This is a continuation of my other post. I recommend reading that one before delving into this one for a better understanding of what we might hope to accomplish. In this post I would like to focus on what we would change or add to the title of presidency under our new constitution. Is there any main grievances or problems you have you would like to be fixed?
Monsieur
Take away his ability to “police“ world affairs as a simple one. Now tell me your though on this but do you think that there should be a way where the senate for a span of 2-4 months at a time give powers of a dictator to deal with massive serious issues that need immediate action to the president, where it would to 3/4 of the senate to give the president that power. This being mainly on the idea that desperate time calls for desperate measures.
I do believe a measure like that should be in place, especially in times of defensive war or outright economic catastrophe. We would just need to put measures in place, so the dictator in worst case scenario doesn't abuse of his power and tries dismantling the Senate or some other form of permanent government takeover.
I had the idea where the President could serve a one limit term of 10 years. This would give him enough enough time to enact any long term policies without having to worry about his next reelection campaign like Social Security reform or budget cuts and management. Every quarter (2 years and 6 months) he would have to answer before the Senate and House, where they would evaluate his work and progress (essentially the same as any regular job evaluation). Then they would decide whether to keep him or not through a process similar to a vote of no confidence (In the case of the Senate 70 votes would be needed in order to remove him from office). If he is still kept, it would still serve as information for what he is doing right and what he may need to improve. These quarter reports could also serve as a more objective measure of a president's performance in the long run of history. The main point of this would be both efficiency and accountability, which is something the office of president is seriously lacking right now.
The real question is do we keep full franchise democratic elections for the President, or do we change it by restricting the vote to select type of people or outright leaving the democratic way of choosing the President?
I’d say that the president shouldn't be democratically elected. They’re should differently be requirements. strict so that spiteful idiots don’t vote for some power hungry dumbass. Although to strict and there’s gonna be some resentment. This would be mainly to weed out a part of the population that has no idea what there voting for, or if the only thing they know there voting for is more free stuff. What do you think should be more specific restrictions. Should there be a poll tax.
@Lukdnuke I am not sure about a poll tax personally (not saying it absolutely couldn't work, just saying I have some reservations.) I was thinking instead of democratic elections, the new senate created in my other post could elect the president (I am thinking either 70 or 75 votes needed). This would ensure some congressional support for the President moving forward.
While the House may not be part in electing the President, they can still be the ones to issue grievances to the president and the institution the president would mainly answer to during his "Presidential Quarter Evaluation". They would be the ones to start the process of "vote of no confidence" if needed.