When elected presidents owe too many favors to too few people the voters get shafted. If he were drafted  the best of the 50 governors he would have to earn the position and not go into favor debt like they do today. In 1993, Bill Clinton would have been the man drafted president as his state did the best when he took over.  No, King George would not have had a chance. If a governor wanted to be president he would have to move his state up in rankings. No money or favors owed, no lobbyest. You get to be president based on performance as governor and not on lies and promises you know you can't keep.
126487
No.  Then we would have what conspiracy theorist claim we have, a shadow government controlling all of American life
495774
He submitted to governance before he got the truth. Military disregard does not work and he would have been squashed like a bug. I am sure that the Dem's bailed him out. Like that career dem he hired for hired inner circle. Wife Shriver Is a Kennedy and they have action in CA. This may be the first dual party Governor in history.
37790
If it within the confines of existing law I don't have a problem with it. I'm one who believes that president doesn't not have a lot of power. The constitution limited the presidents powers inorder to keep the government in the hands of the people thru it's elected representives. Additionally, the Commander In Chief status(Article II) placed on the president was meant to keep military generals or other officers from taking over the country like we seen happen so many times in other countries ie Cuba, and many African nations.
541781
Agreed. I believe that's what voters are for. I mean, think about it: if the Supreme Court was appointed by his daddy, who do you think they'd give (give being the key word) the presidency to? Even if it took longer, wouldn't it've been a better idea if the whole country just re-voted?
218177
There will always be a president.  Someone always wants the office...many as the ultimate power trip.  Think of it, the fame and power of being the elected head of a country.  Unfortunately, that doesn't mean the brightest and the best...it usually means a wealthy, dishonest, career politician with his own agenda...not a normal, intelligent, middle income john q. public who really cares about the U.S. and the people.  Just my own opinion....
500628
Ulysses S. Grant, poor man, will probably hang on to his worst President ranking for some time to come.\n\nHaving said that, this President has, for all his vaunted business experience, done a particularly crappy job in choosing and managing people.\n\nAnd they, in turn, have done a particularly crappy job in running the Administration.
135632
I think the government could be useful if people like us would just stand up and start doing something.  America needs to start by cutting out this two-party bullshit.  There are only two major parties that get funded by people who get personal favors.  Then, basically we as Americans have few choices when it comes to our leaders.  There just needs to be a shift in national political theory...
207487
They wanted to make George WASHINGTON a king, but he didn't want it. He knew better. He'd be blamed for anything that went wrong anyway, and if his heirs were in power, they would suffer for it. \n\nWhat if the government made a mistake? Or what if the next king was lazy or selfish or cruel? Hereditary government only works if the ruler is responsible. Bad rulers make life hell for the people. \n\nBy the same token, any system of government needs a way of being corrected (or overthrown) if they don't do their job. There is no guarantee that a republic (like America, as the pledge to the flag clearly states) or democracies (like Communist countries) will be any better than the people they are made of. \n\nI am not going to address some of the specific points in your question, because I think you know this already, you are not serious in asking; you are just trying to be thought-provoking.\n\nAs we have seen in our own lifetime, even in Commmunist countries that began with the best of intentions, power acted to preserve itself and the people in power acted to maximize their influence. They began on the assumptions that people were inherently good and willing to share, and that they only needed to be educated. The governments of those nations fell because those are false assumptions.\n\nThey became Communist dictatorships like Cuba, and when they had taken over all the miliatry power so that the people could not revolt directly, there was no other way but to wait until they collapsed internally under the weight of the unrealistic economic predictions of their own system: You see, there were not enough barbarians outside and they had seen to it that they could not generate their own internal barbarians, and so they had to wait until they grew weak enough to collapse at the touch of market forces. \n\nTry talking to someone who lived under a totalitarian regime, and they will tell you how much better America is. Try to call America an oppressive regime and those who have actually lived under them will laugh in your face.
198429
Pay at the pump, that is how George W. wants it. It is just a shame that 1/3 of the people are still fooled by him.
