Why do we have them every 4 years (in america at least)? I think that instead of having them every 4 years, they should be every 2. Rather than being able to run 2 consecutive 4 years terms, I think it should be 4 consecutive 2 year terms. Why? Because if that were the case, we wouldn't still have Bush! Yeah, he got in the second time, but right now (2 years later) his approval ratings are BELOW 50%. I think if we had the chance we could vote him out. So who is to tell us how long we have to wait to elect another commander in cheif? He is a representative of us, NOT out leader!
Yeah but think of that a bit , if there were presidential elections every two years, the governement would just suck even more because the president would have to do very short term promises to make sure he'll be reelected ... And this wouldn't be good for the more important issues affecting your country ... I think a US president said in the 1870's that the presidents should only be elected once for a 6-year term , that would make sense ...
Yeah 6 years and only once would be best. That way the pres doesn't have to cow tow to anyone. She can just get the job done she said she would.
Elections are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and increasing their frequency isn't likely to make the system more democratic.
Okay you all proved me wrong... just a spur of the moment thought. Why do we have a president in the first place? Why should 1 person control 1/3 of our government?
Because there are things that need to happen and decsions that need to be made, that just can not be done by committee. Each of the three branches has a very specific function, the case of the executive branch, it is enforcement of the law and defense of the country. These functions require quick and effective leadership, something that can not be obtained by even a small group of people. The founding fathers envisioned the three branches as equal, however, in the last 5 decades, much of the power once reserved for the legislative and judical branches has flowed to the exective branch. As we have seen in the last couple of months, the President can pretty much ignore both Congress and the Supreme Court with very few worries. This is not the way it is suppose to be, but I do not see the tide turning anytime soon.
Descisions that need to be made liketaking our soldiers outta iraq? Democracy seems to be like a rubix cube for a president. Neat at first, then frustrating, and when you can't get all the things to go the way you want, you just rearange all the stickers until you get your desired results... I don't know if that made any sense to anyone else or not, but what I mean is stickers=constitution. I hope that helps, maybe...
If your country wanted choice all they would have to do is stop voting for either the Democrats or Republicans. Many parties would rush in to fill the void.
Yes exactly, this would take clear, decisive and intellegent leadership to accomplish, which means it will not be this President who does it. Congress could defund the war in Iraq as they did the Vietnam War, but any resolution to do so, would have to be able to pass with a super majority or it would likely be filibustered by any number of ChickenHawk Republicans and the President could probably keep troops there until the end of his term with the funding he already has. The Supreme Court could rule that Congress can not constitutionally give the power to declare war to the President and declare the Iraq war illegal, however any such battle would require years to wind its way through the system. Sadly, it will be upto some future President with more character to declare peace and withdraw the troops.
I'm no expert on American politics, but wouldn't it require at least a 2/3rds majority in Congress to "defund" the war? To overcome the President's veto power?
depends on what the funding was tied to, probably a chunk in the budget itself (that must be passed) and bits here and there. We are horrid at tacking on stuff... it gets a lot of harebrained stuff through. I'd LOVE to see viable third parties and a coalition system start up. If teh libertarians, grens Progresives and Dems agreed on some planks of a platform, the corporate money republicans could be sent home for a while. like Tom DeLay...
