A better method for choosing a President, what do you think?
I think this would work better for choosing a President what about you? 1st during the campaign any person that wants to run can run, even if they are of the same party. All candidates get X amount of dollars to spend and THAT IS IT. They can divvy up the money on robocalls, print media, TV, buttons etc but when they hit that limit that is it maybe then they will spend the time telling me what they are going to do than telling everything the other person did wrong. Any other organization that tries to backdoor soft money by campaigning on behalf of the candidate will get fined $250,000 per incident; all they can do is campaign for the party but no individual. The person that does get into the White House is not paid a salary they are paid at tax time. On the tax form you have the option to award the Commander in Chief nothing up to 5 cents, no some will think a nickel ain’t nothing, but over millions of people that can add up to quite a bit for a leader most like. And on the ballot you have 2nd and 3rd runner up, so in the 1st 100 days if you don’t like the how the Commander and Chief you elected is doing you can use an ouster option and boot that person out and instill the 2nd runner up. Who would not love that method of picking a president?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
21 Answers
I don’t think so. It’s impractical, and it has no chance of ever happening.
They should just let Corporate America tell the Electoral College how to vote and bypass the public !
*Well at least that’s how they do it now !
So where are the X amounts of dollars coming from that the candidates get?
@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Well… how attached do you feel to your kidneys? How about donating one for democracy? I bet we can get a few bucks on eBay.
@bob_, I dig my kidneys. Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, and Obama can keep their hands off them.
@bob_, I’m just a selfish person. I like being able to adequately filter my urine. Keep your laws off my body!
First. I can get behind the campaign spending limit.
But seriously:
1. The President needs paid. I do not know why we wouldn’t pay the man who is running our country.
2. It would be pretty frivolous to decide if you like a President within 100 days. That is not enough time to get anything real done. It would all be fake.
Of course I have a feeling you aren’t being quite serious. But there you have it.
there’s no competent system that puts a single person in charge of hundreds of millions
I think the selection should be narrowed to a field of 4 based upon their SAT scores.
The presidency would go to the candidate who scored the highest in a 3 hour televised version of Jeopardy with the categories: Economics, World History, Science, Law, Medicine, Mathmatics, Language and Common Sense.
I’d watch that show.
@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard That amount would come from a fund similar to the public campaign money available now (which most do not care to use because it is too small) Whatever that amount would be $50.000, $150,000, or $1,500,000 when that limit is hit that it is, the campaign tank is empty.
@RedPowerLady The President WILL get paid just by each tax payer April 15th. If he did a lousy job then they award him/her nothing, if he/she did a great job a 5 cent award. 5 cents times 3 billion people can be quite a bit. More than what the job pays now. I think that is why we get egomaniacs wanting the job and not the really smart people; they can make more in the private sector with less headache.
You are right 100 days maybe too short; I would say 180 days then.
what do you think about the electoral college?
This would never work.
@jazmina88 The Electrol College was outdated the moment we had radio and television. It was only there to give far laying territories and cities that did not have railroad access a chance and a voice in voting since back when it was created politicians would have had to travel days or weeks to get to some of those areas and they were not going to take the time to do it; politicians are in front and in the homes of places they never physically campaigned and there in real time via TV and the Internet not days or weeks later when the next wagon train, Pony Express rider came through or a telegraph could be sent. Why people do not want to let that dinasuaur die is beyond me. I say scrap it and send those mooks packing.
It’s a great question. I don’t know exactly what would be better, but I’m sure we could make many improvements. It seems to me that the winner-take-all electoral college is very unfair, especially when it comes to very large states like mine (California). There are simply too many votes that don’t count at all with this system. Additionally, I think our options are narrowed too quickly and the political parties have too much power. We need more options on our general election ballot. Often, I feel so compromised by the choices that I’m discouraged from voting at all. Don’t even get me started with the primaries. They are much worse than the general election.
[Link removed by Fluther]
Who gives a flying fig tree. LOL
Let’s simplify:
1. The Senate should have the responsibility to put together a slate of 3 presidential candidates on October 1, every 4th year. The Senate is required to chose candidates who are citizens of the US, 35 years of age or older, a legal resident of the US for a minimum of 14 consecutive years, and from outside of the federal government, all having a minimum of 4 years experience in the state-level executive branch (think governors and mayors, not state legislators or judges, we are talking about electing a chief executive after all).
2. On November 1, a general election is held in the US, with each citizen over the age of 18 as an elector.
3. If a candidate achieves 51% of the popular vote (the minimum required to make this system one of majority rule), then this candidate is the President-Elect. The new President is sworn in on Jan 1.
4. If no candidate achieves 51%, then a run-off election of the people takes place on December 1 between the top 2 presidential vote-getters from round 1. The candidate with the most votes in the run-off becomes President-Elect, to be sworn in Jan. 1
The first part of your hole spule in a simpler more narrow version sounds like you do not like or want political partys, wich I think is a great idea, the rest is just bogus.
@Plone3000 It would be better if we did not have parties but everyone under one umbrella but since we don’t it would be better to have more than 2 dominant parties. 5 to 7 nearly equal parties would get more done. Bogus? The smartest minds are not always the ones who end up running the nation, just those with the biggest egos and the ability to raise the most money to get into office. Even out the pocket book and lets see who is actually the better candidate because people will vote for him/her with equal exposure to his/her opponent.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
