US President

[jBirch]

I've been reading in a number of places about how dissatisfied the American public is with their choice in President and how none of the supposed checks and balances seem to be, well, checking and balancing.

Is this an accurate statement to be making? Is the President, in fact, unchecked in the execution of his duties?

If we suppose that the answer is yes, two salient questions arise:

1) How was this possible?

2) What can be done to prevent it in the future?

I propose that an answer to the first lies in the fact that there are significant members of congress, members of the senate and members of the judiciary with a substantial interest in keeping the President who he his. One of the largest reasons for this conflict of interest lies, I think, in the fact that the President is also a member of a political party. Not only is he a member, he is the leader. Ergo, the party has a huge vested interest in protecting the leader.

Second, I would propose that the advantage of money in waging a war of persuasion has grown so large that candidates without money are incapable of running. Ergo, what is in the interests of money, is in the interest of the whole of the United States. Since a not insignificant amount of money was spent putting the President in office, and there is a significant ROI for having him there, there is substantial disincentive to remove him.

As to solutions, I have a few ideas:

1) The President must not be a member of a political party.

2) There needs to be some way for citizens at large to be nominated for President and for those nominations to be valid (and relatively small).

Would a petition with 1% of the general populace endorsing a specific candidate or something work? What if a state nominated and supported a candidate instead of merely voting after the fact? Can the American Idol mechanism be modified? Can we do a TV based election?

3) An equal budget must be provided by Congress for each candidate to campaign on. Or, each candidate must be constrained to the same speaking engagements and public appearances.

Thoughts?

James.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by jBirch

I've been reading in a number of places about how dissatisfied the American public is with their choice in President and how none of the supposed checks and balances seem to be, well, checking and balancing.

Is this an accurate statement to be making? Is the President, in fact, unchecked in the execution of his duties?

If we suppose that the answer is yes, two salient questions arise:

1) How was this possible?

2) What can be done to prevent it in the future?

I propose that an answer to the first lies in the fact that there are significant members of congress, members of the senate and members of the judiciary with a substantial interest in keeping the President who he his. One of the largest reasons for this conflict of interest lies, I think, in the fact that the President is also a member of a political party. Not only is he a member, he is the leader. Ergo, the party has a huge vested interest in protecting the leader.

Second, I would propose that the advantage of money in waging a war of persuasion has grown so large that candidates without money are incapable of running. Ergo, what is in the interests of money, is in the interest of the whole of the United States. Since a not insignificant amount of money was spent putting the President in office, and there is a significant ROI for having him there, there is substantial disincentive to remove him.

As to solutions, I have a few ideas:

1) The President must not be a member of a political party.

2) There needs to be some way for citizens at large to be nominated for President and for those nominations to be valid (and relatively small).

Would a petition with 1% of the general populace endorsing a specific candidate or something work? What if a state nominated and supported a candidate instead of merely voting after the fact? Can the American Idol mechanism be modified? Can we do a TV based election?

3) An equal budget must be provided by Congress for each candidate to campaign on. Or, each candidate must be constrained to the same speaking engagements and public appearances.

Thoughts?

James.

The President of the United States has less power than most other heads of State- and much less than the PM in the UK. The vast amounts of money required to enter US politics is a seperate issue. Americans like their politicians to be very wealthy as they often believe wealth and success are essentially the same. This is not the case in Britain, where extreme wealth (on a Bush or Kerry level) is often the subject of suspicion. It's worth remembering, however, that campaigns cost money- if the public wont pay for them then they can't complain when politicians have to tap up the very rich (in exchange for peerages in the case of Britain).

According to the American dream, however, it is perfectly possible to be born with little or nothing, make a fortune and then have the means to enter politics. I believe Sen Edwards or Carter are examples.

I don't see how precluding membership of a political party would stop wealthy and organised groups backing their prefered candidate.

I'm not convinced that any of your suggestions are realistic in terms of organising campaigns, or would actually result in a better set of checks and balances (a constitutional issue).

You can't break down all the social, educational, geographic, economic or political barriers to entering politics (let alone presidential race) with a petition or ban on political parties.

I like the American idol idea though!

[Inquartata]

There is no way to set up a foolproof selection process in a democratic society. Someone will always devise a way to circumvent any restrictions which may be instituted.

I have always said that if you want competence and effectiveness, you go to a system somewhat akin to that used in selecting a Pope.

Start at the local level. Take nominations for delegates to a conclave---let people nominate the wisest, smartest, most experienced people they know. Then lock those people in a room until they elect one among them to go to a state conclave. And so on, up to the national level.

The person who is finally elected to rule will get to serve a much longer term ( perhaps indefinite so long as physical and mental health remain good ) than current Presidents, in order to give continuity to policy initiatives---so they don't reverse direction every 4 or 8 years. He will get to live in luxury but must relinquish all private property and earnings. A close watch will be kept on the financial dealings of all of his friends, relatives and former business associates, to ensure that no nepotism and no favoritism occur; probably members of the conclave who elect him will have to be similarly monitored. An agency would be needed to serve this function, in all probability.

