US Presidency

[SodiumChloride]

If I'm correct, not American here, every 4 years the people of the US elect a President and a Vice President. A President can run for re-election at the end of his first term, but not his second consecutive term.

While this system prevents dictatorships, it has one flaw, every 4/8 years a "complete noob" becomes President.

Why not a system where you guys elect several Vice Presidents (which may be from different political parties) every 4 years and from that pool of Vice Presidents (who have served at least 4 years as VP) you elect the President where the President will serve 4 years and will not be consecutively re-electable. This way all Presidents will have at least 4 years experience in the Executive branch.

[select20]

If I'm correct, not American here, every 4 years the people of the US elect a President and a Vice President. A President can run for re-election at the end of his first term, but not his second consecutive term.

While this system prevents dictatorships, it has one flaw, every 4/8 years a "complete noob" becomes President.

Why not a system where you guys elect several Vice Presidents (which may be from different political parties) every 4 years and from that pool of Vice Presidents (who have served at least 4 years as VP) you elect the President where the President will serve 4 years and will not be consecutively re-electable. This way all Presidents will have at least 4 years experience in the Executive branch.

No system is perfect. I can agree and disagree with you because there is good that could come from this, and bad. Let just say the US did implement this. The first time a mistake happened, there would be an uproar about how we should've not changed anything, blah blah blah. I'm an American, I love my country, but I'm a bit bitter when it comes to the government. Things that have happened since Clinton was out of Office, had just slowly made me lose trust. It's not just one thing in particular, but the fact that things haven't really gotten better since Clinton.

If you ask me, I don't believe any small changes can fix the US. I believe the problem is now more than just the government, but also with the people and their, "I deserve everything" attitude. So many government systems waste so much money because of all the Equal Rights, Human Rights, Feminists, etc. Now am I against these people? No, but the ones that take advantage of the system are the ones that piss me off. I hate to say it, but I believe things would have to completely crash before we could fix anything.

Now back to your thought. The problem with our presidents now, you have to be extremely rich to be a president. You wont' see a middle class guy running for president. If you have rich friends, you have a better chance. If we make a merit system based on people with experience, all it will do is modify the system that is already in place. And the system in place is broken. An example would be, even our voting system isn't working right. Presidents buying votes, popular vote can't even win, as we saw back a few years ago.

TLR
The system to too broke to work right. Sure it hobbles along, but to make any kind of big improvement, I think we would have to scrap everything we currently have and start from scratch.

[Aldred]

The vice president's job is a LOT different from the president's job. I know what you're saying about a new president being a noob at that job, but it's not like they weren't all governors/senitors/congressmen before and they'll have a ton of advisors and other staff to keep them straight anyway. I don't think a president being new to the job is the biggest thing to worry about there.

[Catta]

If I'm correct, not American here, every 4 years the people of the US elect a President and a Vice President. A President can run for re-election at the end of his first term, but not his second consecutive term.

While this system prevents dictatorships, it has one flaw, every 4/8 years a "complete noob" becomes President.

Why not a system where you guys elect several Vice Presidents (which may be from different political parties) every 4 years and from that pool of Vice Presidents (who have served at least 4 years as VP) you elect the President where the President will serve 4 years and will not be consecutively re-electable. This way all Presidents will have at least 4 years experience in the Executive branch.

Because electing from a pool of VPs would make the choices even more ridculously narrow i would imagine.

The president isnt doing all the jobs - he has an executive function. When in doubt - delegate.

[Schmeebs]

Because that's not how the constitution is written.

Changing election practices like that would take an amendment to the constitution, and considering how the US congress can barely pass a resolution to buy toothpaste that's not gonna happen.

[Masark]

a "complete noob" becomes President.

Not really. Presidents have a bit of a tendency to either be former VPs or former governors.

14 out of 44 presidents were previously VPs
10 more were previously governors
3 were Secretary of State and another 2 held other cabinet positions
5 were military commanders
2 were ambassadors
And the remainder were either senators or house reps

[Rukentuts]

If I'm correct, not American here, every 4 years the people of the US elect a President and a Vice President. A President can run for re-election at the end of his first term, but not his second consecutive term.

While this system prevents dictatorships, it has one flaw, every 4/8 years a "complete noob" becomes President.

Why not a system where you guys elect several Vice Presidents (which may be from different political parties) every 4 years and from that pool of Vice Presidents (who have served at least 4 years as VP) you elect the President where the President will serve 4 years and will not be consecutively re-electable. This way all Presidents will have at least 4 years experience in the Executive branch.

