Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Podgorny]

I normally steer clear of the political stuff here, but since it's been quiet for the past few months, I figure this couldn't hurt.  Besides, there are people here far smarter than me, so I'd love to get their opinions.

Anyway, this article showed up in my iGoogle "top news" box.  

While reading the ridiculous finger-pointing, I started wondering whether four years seemed like the right amount of time for a president to hold office.  When the length of the President's term was determined, it took 50-odd days to cross the atlantic, and even longer to move throughout the length of the original thirteen states .  I don't think our founding fathers could have fathomed the speed at which our modern world runs (or is capable of running).

So rather than allowing buffoons with ulterior motives four years to run the country and military nearly unchecked, would it be better to have a yearly "performance review"?  Approval ratings indicate that Bush would've been ousted less than a year into his second term, and I doubt anyone here would've been unhappy about that.

Plus, decreasing the amount of time any "side" has in office should keep the public-opinion pendulum from swinging so far to the left or right (which seems to be the case since Bush Sr. Maybe longer.)

So, any thoughts?

[Barry Hufker]

Four years seems enough time to accomplish something without "wearing out your welcome" and soon enough to get rid of someone if it isn't working out.  We just happen to have had a bunch of stupid voters who didn't realize things weren't working out when they gave Bush a second term.  You have to remember, it was our Supreme Court who gave him the first one...

Things aren't going to change on this score...

Barry

[grantis]

You bring up an interesting point.  However, it seems that it can take a couple of months to get anything moving through the political process...ie...passing a bill through the house and senate...the inevitable veto if the wrong party is in power in either house....trying to sway moderates to vote the other way for a 2/3 vote to over turn a veto....blah blah blah....  Then it can take months for the new law to be put in place in local, county, and state governments...much less see an effect.  1 year isn't enough time to see the real effects of a new president.

House reps are up for re-election every 2 years...I think maybe we could hold and "oust" vote every 2 years or something.  Not necessarily a full election, but see if the country hates how the president is doing and wants him "ousted".  Then if he gets a majority "oust" vote, make him/her ineligible for re-election....

That's all just crazy talk.

[Podgorny]

grantis wrote on Sun, 24 May 2009 00:12

1 year isn't enough time to see the real effects of a new president.

Based on the four-year term, no.  But if you knew you were up for review, wouldn't you do your best to make sure the voters were happy?  And ultimately, isn't it about the voters?

It would be like pre-election ALL THE TIME.  Except, of course, that we'd be choosing a person based on what they're actually doing, rather than what they say they're going to do.
And since it would be such a regular occurance, being involved with or at least paying attention to politics would be easier, because we'd always be talking about it.

I just get the feeling that if our government were more plastic, there would be less room for backroom deals and crooked politics.

[PookyNMR]

Four years is how long it takes to campaign for the next election.

[MDM,]

doesn't make much difference if it 4 years or 4 months..

as long as there are two parties controlled and financed by the rich and powerful old-money earthlings there will be NO possibility of accountability for the president's action.

you need a real alternative.. real competition .. real negative feedback from the media.

[mgod]

The parliamentary system which allows for votes of no confidence seems to work fine in a lot of the world - except for Italy of course which has a long tradition of changing governments every 6.2 nanoseconds. But when you think about it, what does government have to do with good food and beautiful women? Government there just seems to be one more of life's many amusements, and its been around for more than 2000 years.

DS

[grantis]

Quote:

I just get the feeling that if our government were more plastic, there would be less room for backroom deals and crooked politics.

A plastic government would also create an image of instability among other world leaders.  Right now, the US is still seen as a good, stable place to live, no matter how much some countries might hate the US.

