[Judge_Fire]

Assuming the votes will again be divided close to 50/50% between the democratic and republican candidate, having just one of them as president seems rather illogical.

I'm sure the oval office desk has room for two chairs, as to guarantee a presidency more in line with the voters' say.

Besides, two heads are better than one - just look at extreme programming and you'll see how the current situation begs for Extreme Presidency. After all, these two are certainly highly educated individuals, capable of reaching mutually acceptable solutions and win-win compromises through debate and discussion.

But nah, they're chicken,

TIC

J

[Millennium]

Actually, back during the drafting of the Constitution, it was proposed that there be three Presidents, each with equal power. The idea was that a single President seemed too much like a monarchy, and that three Presidents would have resolved this. The idea was defeated (7-3, if I'm not mistaken).

I'm not sure of any details on the measure other than that, though. How would power have been divided between the three? Who signs laws, and what would the checks and balances against such power be like? Would there be any further need for Vice-Presidents, or would one President each be assigned to the Senate (filling the role we now assign to the Vice President), the House (probably taking over the role we now assign to the Speaker), and... um... we seem to have run out of legislative bodies for the third one, so scrap that idea. I think I'm starting to see why this idea went sour.

[eklipse]

A dual-president system would inevitably result in an impotent deadlock.

A tri-president system would probably deteriorate into an internal squabble between the three power-holders as each of them tries to get one of the others 'on their side', thus, deadlock again.

[ghost_flash]

The whole idea of one president works as we have the three branches to keep each other in check along with the President. This is why we have impeachment.

Legislative - Judicial - Executive

I like our system, and think it is the best one out on the market today!
If given the choice between ours, and any other, I think 100% of the PEOPLE
would choose ours.

IMHO.

[BRussell]

I have mixed feelings about our presidential system. I like the separation of powers, but it's clear that the president is much more powerful today than it was intended to be by the founders. He's become the king that they wanted to avoid.

But if people think Kerry is "extreme," then wow, we've really redefined the political system in the US: conservative and ultra-conservative = left-wing and right-wing.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I have mixed feelings about our presidential system. I like the separation of powers, but it's clear that the president is much more powerful today than it was intended to be by the founders. He's become the king that they wanted to avoid.

But if people think Kerry is "extreme," then wow, we've really redefined the political system in the US: conservative and ultra-conservative = left-wing and right-wing.

I disagree. I don't think the President is as powerful as you make him out to be. The labels you use for dramatic effect only serve the assertion that you are correct, but you are not. The extreme lables only represent the few on the fringe, whereas the true people with the power are all inbetween. The fact that this system works so well is we have it seperated by many states. Federal / State, which is genius. The only reason you don't notice how well it works is because it is working so well! To simplify the matter in order to explain it better, let's take a simple party.

You host a party, all your guests are greeted, seated, eat well, have wonderful experiences, and then are sent off on their way safely where they have fond memories of the party. What did the host do right? Who cares? Nothing went wrong. When something goes wrong, *then* everyone starts saying, what kind of host are you! and begin naming where you failed, whereas the difference between success and failure are only a few minor things that added up to failure. Nobody notices a smooth running machine, but when it break down too many times, they say, what a piece of crap! I hate the guy who made it.

Our system actually works, we just have different oppinions on why and when it is working. I say some of those complainers are the "guests" you cannot ever satisfy, no matter what you do for them.

*It's still the very best system that has been devised without having a Monarchy in face value only like the Brits. How much power does the Queen have anyway? I may say too much, but honestly, she has very little if none. Unless you mean by power as the control of a vast majority of holdings, land and money, then she is quite powerful.

[finboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I have mixed feelings about our presidential system. I like the separation of powers, but it's clear that the president is much more powerful today than it was intended to be by the founders. He's become the king that they wanted to avoid.

Huh? I see exactly the opposite -- the eight years of Clinton pointed out that what the President does & says has little to do with how things work on a day-to-day basis in the country. In that case, thank the Lord. The President is there to reflect the agenda of the country and provide some leadership, but as far as real power, there's no WAY that the Executive has become more powerful, IMO.

Maybe it APPEARS that way b/c they're one target for news coverage (with or without the bias) and Congress is many. In terms of real power, though, Congress is the man.

[BRussell]

Well I really don't know enough about the history myself, but my impression is that it was a consensus among historians that presidents are more powerful today than the king-suspicious founders had intended them to be. I'm sure there are some good books on the subject - one I'm familiar with, though I haven't read it , is Schlesinger's Imperial Presidency. Maybe Millennium or someone else knowledgeable could provide some more info.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by finboy:
Huh? I see exactly the opposite -- the eight years of Clinton pointed out that what the President does & says has little to do with how things work on a day-to-day basis in the country. In that case, thank the Lord. The President is there to reflect the agenda of the country and provide some leadership, but as far as real power, there's no WAY that the Executive has become more powerful, IMO.

Maybe it APPEARS that way b/c they're one target for news coverage (with or without the bias) and Congress is many. In terms of real power, though, Congress is the man.

But BRussell is right that the presidency is far more powerful than the founders wanted.

But then again, really none of the government is the way they really intended. The federal government has ballooned far beyond what was ever desired, both absolutely, and relative to the states. It has a whole "fourth branch" that they never planned on. It extends deep into the local business of the states and basically tramples all over them. We have a standing army, which they loathed, and a national income tax, which they tried hard to prevent. We regulate things that they couldn't even imagine being regulated. We directly elect senators, when the founders debated endlessly trying to come up with ways to ensure that the state legislatures would control the senate. Big states walk all over small ones, the president and vice president are elected together and worse, belong to parties. Our whole country is run by factions, exactly what Federalist 10 said we should avoid.

