Should Americans also be allowed to elect their Vice-President? Even if that makes a bipartisan ticket?
826555
If I'm not mistaken, the runner-up (person with the second-most electoral votes) used to be made Vice-President and that proved disastrous, so they scrapped that rule. (?)
673480
It does not scare me that a Democrat could become President, and I am a conservative Republican. What scares me is one of the ones constantly mentioned as a possible Democratic candidate (Hillary, Kerry, etc) could become President. I vote in terms of best person for the job. I do not inherently vote party lines. But these ones constantly being mentioned, especially Hillary Clinton, are uber-liberal whack jobs. It would indeed harm the country.
555996
If the right person was running as a 3rd party candidate for any of the offices, I'd vote for them.  \n\nIt would have to be a viable 3rd party candidate unlike the ones we've had in the past, like Nader and Perot.\n\nIf the person supported my views, I'd vote for 'em.
596040
Yes. I think citizens should have to pass a simple test to vote. As an example, for a national election you should have to be able to name at least one of your State's Senators and the current President. Ever watch Jay Leno's Jay Walk bit. It's really an eye opener.
317094
No, I would not because of the electoral college system.  The electoral college system already skews democratic votes into a system that favors smaller states (the "Great" compromise).  As such, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands would then complicate an already skews the system for electing national representatives.  Thus, you would have to come up with a way the electoral college handles US territories with representatives. \n\nMoreover, the constitutional makes clear that senators can be no fewer than 2 and must come from a state.  Thus, the only way to limit them (assuming that they become a state) to 1 senator is to amend the constitution.\n\nHowever, keep up the big thinking as it is the only way improvement happens.  As Bobby Kennedy used to say, "Some people see things as they are and say 'why'.  I dream things that never were and ask 'why not'."
820707
Yes.  But the key to the future is "proportional representation."  Look for it online.  Instead of majority rule taking all, voters are guaranteed representation proportional to the membership of their party, similar to representation by state or district. \n\nVoter turnout increases when people's votes count toward representation no matter how big or small.  \n\nI believe in adding representation based on party affiliation.  So there could be a Senate with two reps per group, and a House based on reps per population or membership.  Since some people may be affiliated with more than one, any group or individual could propose legislation, but decisions would be based on consensus between all parties affected.  So you can legislate for your own party or district; but if legislation affects the greater public, it must be adopted by consent of those affected.\n\nThis would encourage direct participation and representation in government, and help to organize the population by party and by issue.  Policies based on common solutions would invite practical ideas and cooperative support, instead of campaigns that exploit emotions or media stereotypes to manipulate the vote, divide the public, and fuel conflict and debate over problems.\n\nThe government is not a failure but the population has outgrown the current system.  As a society we have developed the technology and communication to localize government and to organize by interest so that groups no longer need to compete for power.  Solutions will come from cooperation between groups. So that is where government is heading, based on expanding on the current model we have for checks and balances between the various branches and levels.
231197
There's a problem with your suggestion. It'll allow third parties to get in the mix and win seats. Unfortunately, since Congress is controlled by Dems and Repubs, none of them will vote in favor of it. I like the idea, but it won't pass through Congress.
914485
Forunately we live in a nation where we don't have to pick either/or. . .we can have both.  Hillary for President, Barrack for Vice President or Barrack for President & Hillary for VP.  It would be nice to have a female president though.
74237
Always has, always will.  We must all learn to operate with a more sophisticated understanding of the American use of the term "democracy" in the first instance.  It doesn't mean (and has never meant) that everyone has an equal say in how things get done.  If that were true, we would all have equal access to our elected representatives.  We do not.  Look at the impact of lobbyists, special interests groups, political action committees, and cronyism on our governmental processes.  It's naive to think that we all have a say.  Still, it is important, as individuals, to remain involved in the process and to let our public officials know how THEY can best serve OUR needs.  When enough of us speak in concert, those who listen stay in office; those who don't don't.
84908
It's not likely for a couple of reasons.  First, campaign finance laws rig the system in favor of Demopublicans and Republicrats.  Second, if an issue championed by a small, independent party becomes big enough, one of the two major parties will take it over as their own.\nMore Americans should register as Independents - that's the American way to vote!
387258
The US was designed as a representative democracy, not an ideal democracy.  Thus we have representatives to vote for us in national elections.\n\nThat being said, the electoral college does have flaws and should be modified or eliminated.  But then so should the 2-per-state Senate, don't you think? Kind of bizarre when someone in Rhode Island is 100 times better represented in Congress than someone in California.
929647
I think this happened in the first presidential elections?\nOne problem with this idea would be a lack of continuity.  Say a republican president dies and on the same day a democrat takes over with extremely different views on foreign policy, the military, homeland security, and social structure within the country (sometimes the difference is not that great, but it could be) - it would really go for a radical break from what people voted for in a president.  I realize they would have voted for the VP too, but it wouldn't normally have been with the thought in mind that he was likely to become president.\nThen another problem:  Could it encourage political extremists to assassinate a president in order to further their own political agenda?  Right now it would not be worth it.  For instance, who would want to assassinate Bush, and have Cheney for president?  Not likely.
451392
Simply, we have a constitution that states we have a president.  It is possible to change it, but understand that throughout the world, we have one of the most stable elected government.  We have two choices because we have two major political parties.  There has been other parties with different platforms, but those platforms were absorbed by the major parties.  Having too many parties is not good.  Just like having too many choices.
270008
Yes but the "two-headed monster" won't let it happen. It's much more than the debates. look at your local states laws and see what any 3rd party or independant candidate has to do to get on the ballot and compare with what the GOP/Dems have to do.\n\nBut it all goes back to the American people. They are willing to accept the mediocrity of the two party system, so they get what they deserve.
738677
No, its unlikely to happen, unfortunately.  It was mostly a politcal tactic to get conservatives out and voting.  There was a move a while ago, but Pelosi recently said that the Democratic House would try to reach across party lines.  Given that statement, and the fact that a move to impeachment would probably hurt the democrats politically, its unlikely, I think.\n\nBooger: you do realize that the vice president is impeachable?  A move to impeach Bush would likely impeach Cheney as well since he has had such an active role in Bush's policy.  Even if Cheney did become President, liberals should look at that as a good thing.  Cheney is not nearly so charismatic as Bush, and would be completely unable to pass a conservative agenda.  Bush's strength is in his role as cheerleader.  Cheney's strength is in his role behind the scenes.  Impeaching only Bush and making Cheney president would actually be desriable from a liberal perspective, I think.
418315
Neither, I think the line is somewhere in between all of the party's ideas.  But, there is something I want to say...Republican, Democrat, or whatever you are, we should support our President and his decisions.  Even if we don't agree, we as a whole United States voted for him.  Now that he's in term, it's not about ourselves as singles-it's about us as a United States.
1023353
No way!  I will probably NEVER vote a straight party ticket. You should evaluate each individual on their own merit before voting for them.