[MDM,]

mgod wrote on Sun, 24 May 2009 11:06

The parliamentary system which allows for votes of no confidence seems to work fine in a lot of the world - except for Italy of course which has a long tradition of changing governments every 6.2 nanoseconds. But when you think about it, what does government have to do with good food and beautiful women? Government there just seems to be one more of life's many amusements, and its been around for more than 2000 years. DS

in the early 90's telephones in Italy still worked with the electro-mechanical relay system and rotary dialers..

if the first call didn't work, the second one probably would..

I realized that Italy was 30 years behind in it's development in those days.

now things are a bit more up-to-date, but still lagging on..

the way the country is run is very inefficient:

there are thousands of Government Offices, zillions of laws... many of which are ONLY applied if someone in gov. needs to punish a private individual for whatever reasons..

most people who have a decent steady job work for the government.

people buy homes with the money they get when their grandparents pass on, because the average wage here is about the same as the cost of the rent of a small apartment.

there are exceptions, usually tied to old-money who have a family business etc.


the funny thing is that it SEEMS as if the USA is using Italy as a model instead of the other way around..

from my experience here in Italy it seems to me that: big government = class separation, inefficiency, and enslavement of the working classes.

government does not PRODUCE... that's why they need slaves that will work for next to nothing.

[mgod]

But all in all it seems not to interfere with actual quality of life much, assuming that ownership of stuff doesn't define quality of life.

DS

[Daniel Farris]

Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 23 May 2009 21:49

We just happen to have had a bunch of stupid voters who didn't realize things weren't working out when they gave Bush a second term.

The problem I see with most national campaigns is that they're fought to win the favor of the dumbest 10% of the population: the undecided voters.

The vast majority of voters know what they want, be it left or right and, because they can't be swayed, they get summarily ignored during a general election. So we're left with:

"Gee, I just can't decide whether I'm a racist oligarch or not! Convince me."

or

"Well, I'm poor now, but if I was rich, and I probably will be soon, I sure wouldn't want to pay all them taxes."

DF

[PRobb]

I guess I'm OK with four years. The president should have some time to actually try to do something before the next campaign starts. And our campaigns have gotten to be absurdly long.

there are advantages to the Parliamentary system. In addition to votes of no confidence, I like the British Prime Minister's question time. Twitboy the Texas Hatrack wouldn't have survived the first five minutes of his first session.

[mgod]

PRobb wrote on Mon, 25 May 2009 06:30

Twitboy the Texas Hatrack wouldn't have survived the first five minutes of his first session.

Sure he would.

http://homepage.mac.com/c.shaw/BushBulges/PhotoAlbum15.html

DS

[T. Mueller]

grantis wrote on Sun, 24 May 2009 12:50

Quote: I just get the feeling that if our government were more plastic, there would be less room for backroom deals and crooked politics. A plastic government would also create an image of instability among other world leaders.  Right now, the US is still seen as a good, stable place to live, no matter how much some countries might hate the US.

Many other countries have substantially quicker turnaround with their leaders; I don't think I agree with the image that you perceive will be created.

[Edvaard]

Daniel Farris wrote on Mon, 25 May 2009 03:28

The problem I see with most national campaigns is that they're fought to win the favor of the dumbest 10% of the population: the undecided voters. ... "Well, I'm poor now, but if I was rich, and I probably will be soon, I sure wouldn't want to pay all them taxes." DF

As in "Joe the Plumber", for example.

And who is responsible for that?


And who is it that keeps yelling into our face constantly about anything that Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich has to say about the supreme court nominee, or even gives a flip at all what those idiots have to say about anything?


Oh, that's right, the "liberal media", I think it is.

NO ONE cares anything about what these idiots have to say about anything, truth be known, but they make sure that the biggest fools have the loudest voice here.


And ain't that America?

[Taproot]

I'd take 8 years between elections for president, as a trade for term limits in congress.

[Daniel Farris]

Taproot wrote on Thu, 04 June 2009 10:38

I'd take 8 years between elections for president, as a trade for term limits in congress.

I'm not sure how I feel about congressional term limits.

My gut instinct is that I'm not for them, but I realize that an incumbent has an unfair advantage.