This improves the chances of getting a Cincinnatus, IMO, rather than a politician. But in time I daresay ways would be found to game that system as well.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Of course, the current Prez already enjoys Pay/Bull infallability.

(wait, did I type that out loud?)

[introspective]

Jbirch: I appreciate your volcabulary but what with all the words, the substance of what you say is lost.....for example you write about salient things: things relevant to the topic which you began and then you wind around to say something about checks and balances - but give no concrete examples of how the system of checks and balances has failed. The system of checks and balances is doing very well I think.....probably better than PayPal - [my balance being a mere .64 cents]. Can you elaborate on this a bit for us - tell us where this system has failed?

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Is this an accurate statement to be making? Is the President, in fact, unchecked in the execution of his duties?

I would say that the system of checks and balances are working just fine. You have a president that went too far out of bounds. Now, he faces a hostile Congress and a skeptical Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Start at the local level. Take nominations for delegates to a conclave---let people nominate the wisest, smartest, most experienced people they know. Then lock those people in a room until they elect one among them to go to a state conclave. And so on, up to the national level.



This improves the chances of getting a Cincinnatus, IMO, rather than a politician. But in time I daresay ways would be found to game that system as well.

Isn't this somewhat like the Electoral College was intended to be (without the layers)? And, of course, that was gamed really early.

[introspective]

Congress is always hostile to the President, any President. It's part of being an American, getting elected, getting into the White House, meeting with your staff, finding the Hostile Congress, making friends with the Senate, inviting Hollywood to your house for beers, meeting the hostile congress.....

[Shi no Tenshi]

Originally Posted by Balbrutos

President Bush is a trigger-happy war-machine.
He makes sure that planet Earth is not a peaceful place.

I'm curious. Take this scenario: President Bush is not in office. We have instead a president who does not engage in war with other countries. Do you honestly think that would make the world peaceful?
I'm sorry, but I see your comment to be as arrogant as the president you so gleefully tar and feather. You are saying in essence that without the US starting a war, that there would be peace for the planet. Hate to break the news to you, but if there is one thing this war has shown, it is that the US cannot force it's will on others that easily.

[OROD]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

There is no way to set up a foolproof selection process in a democratic society. Someone will always devise a way to circumvent any restrictions which may be instituted.

I have always said that if you want competence and effectiveness, you go to a system somewhat akin to that used in selecting a Pope.

Start at the local level. Take nominations for delegates to a conclave---let people nominate the wisest, smartest, most experienced people they know. Then lock those people in a room until they elect one among them to go to a state conclave. And so on, up to the national level.

I can just see it now... Pope Hillary Clinton! LOL....!!!

No, but seriously, I like that idea. One of the main problem with our political system is that politicians are more concerned with getting elected than with doing any good for the people. I'd be willing to scrap it and go over to Inq's Pope government.

.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Start at the local level. Take nominations for delegates to a conclave---let people nominate the wisest, smartest, most experienced people they know. Then lock those people in a room until they elect one among them to go to a state conclave. And so on, up to the national level.

Isn't this like how the primaries used to be done?

In any case, I think it would increase politics and the beaurocracy. Candidates would be desparate to do each other favors and get votes however possible--blackmail, bribes, whatever. It's harder to blackmail the entire voting public.

You can, of course, bribe us (TAX CUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!) but it's still a bit more difficult and a bit less underhanded.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Isn't this like how the primaries used to be done?

In any case, I think it would increase politics and the beaurocracy. Candidates would be desparate to do each other favors and get votes however possible--blackmail, bribes, whatever. It's harder to blackmail the entire voting public.

You can, of course, bribe us (TAX CUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!) but it's still a bit more difficult and a bit less underhanded.

Well, if the voting in each conclave were to be done by secret ballot, then blackmail and bribes would be fairly pointless, given that Inq suggests a conclave of 30 people.

Another thing is that once one gets past the 1st level, the people in the conclave will have to stay together for longer, since they do not know each other from the start. Let´s assume that one week is needed for the first level, and 2 weeks for all further levels. Furthermore, assume that there are 230 million americans of voting age.
1. Conclave representing 30 people - 1 week
2. Conclave representing 900 people - 3 weeks
3. Conclave representing 27000 people - 5 weeks
4. Conclave representing 810000 people - 7 weeks
5. Conclave representing 24.3 Mpeople - 9 weeks
6. Conclave representing 729 Mpeople - 11 weeks

So, one would need 6 stages of conclaves, and the whole thing would run in about 3 months. One would still have to figure out how to deal with the common case of no candidate getting an outright majority in his conclave - this is what slows down papal conclaves. The putting together of people into various conclaves, and how the winners from one level should be put together for the next, leaves ample room for trickery.