641574
Oh, trust me, I tried, but unfortunately individual votes don't count here as much as people think.  You see, we vote as individuals, then the electoral college gets to cast so many votes per state.  They are supposed to do it by whoever had the majority of votes, but I don't think they do all the time.  It's not actually required.  I think that it would have been an even closer race this last time if it had been by popular vote only.\n\nOf course, we probably could have picked a better Democratic candidate, but I didn't get my way with that one, either.  \n\nAnd we can't just kick out our President.  He can only be impeached, and that impeachment may or may not lead to him being removed from office.  So far, no one has managed to find anything impeachable with this president, although I'm sure it's from lack of real effort among the G.O.P.  Unfortunately, a less than 50% approval rate doesn't mean anything. :-(
620357
All this time, I thought the people (kinda) selected him. W was such a good leader with his savings and loan (sarcasm), and then the Texas Rangers, the brilliant people of Texas decided he should run that state (into the ground) also. After his overwhelming success at that endevour and the difficulty of deciding who was the lessor of two evils for the 2000 presidency, he was elected (albeit, with less votes than his opposition) as the President of the U.S. While Jeb was originally considered the heir apparent, W's ability as a leader overwhelmed the influential leaders of big business. He was perfect; he could sing and dance and do whatever he was told, all the while convincing the American public that everything he did was in their best interest. Increase deficit spending? Yay, let's do; it'll help make our kids work harder. Ignore global warming? Yay, it's too cold in the winter anyhow. Jeb couldn't have done this as well, he was too smart for his own good; maybe even has a mind of his own.
50690
our forefathers set forth in the Constitution how the government was to be run, and leaders selected, which is how we do it today.\n\nYou can't have a country run by everybody individually - leaders must be selected, and through the election process the majority of the population decides who those leaders are.\n\nIt's not a perfect system, but it's a lot better than most.
576937
Government leaders should not be held to piublioc opinion, but the should consider it.  There was a percentage of people thatg oppossed George Wahington during the Revolutionary war.  The same was true zbout Abe Lincoln and the Civil War.  Harry Truman's approval rating were low after he dropped the atomic bomb.  Often, our govenment leaders and members of the administration have more knowledge about incidents than the common man. Express yourself at the voting booth.
185573
I was asking the same question near the end of Bush Sr's term... things are worse now, than they were then, but I have faith that a good leader can turn things around....\nthere could be problems if a good leader isn't elected...
245285
Very good and very idealistic question. One gets to local seats of power by commanding money. You come up with it yourself. No money, no job. Used to be we had political machines, not much of that anymore. Money is king when you have to buy TV time and yard signs. \n\nAfter that, it gets worse. You have to become a senator or governor to get any chance of becoming a Presidential candidate. Look at the pathways to those power posts. \n\nSorry, it has not been possible that I know of since maybe Harry Truman (and even then he had a powerful Kansas City political machine that got him tapped as VP).\n\nNot much equality there. No real people. What is it that Doug Addams said in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Oh, "the job of the president is to distract us from who really runs things." That's right.
536091
Well, you have to be President first. Presidents don't get chased for credit card debts.
500617
The Constitution mandates that the President and Vice President be chosen by Electors (members of the Electoral College). Only the Electoral college vote is used determine who becomes President. There is actually no national popular vote as far as the Constitution is concerned. See Article II and the 12th Amendment. \n\nThe Electors are chosen by the citizens of the states, according to laws established by the states. So, each state determines the formula for how the popular state vote is converted to an electoral vote, and then directs the state's Electors to vote that way.\n\nMost states allocate Electoral votes all-or-nothing, based on which candidate gets the highest number of votes in the state. So, if a candidate gets 51% of the popular votes in a state, that candidate gets 100% of the Electoral votes for that state.\n\nThe problem with the Electoral college is two-fold. First, it results in situations where a person loses the national popular vote, but because of the way the formula is applied ends up getting a majority of Electoral votes.\n\nThe other problem is that the all-or-nothing system effectively locks us into a two-party system, since a candidate must get the majority of votes in a state before ANY of the Electoral votes count. So, in a three-way race, someone could easily get 2/3 of the national popular vote, yet still fall below the threshold in every single state and thus end up with NO electoral votes at all.