Play with this thought with me. What if our elections were (more) temporary and had to be ratified a year later? There would be no sense in doing that with governors or the House of Representatives, which are already only two years. But Senators and presidents, we get to do a redo a year in. First terms only.
Looking at presidential approval ratings as a proxy, it looks like Truman, Carter and Reagan would be marginal but survive, Clinton 50-50, and both Obama and Trump would be out. That's not necessarily reality, however, as each of them would have to run against someone, and as we saw in 2016, that matters a lot. The serious third-party impact of Ross Perot also makes 1992 even more unpredictable.
I will concede it a net negative to have an even longer campaign season. I have also not thought through the elite media and general PR implications of "how long can you lie and keep up the appearance" for such events as framing Donald Trump about Russia without serious media scrutiny. It would also change the territory for protests. Maybe those would be worse, maybe better.
No fair speculating why this is occurring to me just now.
None of my usual haunts have noted the passing of the great Dusty Hill.
On the question, voting is little more than a ceremonial tradition any more. The parties (which are criminal organizations that happen to be legal) have an absolute lock on candidates, the media (which are corporations and have no loyalty to anything other than the bottom line) have an absolute lock on coverage and spin, and the legal system is deliberately gummed-up to the advantage of lawyers. (Leave aside that the American people are in general poorly-educated and not too bright.)
I will continue to don my voter's sash and tiara on election day, but it's all mummery.
Things will improve only after a revolution, or a miracle.
Maggie's Farm linked the Dusty Hill story
Since the campaigns are effectively that much longer, the fund-raising will be that much longer. It is hard to imagine candidates more beholden to their party and their backers, but that would be the way to arrange for it.
Do you mean like a parliamentary vote of 'no confidence', but the question is put to a general election instead of to Congress?
I hadn't thought of it that way, but that's closer to my thinking than the way I put it.
Credit where due, of course--but Maggie's Farm is (no offense!) not a regular haunt.
Not sure how many gubernators get two-years, but that doesn't sound like enough time to get a handle on things for some states, and votes of confidence have evolved, in a way, out of our impeachment law.
What happens if the current office holder loses? Is this just a more formal popularity poll, or are they actually out of office? If they are replaced, how is that person selected? Another general election or something run concurrently with the other vote like the current California recall? How do you handle the resulting short term relative to various Constitutional provisions?
Given that the President is limited to two terms anyway, unlike Senators, I'm not sure what you gain relative to the extended campaign and the reduction in Presidential authority in the first year.
Buyer’s remorse, you say? C’est dommage.
After Trump won both the primar and the general you still think it's all smoke and mirrors?
What about just having shorter terms in general? No fear of lame duck presidents if the term is only a year or two.
Rome was great-- maybe we should have Consuls and Praetors with limited terms and powers . . .
There's nothing to be gained by noodling around the edges, IMO.
Every few centuries some Roman or Byzantine emperor would have to purge and reform the bureaucracy and the legal system by "digest"--leaving 90% of the accumulated rules and regulations behind in the hope of reviving a stagnating system.
To a degree, the country and the international system are both at that stage.
In my opinion, the best way to avoid the political buyer's remorse is to impose term limits and eliminate this infernal long-term influence peddling and politician enrichment scheme. The excuse that political longevity means continuity and better policy is absurd on the present-day self-evident face of it.
"I will concede it a net negative to have an even longer campaign season. I have also not thought through the elite media and general PR implications of "how long can you lie and keep up the appearance" for such events as framing Donald Trump about Russia without serious media scrutiny. It would also change the territory for protests. Maybe those would be worse, maybe better."
As I keep saying, I don't KNOW if the media is/are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, or if it's the other way round, but it's OBVIOUS that they are in CAHOOTS, and sleep in the same beds.
A no confidence vote just doesn't work in our system where the executive and legislature are selected by separate ballots. In a parliamentary system, which I am defining as one where the chief government executive is selected by the legislature, there are often compensating features. Until recently the British Parliament had no fixed end date which meant the PM's term didn't either, and there is still no limit on how long a PM can serve. On the other side, if the PM thought *a majority in Parliament* had lost support of the country, a snap election could be called to reorder Parliament, though this has been changed by the same act that fixed Parliament to 5 year terms. No confidence votes are not scheduled but arise from the usual ebb and flow of business in a deliberative body as circumstances change. Finally, a no confidence vote will usually result in a change of PM but it may not result in an election if another leader can secure the support of Parliament and the head of state. This method of changing executives is unavailable in our system. The knock-on effects of this proposal would require fundamentally reordering our entire Constitutional system.
I was thinking of a whole new election, not a no-confidence. My aim is to get rid of someone the electorate now thinks is failing. People have pointed out the complications of that quite well. As with most things, simple solutions may overlook important unintended effects.
As to term limits, I had seen the proposal - I think it was even a competitive debate topic thirty years ago - that we elect the president for one six-year terms. I eventually was convinced that it isn't better overall, but it does have advantages.
The CS President got a single six year term. That was one of only a few changes from the US model.
Some states have recalls. Did that get mentioned already?
Post a Comment