I think term limits might be a band-aid on the axe wound of campaign finance. Reform campaign finance, and term limits can take place in the voting booth.

This goes for presidents as well, I would think.

DF

[PookyNMR]

Daniel Farris wrote on Thu, 04 June 2009 11:50

Reform campaign finance, and term limits can take place in the voting booth. This goes for presidents as well, I would think.

I think reforming campaign finance would go far for easing America's political problems and clearing out some corruption.

In Canada - no corporate donations are allowed, personal donations only.  There is a $5000 maximum per person per year.

[PRobb]

PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 05 June 2009 11:19

I think reforming campaign finance would go far for easing America's political problems and clearing out some corruption. In Canada - no corporate donations are allowed, personal donations only.  There is a $5000 maximum per person per year.

That sure sounds like a step in the right direction.

I think term limits are a great idea. And we have the best form of term limits in the world- elections. If the guy sucks, limit his term. Of course, that only works if the electorate pays attention and votes.

[Taproot]

I agree with all of the above. regarding "term limits at the polls", I agree also, but with voter fraud being another major issue that is not going to be easily fixed, I'd much rather see term limits and then chip away at the others. Unlike term limits, you can't fix these problems with one vote.

[PRobb]

Taproot wrote on Fri, 05 June 2009 16:56

I agree with all of the above. regarding "term limits at the polls", I agree also, but with voter fraud being another major issue that is not going to be easily fixed, I'd much rather see term limits and then chip away at the others. Unlike term limits, you can't fix these problems with one vote.

Actually, voter fraud is nothing close to a major issue.

[Edvaard]

PRobb wrote on Fri, 05 June 2009 22:19

Actually, voter fraud is nothing close to a major issue.

Well, some several ex employees of Dieboldt have given testimony otherwise,  but ...

If we are contemplating all this in relation to accountability to voters, it might not hurt to ask just what it is the average voter does to make him/herself accountable to the task of making judgements here to begin with.

Of course, there is the 'vested interest' syndrome, on the one hand, and then the voters who, allegedly, are expected to counter all this by the "information" obtained from the everyday media here.

The same media that pounded the drums for the war.

The same media that says idiotic things like 'Obama makes decision on ex Guantanamo prisoners, disappointing liberals.'

Right.

Whatever preceded that, apparantly all the media cared about was which ideology was 'disappointed' here.

And then just look at the pictures presented to us on Google's main page (or NY times, or Washington Post, etc.)

Some pictures there compete with any gossip tabloid in regards to tastelessness.

So then, if some argument is being made that the folks in office, with their much better information, but with the albatross of vested interests clinging to them all the time, are to be held accountable to a populace or constituency that is dependent on a media that tells them when to go to war or not, and is thirty years behind the times in explaining to anybody about the environment or the simplest of economics, ...

Well, I'm sure that term limits would make both the media and the constituency smarten up right now.

Oh wait, I don't think that was the point being made here.



Oh well, as Churchill said,

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

and


"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

It might be helpful if we did not make our decisions on those in office just after switching from watching 'Idol', to re-runs of 'Good Times', then to CNN or Fox who are both experts at pissing us off in record time, and then say "throw the bums out!"


Just saying.

[YZ]

The idea of a mid-term "renewal of confidence" poll is interesting.

But about shorter terms...  here in my country we suffer from the '4-year syndrome', in which politicians never start any project that would take more than their term to finish, so that he/she can have the most political return from it while the one that comes after him can't reap the political rewards.

This is polluting our Executive in all 3 levels.

Taking into consideration that any major undertaking like infrastructure works usually takes more than 4 years to finish, you can have an idea of how much this 'syndrome' has negatively affected us over the last 25 years (before 1985 we had a military dictatorship that, at least, had long-term plans, despite the negative aspects of being a dictatorship).

So shorter terms for the Executive may result in less efficient administration.