Views on the US Constitution

[7ronin]

The U.S. Constitution sets out the form of government for the U.S. so if you talk about one, you pretty much have to talk about the other.

The framers created a document which has been remarkably flexible over the past two hundred plus years. It is just as relevant today as it was when it was created.

The problems with the U.S. form of government have less to do with the Constitution and more to do with a basically two party system, a legislature which increasingly must rely on congressional staffers to do much of the work as the government becomes more complex, and a legislature which has become increasingly more out of touch with the people it purports to represent. My personal view, having had the chance to observe it for a very long time, is that politics on the national level has become more concerned with partisanship and what's good for the party than with what's good for the country. Another thing I've noticed is that we tend to do better when the President is from one party and the Congressinal majority is from the other party.

 

[Syntherio]

I think the form and structure of the US-government is okay, while I prefer a system with a less powerful head of state and with more power for the parliament.
I dislike your indirect electoral system. You vote for electors, which elect the president. And your system has no elements of a proportional representation.
But if I would be used to such a system, my opinion would probably change.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I don't know enough about the workings of the US executive to comment upon the consitution and whether or not it is better or worse than our own Parliamentary system. I imagine that each has it's own points and flaws.

I would ask though whether Americans would prefer a system which allows a President to stay on as long as the populace wants them as opposed to the two term limit. Tony Blair is not the finest Prime Minister, but I would like to be given the option of saying "you're doing a good job, you can stay".

 

[IglooDame]

i think its too resistant to change- updating mainly. Its an excuse for gun culture.

Be mindful that it is that very resistance to change that has kept amendments banning flag burning and gay marriage from becoming the law of the land.

And I also wish that the framers had worded the Second Amendment a bit more clearly.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I think the American system is pretty good - the problem is the dumb yanks opperating under it.

The Electoral College should be abolished, of course. Something should be done about gerrymandering. Those are the obvious things to change that come to midn.

 

[woody60707]

I would ask though whether Americans would prefer a system which allows a President to stay on as long as the populace wants them as opposed to the two term limit. Tony Blair is not the finest Prime Minister, but I would like to be given the option of saying "you're doing a good job, you can stay".

Well I think congress should be held to a two term limit. I remember the GOP being big on this in the 90's,.....so what happen?

And for the Electoral College, I love it, every four years it makes for REALLY entertaining news/drama. Every news man has like 5 charts showing what so and so needs to win. Now if there wasn't an electoral college, presidents wouldn't be trying to woe states, they would just try to win cities. What would seem to lead to New York, Chicago, and LA picking who our next POTUS would be.

 

[7ronin]

I would ask though whether Americans would prefer a system which allows a President to stay on as long as the populace wants them as opposed to the two term limit. Tony Blair is not the finest Prime Minister, but I would like to be given the option of saying "you're doing a good job, you can stay".

I believe that everyone here thinks that eight years is enough. After that it's time for fresh talent and new ideas. And people can and do express their opinions about whether or not the President is doing a good job at the four year point. At one time there was no limit as to how long a President could serve, but after four terms of President Roosevelt I think it was wisely decided that no one should enjoy the possiblity of being President for life.

Be mindful that it is that very resistance to change that has kept amendments banning flag burning and gay marriage from becoming the law of the land.

I think we learned our lesson about too much tinkering with the Constitution when we tried out prohibition.

I think the American system is pretty good - the problem is the dumb yanks opperating under it.

Yes, and some pundits say that we get exactly the leaders we deserve. As for gerrymandering, the party in power is always for it and the party out of power is against it. It's certainly stupid; but I'm not sure what the fix is.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I believe that everyone here thinks that eight years is enough. After that it's time for fresh talent and new ideas. And people can and do express their opinions about whether or not the President is doing a good job at the four year point. At one time there was no limit as to how long a President could serve, but after four terms of President Roosevelt I think it was wisely decided that no one should enjoy the possiblity of being President for life.

But, playing devils advocate , don't you think that the fixed terms make for 'lame duck' presidents? Or Presidents who can freely embark on folly policies which they do not have to reap the consequences of?

TB has announced he is to step down shortly and he's been clinging to his policies and fighting to get anything through ever since.

 

[Grisu]

It's not bad, after all many modern democracies were influenced heavily by it. But for my taste, both Head of State and Parliament hold too much power.

 

[bhsup]

I would ask though whether Americans would prefer a system which allows a President to stay on as long as the populace wants them as opposed to the two term limit. Tony Blair is not the finest Prime Minister, but I would like to be given the option of saying "you're doing a good job, you can stay".

You know the funny thing is that it was implemented after FDR died, who was I'm sure you probably know very popular. I think it was just the fact that ANY President bucked tradition began by Washington and actually ran for more than two terms that gave people the willies.

Personally, I'd just as soon abolish the limit. I'd prefer to have to option to let someone stay if, as you say, "you're doing a good job".