The VPs don't do much by comparison.

[Vyadore]

Because electing from a pool of VPs would make the choices even more ridculously narrow ...

The choices are almost that narrow now. If you think anyone has more of a chance than Hillary Clinton to win the democratic nomination or a Cruz/Ryan to win the republican nomination (at this point) you probably aren't watching the play being performed right now.

Notice Ryan standing prominenty with the dems to show moderation? Notice Cruz going of half-cocked at every opportunity to look more conservative than anyone else? And Hillary...notice good ole Bill throwing Obama under the bus on healthcare?

The choices are pretty narrow right now.

[SodiumChloride]

Yes, I know the VP's job is a lot different from the President's, but at the very least he/she is in the loop.

The learning curve will be smaller and there will be less setting of unrealistic expectations during election campaigning since he/she knows what is really going on at the highest level - and the other candidates who are his equal as VPs themselves could call him/her on his/her BS.

[Xeones]

Not really. Presidents have a bit of a tendency to either be former VPs or former governors.

14 out of 44 presidents were previously VPs
10 more were previously governors
3 were Secretary of State and another 2 held other cabinet positions
5 were military commanders
2 were ambassadors
And the remainder were either senators or house reps

This, not to mention they surround themselves with people who can offset any lack of political expertise they may have.

[belfpala]

The VPs don't do much by comparison.

Presidents don't really do much either. Mostly it's just picking some good staffers, saying yes/no to who they suggest as advisers, and then saying yes/no to what your advisers say. Being The President is more about charisma than anything else. At least, that's my impression.

[Xeones]

Presidents don't really do much either. Mostly it's just picking some good staffers, saying yes/no to who they suggest as advisers, and then saying yes/no to what your advisers say. Being The President is more about charisma than anything else. At least, that's my impression.

Pretty much, though that charisma makes them the defacto leaders of their party in congress. Regardless of how much power the president has he says he wants something to happen and his party typically rallies behind him to make it happen.

[Gheld]

Presidents don't really do much either. Mostly it's just picking some good staffers, saying yes/no to who they suggest as advisers, and then saying yes/no to what your advisers say. Being The President is more about charisma than anything else. At least, that's my impression.

This.

A President head of state doesn't have the power to table legislation.

A Prime Minister head of state does.

The President can appeal to congress to table certain legislation, but congress is under no obligation to oblige.

[Felya]

Because electing from a pool of VPs would make the choices even more ridculously narrow i would imagine.

The president isnt doing all the jobs - he has an executive function. When in doubt - delegate.

Mondale, Bush and Gore all ran, while Chainy and Quayle were unelectable... It already happens...

[belfpala]

Pretty much, though that charisma makes them the defacto leaders of their party in congress. Regardless of how much power the president has he says he wants something to happen and his party typically rallies behind him to make it happen.

The charisma is also important for getting the general population to get behind some course of action. I mean, like, if I stood up on a podium and said, "hey everyone! we're going to the moon!" in 1960 I would have been laughed at. But if Kennedy did the same thing....

[Kujako]

More then once the VP has been elected after the Presidents second term. What I prefer is the old system where the President and Vice Pres' are not linked in the ballot. So you could get a (D)President and a (R)Vice President and mix things up a little.

[Deleted]

I firmly believe the 8years max. is because they thought presidents couldn't do much lasting damage in these 8 years.

[Slybak]

Experience in executive branch politics, either at the Federal or state level, is not a reliable criteria for effective Presidencies. We've had well-regarded administrations run by Presidents with experience in executive governmental positions and we've had not-so-well-regarded administrations run by the same. Just as we've had Presidents with no or little executive experience who were both effective and ineffective.

Abraham Lincoln was a one-term Congressman from Illinois before he became President, and Franklin Roosevelt was the governor of New York, then the most populous state in the country. Both effective, well-regarded administrations. Warren Harding was a one-term Senator from Ohio, and Richard Nixon was a two-term Vice President. Neither of their administrations are fondly remembered.

[Kujako]

I firmly believe the 8years max. is because they thought presidents couldn't do much lasting damage in these 8 years.

Naw, it's all Franklin D. Roosevelt fault. Had to go and get elected four times... and as a result we have the 22nd amendment to the constitution limiting presidential terms in office. Now if only we could do the same thing for Congress.

[satimy]

The U.S. government is more of a republic than a democracy