My suggestions are a little less radical:
1. If a candidate gets more votes than half of the number of citizens of voting age, that candidate wins nonwithstanding the electoral college count.
2. Voters should be forced to indicate which candidate they dislike the most. If any candidate is considered the most disagreeable by more than half of the voters, that candidate loses nonwithstanding the electoral college count.
3. The two-term limit is taken away. In its stead is put an amendment forbidding the incumbent President - or VP - to run.
4.Introduce a None of the Above vote possibility, with the rule that if the NOTA slot gets more than 50% of the votes cast, then the Presidential office is shut down for 6 months, in preparation for a followup round of voting. None of the candidates defeated by the NOTA alternative are permitted to run in that election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_Above
5. It is provable that no thinkable voting system is without faults (they either restrict the # of candidates, restrict the # of voters, incorporate an element of pure chance, or are open to dishonest voting) This is dealt with in Arrows Impossibility theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbard-Satterthwaite_theorem. However, it can also be proved that different voting systems are differently susceptible to these problems, and that the system presently in use in USA - First-Past-The-Post, is among the worst in this regard. Furthermore, it is provable that while no voting system is totally impervious to dishonest voting, there are voting systems which require so much good information about other voter´s probable voting behavior - and access to a strong supercomputer - so that it become practically impossible given the resources available to a political party, let alone an individual voter. Such voting systems - Conitzer-Sandholm preround/pairwise protocol - are based on ordinary voting systems, and as an added benefit are quite similar to the poule/DE system prevalent in most sports. They should therefore be quite easy to understand, even if they are exceedingly difficult to game. Therefore, USA should change from the FPTP voting system to one in the Conitzer/Sandholm family.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~conitzer/tweakIJCAI03.pdf


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[RPI Epeeist]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

I would say that the system of checks and balances are working just fine. You have a president that went too far out of bounds. Now, he faces a hostile Congress and a skeptical Supreme Court.

Right... so if the system of checks and balances was working correctly then congress and the supreme court should have been angrily facing Bush BEFORE he stepped too far out of bounds and not after... that's kind of the point of the whole system...

So is checks and balances working? or are Congress and the Supreme Court using their checks and balances way way way too late (thus not checking nor balancing anything, only wagging fingers).

Btw... anyone catch the Daily Show when the Ambassador to the UN was on? HILARIOUS! Contradictions galore! I recommend you all find that interview and ask yourself "Who are they putting in these positions???"

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by RPI Epeeist

Btw... anyone catch the Daily Show when the Ambassador to the UN was on? HILARIOUS! Contradictions galore! I recommend you all find that interview and ask yourself "Who are they putting in these positions???"

Weell... that is hard to know, since we do not know when this show was aired (not even a ballpark figure), nor do we know from which country the ambassador came from.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[RPI Epeeist]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!




Weell... that is hard to know, since we do not know when this show was aired (not even a ballpark figure), nor do we know from which country the ambassador came from.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

US Ambassador to the UN... I think it aired no longer than a month ago... I'm just saying... good interview...

As a matter of fact it took me about 1 min. to find it... here it is... just click on John Bolton

John Bolton Interview

[introspective]

Well, I'm looking for someone good, someone smart and I am tired of the fare that we've been served lately, every single one of them have come out of the same school they're all milktoasty, and I'm looking for someone a little bit more representive of America

Why doesn't Madeleine Albright run? She's such a genius I really enjoy listening to her, she is insightful, thoughtful, is a good listener and her comments are real and not 'sound-bitey'.

[RPI Epeeist]

Originally Posted by introspective

Well, I'm looking for someone good, someone smart and I am tired of the fare that we've been served lately, every single one of them have come out of the same school they're all milktoasty, and I'm looking for someone a little bit more representive of America

Why doesn't Madeleine Albright run? She's such a genius I really enjoy listening to her, she is insightful, thoughtful, is a good listener and her comments are real and not 'sound-bitey'.

Why not Madeleine Albright? ... Why not Arnold Schwarzenegger?

No but I agree... I think she's very good. We just don't allow foreigners to run for president... yet

[introspective]

That must count for something!!!

The Governor of California has probably NOTHING [ ] in common with Ms. Albright. I even like her name, All - Bright. She's smart and her family is smart. I don't think of her as being either a liberal or conservative, as she acted as Secretary of State, I think she has broad perspective and worldview. Besides, I don't get the feeling that she was ever a heavy drinker, maybe a sip of vino every once in a while.


Please!!! There must be a way for Ms. Albright to run!

[RPI Epeeist]

There IS a way... but it involves a time machine and a 1937 boat ticket to the US... anyone got a time machine?

Or I guess we could just pass a law about... but I think the time machine idea is easier.

[fences_like_a_lemur]

"Anyone but Hillary
2008"

The best bumper sticker I've ever seen...