What if there were a better way to choose our president?

I saw this on the PBS news a couple of nights ago - interesting concept! I'm a bit skeptical (working in software development) that it could be done without the parties figuring out a way to hack the crap out of the site and render it useless, though.

You would have to convince the people in power to lose much of thier power and transfer it to the people. It won't happen.

I don't see any harm in trying it. Let some fresh faces get in the game and put out some ideas.

CriticalBill wrote: You would have to convince the people in power to lose much of thier power and transfer it to the people. It won't happen.

Exactly, it's like the Democrats trying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Those losing power or control over the people will not play on a level playing field. That's why it's easy for them to bally ho the confiscation of high income households earners than lower income earners - there are not many high income househould earners; therefore it's easy to manipulate than those who don't earn allot.

What about a Smack Down??? LOL

Color me skeptical. I don't think you can nominate anyone to the ballot without factoring in special interests (primarily your own), agendas or partisanship. Were I to participate, clearly I would be seeking to nominate someone who I thought would best serve my interests and my outlook on what the executive of the federal government should or should not be involved in. Wouldn't my nomination therefore be based on my special interest and my agenda?

The very checks and balances a republic needs to thrive are inherent in the party politics. Adversarial negotiations are a critical part of why our system of governance has thrived since it was implemented and only when the loyal opposition has lacked the ability to force a balance has the government been able to force a single ideology upon the citizens of the states to the detriment of the general welfare of the union. Why would the framers insist upon a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress and a 3/4 majority of the states before the Constitution is altered if not to make absolutely certain that the vast majority, rather than a simple majority favor the change? Our system of government is designed specifically to minimize the likelihood of the minority opinion being completely ignored.

No, this idea is a sinister one at its heart. It's intent is to "progress" to the point of eventually choosing the executive by simple majority vote. I've seen many plans to get rid of the Electoral College, this is but the latest one. No thank you. I will choose the messy adversarial process over tyranny of the majority every time.

And the best answer to this is a lessening of the rewards the elected are able to convey to the special interest groups, which would mean reducing rather than continuing to expand the power and scope of the federal government. The reason they sold out is contained within the quotes of Jefferson you provided in another thread in this forum - the consolidation of governing power into a single entity rather than continuing to allow the state governments to hold the authority over the domestic affairs of their citizens as intended by the Constitution.

FWIW, I agree with you that the adversarial nature intended in the Constitution between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government has been lost over the last 70 or 80 years, which is why we are seeing an increase in the corruption and despotism of the federal government. Senators no longer represent their state, they represent their party. Members of the House no longer represent the citizens of their district, they too represent their party. By allowing the party to choose a single candidate to represent them on the ballot at election time, we strengthen their power in all of these areas as well.

There is indeed a better way to choose a president, and Senators, and House members. Get rid of party tickets for the executive branch of government by repealing the 12th Amendment and do away with the caucus/primary system that prevents more than a single candidate from each party appearing on the ballots for other offices. If we want the best executive, the best congressional representatives, we have to stop allowing the parties to narrow down our choices on the ballot ahead of time. The whole caucus/primary system is designed to provide for the election of the best representative of the party ideology, not the best representative of the people themselves. Get rid of the power the parties have accumulated in the process of choosing representatives by allowing them to reduce to one member the number of people from their party appearing on the ballot. Who would have gotten all the union special interest money in the last election if Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Biden all appeared on the ballot for president? Who would the evil corporations have backed if forced to choose between McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Paul? Would most of us even know who Sarah Palin was under this scenario?

Quite honestly, the whole primary/caucus system is what perpetuates us constantly having to choose between the lesser of 2 evils on election day. Power divided is power checked - it is the ultimate safety from absolute power corrupting absolutely. If you truly want to have a better way of choosing a president, the first step is eliminating the 12th Amendment; the second would be the abolishing of the primary/caucus system that results in party tickets; and the third step would be requiring that the EC votes be cast according to individual district results with the winner of that getting both votes represented by the 2 Senators each state has. This would get us back to choosing the best possible person instead of the best representative of a party to serve in government.

This all sounds about as corrective as it can be. Unfortunately, it has to be legislated into place... and I can't think of anybody from either party who is going to stand up and make it happen for the sake of the American people - except maybe those troublesome Tea Partyers, who seem to be the only ones listening AND standing on principle.