I don't personally think all of this is that awful, or avoidable, given how the country has grown. But I've been reading the pamphlets put out by the antifederalists opposing the constitution. It's remarkable how much of what they predicted (and which federalists pooh-poohed) has come to pass.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Well I really don't know enough about the history myself, but my impression is that it was a consensus among historians that presidents are more powerful today than the king-suspicious founders had intended them to be.

Don't todays' presidents have more of an authority to wage war than they did in the early years of the country, with the War Powers act and all that? Technically, the Congress still has the power to declare war, but when was the last time that actually happened? It seems like right now the President can send troops wherever he wants short-term without an official declaration of war, and keep them there long-term as long as there's money for it.

My historical knowledge on the subject is admittedly faulty, though, and I'm sure someone else will come along and be more informative.

AS for Extreme Presidents, I'll come back to what I've said for about a year now: Constitiution, Smhmanstitiution -- I'd pay money to see Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger run against each other for President.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I have mixed feelings about our presidential system. I like the separation of powers, but it's clear that the president is much more powerful today than it was intended to be by the founders. He's become the king that they wanted to avoid.

My pet peeve is that I think the presidential position is treated like royalty today.

I'd love to see the president go before Congress and explain/defend his positions similar to the way the British PM goes before Parliament. I can never see enough of that.

I'd like to see mandatory, free-form press conferences as well. It's criminal that they can go so long between appearances. Bush has done only 12 in over 3 years. Not to harp on him only, they all should be required to face the press/public in a regular fashion.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
My pet peeve is that I think the presidential position is treated like royalty today.

I'd love to see the president go before Congress and explain/defend his positions similar to the way the British PM goes before Parliament. I can never see enough of that.

I'd like to see mandatory, free-form press conferences as well. It's criminal that they can go so long between appearances. Bush has done only 12 in over 3 years. Not to harp on him only, they all should be required to face the press/public in a regular fashion.

That's still 4 per year, and according to most corporations, the CEO only has to give a quarterly address.

I'd rather have 12 from Bush than 40 from Clinton. I stopped watching clinton after the first 3. Only because I can't stand Snake Oil Salesmen like him. It was like watching one car commercial after another.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
My pet peeve is that I think the presidential position is treated like royalty today.

You can blame George Washington for that. He set the tone quite deliberately.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
My pet peeve is that I think the presidential position is treated like royalty today.

I'd love to see the president go before Congress and explain/defend his positions similar to the way the British PM goes before Parliament. I can never see enough of that.

I'd like to see mandatory, free-form press conferences as well. It's criminal that they can go so long between appearances. Bush has done only 12 in over 3 years. Not to harp on him only, they all should be required to face the press/public in a regular fashion.

Maybe it's just a human weakness that we are, deep down, fundamentally authoritarian. We don't like our leaders questioned and challenged.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You can blame George Washington for that. He set the tone quite deliberately.

Huh? Washington deliberately toned down the royal air a lot of people wanted to give the office. For instance, eschewing noble titles like "highness" and "sir" in favor just "Mr. President." If anything, you can thank FDR for expanding the role of the president so much (though he isn't solely responsible, just the worst offender in a long line of them), and JFK for giving it all of the trappings.

BlackGriffen

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BRussell:
But if people think Kerry is "extreme," then wow, we've really redefined the political system in the US: conservative and ultra-conservative = left-wing and right-wing.

I think that Judge_Fire wasn't talking about extreme political views. He was talking about Extreme Programming, a methodology in which programmers work in pairs, and applying this same method to presidents. Unfortunately, the word "extreme" has connotations in politics which really don't work well.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Huh? Washington deliberately toned down the royal air a lot of people wanted to give the office. For instance, eschewing noble titles like "highness" and "sir" in favor just "Mr. President." If anything, you can thank FDR for expanding the role of the president so much (though he isn't solely responsible, just the worst offender in a long line of them), and JFK for giving it all of the trappings.

BlackGriffen

He eschewed some trapping, but insisted on others. For example, riding around New York in a carriage escorted by mounted soldiers.

I've been writing a paper on early American history. Here is one of the sources that I believe discusses Washington's highly dignified (some said stiff and formal) style, which was designed to give dignity to the presidency. CLINTON ROSSITER, SEEDTIME OF THE REPUBLIC: THE ORIGIN OF THE AMERICAN TRADITION OF POLITICAL LIBERTY (HARCOURT, BRACE 1953). I'm pretty sure this had the material I have in mind here. But bear in mind, I read quite a stack for the paper.

Rossiter also discusses the long debate that took place about what the formal title for the president would be. Washington did reject some of the more flowery titles, but "President of the United States" wasn't the simplest one offered. He basically took a middle line. He used more pomp than Americans were used to seeing in their politicians in the Continental Congress, but not so much as a monarch. It's a pattern that has been followed since, although, some of the presidents toned it down a bit from Washington's example. (E.g. I believe Adams- although I wasn't looking for this in my research).

[netgear]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
It seems like right now the President can send troops wherever he wants short-term without an official declaration of war, and keep them there long-term as long as there's money for it.

Well, yeah, it's about being CIC.

[Judge_Fire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I think that Judge_Fire wasn't talking about extreme political views. He was talking about Extreme Programming, a methodology in which programmers work in pairs, and applying this same method to presidents.

Yes, though I was being a bit vague on purpose - it seems like fun playing with matches in this forum

J

[itai195]

Originally posted by Judge_Fire:
Yes, though I was being a bit vague on purpose - it seems like fun playing with matches in this forum

J

Understatement of the year