 

[Ayatollah So]

I think the form and structure of the US-government is okay, while I prefer a system with a less powerful head of state and with more power for the parliament.
I dislike your indirect electoral system. You vote for electors, which elect the president. And your system has no elements of a proportional representation.
But if I would be used to such a system, my opinion would probably change.

Well I am used to living under this system, but I agree with everything you've said. Up until the last sentence, that is

Actually, if we followed the Constitution more faithfully, the head of state wouldn't be quite so powerful. For some reason, the Framers thought that Congress would fight back when the President tried to usurp its powers. Ha! We sure showed them!

 

[Brian_B]

I'd be opposed to getting rid of term limits on the Presidency. I honestly just don't trust the American people that much. I'm also considering the fact that we've had some very mediocre presidents and presidential candidates the last several decades. It's good to cycle some new ones in and hope for the best.

 

[Cuivienen]

Now if there wasn't an electoral college, presidents wouldn't be trying to woe states, they would just try to win cities. What would seem to lead to New York, Chicago, and LA picking who our next POTUS would be.

Not really, since those cities combined have less than a tenth of the US population. IIRC more than half of the population lives outside of major urban areas entirely. And why should major population centers be ignored and unpopulous states like New Mexico, Iowa and New Hampshire be the ones deciding the Presidency?

More importantly, people in Wyoming are represented 3.6 times more than people in California in the Electoral College. That doesn't sound like "One man, one vote" to me.

Wyoming: 170,000 people per Electoral vote (510,000 people/3 votes)
California: 615,820 people per Electoral vote (33,870,000 people/55 votes)

That is horribly unfair and horribly undemocratic.

(If you want an example where a Republican states loses out to a Democratic state, look at Vermont and Texas.)

The other interesting problem with the electoral college is that you can theoretically win the Presidency (in a two-person election) with around 25% of the vote - win just barely over half of the vote in the 11 most populous states.

 

[IglooDame]

Not really, since those cities combined have less than a tenth of the US population. IIRC more than half of the population lives outside of major urban areas entirely.

More importantly, people in Wyoming are represented 3.6 times more than people in California in the Electoral College. That doesn't sound like "One man, one vote" to me.

Wyoming: 170,000 people per Electoral vote (510,000 people/3 votes)
California: 615,820 people per Electoral vote (33,870,000 people/55 votes)

That is horribly unfair and horribly undemocratic.

(If you want an example where a Republican states loses out to a Democratic state, look at Vermont and Texas.)

The other interesting problem with the electoral college is that you can theoretically win the Presidency with around 25% of the vote - win just barely over half of the vote in the 11 most populous states.

I think if you go with least populous states rather than most populous, you can get it even lower than 25%, and come in third, to boot.

 

[Cuivienen]

I think if you go with least populous states rather than most populous, you can get it even lower than 25%, and come in third, to boot.

Well, the threshold is much lower in an election where there are more than two serious contenders. You could win 34% of the vote in the 11 most populous states, then, and end up with total votes lower than Ross Perot, who failed to win any electoral votes at all.

 

[bhsup]

As I have stated before, the States elect the President, not the people. 50 sovereign States banded together under a united federal, not national, government.

The purpose of the election in November is to determine how each State will vote, with one unified voice, in the electoral college. Personally, I'd prefer one State-one vote, but I'm also not too keen on messing with a system that has worked pretty well for over 215 years.

 

[7ronin]

But, playing devils advocate , don't you think that the fixed terms make for 'lame duck' presidents? Or Presidents who can freely embark on folly policies which they do not have to reap the consequences of?

Well, you don't have to be a lame duck to embark on a "folly" policy as we have recently discovered.

Every President will eventually be a lame duck. Whether that President is successful or unsuccessful in a last term depends on such a very wide range of factors that I don't think that being a lame duck is even close to being the overriding one. If we look at the history, some Presidents have done very well in a last term while others have bombed.

 

[aussieboy]

In my view, the only thing wrong with the US Constitution (I live in the US) is the fact that districting is left to the state legislatures, who will gerrymander it as much as possible. But, as that is a state matter, no amount of howling by the Feds can change anything

 

[Xanikk999]

I think it sucks.

You probably dont even know our constitution... Just guessing though.

 

[Cuivienen]

As I have stated before, the States elect the President, not the people. 50 sovereign States banded together under a united federal, not national, government.

The purpose of the election in November is to determine how each State will vote, with one unified voice, in the electoral college. Personally, I'd prefer one State-one vote, but I'm also not too keen on messing with a system that has worked pretty well for over 215 years.

Pah. For someone talking about federalism, you sound pretty anti-Federalist to me. The United States is a republic, not a dictatorship by the states. A Republic elects its officials and does not allow a selected body to elect them for it.

One state, one vote is the most disgusting travesty of democracy I have ever heard.

(And I bet you wouldn't support it if the liberal states outnumbered the conservative ones.)