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?
Discussion
As we start a new decade, it is the perfect time for the Republican Party and their subsequent voters to evaluate and reflect on our priorities and the future that lies ahead of us. The current party is a fading shadow of the mighty coalition built in the 80's between the Christian Right , Libertarians, and Cold Warriors (now known as Foreign Policy Hawks or Neocons). This coalition was brought together in large part thanks to the common enemy they had which was totalitarian Communism with the goal of taking over the world and subverting values pertaining to liberty and Christianity. That being said, ever since the cold war ended, for the last 30 years this coalition has been fracturing, with each side having their own diverging and conflicting interests. As the party is headed towards hard times with Texas destined to turn blue in this decade due to changing demographics giving the Democrats a major advantage, we cannot afford to have a divided party. We must build a new stable and powerful Republican coalition able to stand against the Democrats in the turbulent years that lie ahead. The new tripartite coalition I would build for the Republican Party would consist of Libertarians, Nationalists, and to a small extent, Green voters. I will explain the idea. https://www.270towin.com/maps/QNOA2 With Texas going blue, and other states like Florida most definitely to follow, we need to secure more states that to some stable degree we can rely on to vote for our candidate. Besides Minnesota that can join the upper middle states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, and Pennsylvania that Trump secured in the 2016 election, the group of states that we should be focusing on gaining are the New England states. This idea might seem odd if not ridiculous right now considering how consistently these states have voted for the democrats in the last 28 years. Then again the rust belt states had voted entirely democrat for the most part in almost the same amount of time, yet Trump was able to bring them over. (Quick side note, Trump did almost win my home state of New Hampshire with 46.5% of the vote in the last election). New England is a region with large number of Libertarians and Green voters we could appeal to. Elaborating more on the Green voters (voters who want the government to act on replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy), we could appeal to them by offering direct investments into Thorium nuclear reactors and Carbon capture technology plants as well as other forms of tax credits and deregulation for new green technology. This sold to them as a better option in contrast to the democrats carbon tax and stringent regulations that only hurt lower class people and businesses. This can be also sold to Nationalists through the point of energy self sufficiency, as we have seen before how even a powerful country like the US can be made to bleed with things like oil embargoes and attacks on oil refineries (i.e oil shocks of the 70's and most recent attack on the oil refinery in Saudi Arabia). With this new energy self sufficiency we would only one more reason to leave the Middle East, something both Libertarians and most Nationalists want. Please let me know if you have any questions and I can elaborate more on the idea.
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.