Kerry and all the people of voting age who did not vote. It does not include people who can't vote for one reason or another.

The US could overhaul their entire system and go for a Mixed member proportional style system...

Look at this:

BUSH
:confused: :mp5:

KERRY

:eek: :mp5:
NADER
:( :mp5:

OTHER GUYS WHO RAN FOR PRESIDENT
:rolleyes: :( :eek: :mp5:

Ha, take that you political piles of fecal matter!

I do think that we would be better off if the "loser" of the Presidential elections became the Vice-President. That would help better represent the people. Also think that every state should divide their votes by congressional districts instead of the all-or-nothing approach taken now, like Maine and Nebraska.

You wanna know what I think? Of cours you don't, but I don't really care. If we had more than one president, it would just end up like the French Revolution. They hated their king so they got rid of him, we get rid of the one president thing. They make up a no leader no rules thing, we get more presidents at once. They get carried away with having no leader and get Napoleon, we get out of control with 5 or so presidents and only have one again. It's sort of like a circle of life thing, by one perspective, but it can also be like this:
We, as a nation,are insecure and rash, and we dont know how to make our own decisions. But then one guy decides that maybe we are ready to step up and start, but he is wrong. And the whole thing goes haywire and we end up going back to the way it was and just leave it at that. You may not like either of my theories, but I dare you to come up with a better one.

Of course these "experts" wouldnt know ONLY of their field but they would have a great understanding about said field. They would also be knowledgable of the other issues and be able to make opinions based on what impact those issues might have on their area of expertise. At least we would have people in office that knew something.

Hmm, there is something appealing about the idea of someone who actually KNOWS about guns having power over the gun laws.

Then no "Scary looking gun" Bans.

Craig

No, because then nothing would be accomplished as the various presidents fought over whose agenda would take precedence.

That's the best reason I've ever heard for having more than one president :D

It would take WAY longer for the government to get larger and more intrusive. All the time and energy would be spent bickering! :)

That's the best reason I've ever heard for having more than one president :D

It would take WAY longer for the government to get larger and more intrusive. All the time and energy would be spent bickering! :)

But a Republican Administration is for small government. What may in fact happen if their were two presidents would be a lessening of executive power and the congress and the senate would run the country except of course for the presidential veto. if the senate were to become so partisan as it is now you could end up with a repeat of the crisis that preceded the civil war in the 1860's. so having 2 presidents is not a viable option because there needs to be checks and balances. Also the constitutionality of having 2 presidents is not quite on to it there would need to be an amendment and I dont think either party would be into an erosion of their power base particulary the one currently in government.

Wasn't he the guy who ran as an independant and took $0 in corporate contributions? That's him. Former governor of Minnesota. There's rumors that he is considering a run on the Presidency in 08.

I'd vote for him. As I said, if the man has any real flaw, it is honesty.
Like you, I find it incredible that someone can be vilified and marginalised simply because he is honest in his opinions. Doesn't that tell you something about the state of Politics in America?
Look at Ventura - his ideas, not his past: Here's a guy who refused corporate contributions to run. I saw an interview with him where he said such outrageously obscene things like:
Drug addicts need help and rehab, not imprisonment. That isn't going to cure their addiction;
Women have the right to choose what they do with their bodies;
Fat ppl shouldn't be demanding legislation to outlaw discrimination, as the majority of them have no-one to blame but themselves for their obesity. He supported anti-discrimination against all other minorities (race, religion, sexual orientation) but said that if a fatty wanted respect, they should just bloody well diet;
He was for the government balancing their books and not running deficits.

I mean :eek: *SHOCK*HORROR* what extremist ideas! What a sick, sick man. ;)

Your comment about honesty reminds me about something Jimmy Carter got villified for. He once said that he's remained faithful to his wife but had a thousand affairs in his mind. Predictably there was a huge outcry over his lack of morals. But lets face it, all he was doing was stating what every guy thinks. I've always thought one of his biggest fault was his honesty.


As for the figures being bandied about in this thread, I find it amazing how quickly ppl lose track of information. No wonder politicians can get away with saying outright lies!
Here are a few of them (btw don't take it personally, I'm not meaning this as an insult to you - the fact is no-one else has picked up on the mistakes either):
Bush was elected at 51%, so what about that 141 million, that voted Kerry?You do know that 2 million more people wanted Bush then Kerry? By the way, 151 million people didn't vote for Bush. That assumes 100% population turnout. There were maybe 51 million people for Bush. If I recall correctly about 1/3 of the U.S. voted. Yes. We are pathetic and apathetic.
etc etc.

Just to get things straight:
Bush: 59,459,351 votes (51%)
Kerry: 55,950,097 votes (48%)
Difference:3,509,254

Voting age population (Census Bureau Population Survey for Nov. 2000): 205.8 million.
Estimated number of voters in 2004 election was 115.8 million.

This means a voter turnout of 57%. This is of all voting age population - you need to take off the criminal(in jail or with criminal records), insane and ppl too sick/old to get to the voting booths. Considering there's over 2million in prison alone, it would make a significant difference, prob around 8-10million (so it's 116million voters/196million eligible voters = 59%).
Also, if you were to take away the youth vote (which was a truly pathetic 17% turnout - 8 million votes), you would get a voter turnout for those aged 30+ as just above 70%. This is because there's approx. 50 mill ppl aged 18-29 in the US (so [116-8]/[196-50]) = 74%. This is a very respectable and is a very good indication of what the population as a whole really wants. Remember, when taking polls, they ask just 1000 ppl, which gives them a error of 3.1%. Asking 115.8million what they think gives an error rate of 0.009%.

And just because only 59million voted for Bush, doesn't immediately imply that the other 151million voted against him (or were against him). it just means that (151-56.5m Kerry & Nadar voters) 94.5million ppl didn't voted for anyone. Take away the ones who couldn't/aren't allowed, and you have probably 85million. We can't call them all anti-Bush or anti-Kerry ppl. They mightn't have voted because they dislike BOTH cadidates, or were content with their lives so didn't see any reason to vote.



Personally, I would favour a form of Proportionate representation being introduced for the Senate and Congress. Then we'd see a fairly distribution and would see more minorities there, which is important if a democracy is to truly be one. It would also give independents and third parties a chance.