We may spend some of 2007 and much of 2008 discussing candidates for President of the United States. But what if we lost the right to vote for President?

Actually, we do not have that right to begin with! All fifty states, under no requirement to do so, permit their registered voters to cast a vote for President.

What if this privelege were lost? What if your state decided to do things another way? And (Gerald Ford comes to mind) what if a President were chosen in an entirly different manner?

I'd love to toss even the most seemingly preposterous notions around if we are so inclined. Be bold in your thinking.

And no contravention of the rules! Karrow is boiling the curare for her moderator arrows for those who don't behave.

" What if you couldn't vote for President?"

"What if your state decided to do things another way?"

I'd feel terrible. It would be like I was somehow transported to one of those places where only the select few get to decide for the rest of the people, like the old Soviet Union, or Florida or Ohio - too horrifying to think about.

Illinois' way of doing things is much more voter-friendly. Nothing, not even death, can stop an Illinoisan from voting.

quote:

What if this privelege were lost?

It kind of give you that feeling now since all votes are not counted. Having the privilege, and your vote being counted, goes hand in hand.

But to answer the question, if the privilege was lost, I'd feel violated. We might be headed in that direction, though.

If the U.S. citizens lost their voting priviledges, the government would eventually fall.

One of the reasons there used to be so many "golpes de estado (coups)" in Latin America was the fact that even though people could vote, the results were already decided by a small group of people. Now that elections and the results are internationally monitored, you rarely hear about "golpes."

DD

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Illinois' way of doing things is much more voter-friendly. Nothing, not even death, can stop an Illinoisan from voting.

Are you saying that even the dead vote!

DD

quote:

Originally posted by doñadiana:

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Illinois' way of doing things is much more voter-friendly. Nothing, not even death, can stop an Illinoisan from voting.

Are you saying that even the dead vote!

DD

You know the old saying in Chicago: "Vote early and often."

I thought the electoral college is the one who has the deciding vote anyway. It isn't about the popular vote across the country- it is based on which candidate won which states. It isn't about one person and one vote. I never liked that.

In parliamentary systems, citizens don't vote for Prime Minister - parliament does! This is usually the individual who heads the party with the most power. Does that affect anyone's thinking? What if Congress chose the President? How would your concept on balance of power affect your thinking?

In North Carolina, our votes register only if the machine is not gummed up with grease and barbecue sauce.

You can vote all you like. It's not going to change a thing. At least, in the U.S. I believe the past 2 Pres. elections have made that academic, if there was ever any doubt before.

Your so-called "vote" is just for show. That's all. Presidents are not elected any more. They are selected. Sorry to break the bad news to you.

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:

In parliamentary systems, citizens don't vote for Prime Minister - parliament does!

Or you could try the French system.The President is elected by direct popular vote. He chooses his cabinet, including his Prime Minister. The lower house of the parliament has the right to revoke the whole cabinet, including the Prime Minister. That ensures that the Prime Minister has the support of the majority of the lower house.

French government

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FredPuli:
Or you could try the French system.The President is elected by direct popular vote.[QUOTE]

DIRECT POPULAR VOTE!!! Why that ain't no way to elect a President

Why if we done that, the the will of the voters might actually mean something. That would be downright un-American

<------faints as he realizes that he and LR agree on something again

Would a parliamentary type system in the USA currently produce either Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi as Prime Minister? While both are strong party people I do not see either as a better result than our current system.

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:
Would a parliamentary type system in the USA currently produce either Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi as Prime Minister? While both are strong party people I do not see either as a better result than our current system.

Not necessarily.Remember that the election campaign of each party is led by the man or woman who leads it. That person must be someone who appeals to the electorate. It's no good the party picking a 'party man' who can't win the election.Next time around our contest will be between Gordon Brown's Labour Party and David Cameron's Conservative Party.

You have to envisage a presidential campaign between the leader of the Conservatives and the leader of the Labour Party, where the winner becomes the (de facto) head of state.The difference here is that the Prime Minister isn't going to spend the next years arguing with his parliament every time he wants some law passed !If he wins, his party has won and his party will have a majority in his 'congress', Parliament.

And the electorate knows what he can do and how good he is. He's spent the last few years, at least, in the spotlight being questioned and tested by his opponents and the media every day of his working life.Everything he says and does is under constant scrutiny. He's a national figure, not some governor or senator known only in his own state.If his party is in government he'll have been either Prime Minister or in the cabinet, responsible for some part of government and tested on that. If it's been in opposition, he'll have been the Leader of the Opposition, that party's 'shadow' Prime Minister, and normally before that a member of the shadow cabinet. The 'shadows' question and test their opposite number and have the same papers and information as the government has to work with.So they should be ready for government as soon as their party wins an election.Inevitably each such person has had to work their way up, from humble MP to some junior post in government or opposition, to some higher one until they are at full cabinet level, and throughout have been under review and scrutiny of their competence and abilities.For example, Gordon Brown, the current Prime Minister was the finance minister for ten years.

We don't envisage, under our system, picking a man with the same qualities as President George W Bush

The last two presidents we've had in the US with national government experience have been Bush I and Jerry Ford, and neither had what anyone would call a good presidency. (Ford was basically a cheerleader who occasionally yelled "Push'em back" when his team had the ball, and Bush I was elected on the promise of "Read my lips - No New Taxes" which sounded good, but ignored the reality of what was needed, and promptly...raised taxes.) Most Americans agree that since Nixon resigned, we've only had one good president (We just don't agree on which one it was), and he was a governor with no national governmente experience. If you go back to WWII, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Bush I had national government experience, with Ford having the most.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
<------faints as he realizes that he and LR agree on something again

I noticed it rained here last night

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Most Americans agree that since Nixon resigned, we've only had one good president (We just don't agree on which one it was)

Ah, heck, we had two. You don't have to like someone for them to be effective.

In both cases, they may have been their most effective when the opposition controlled Congress. The "Clinton-Newt" combination, as strange as it sounds, defines balance (and resulted in a balanced budget).