Over the last two days I've posted diaries in which I discussed some of what I see are the inherent problems with our system of government in terms of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Because, you know, who better to question the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, the most respected and revered figures in American history, than some guy on a blog?
As Yakov Smirnov used to say, "What a country!" (What ever happened to Yakov Smirnov, anyway? And how about Geri Jewell? Remember her from "The Facts of Life?")
So on to the presidency.
Despite what the current holder of the office seems to think, the president is not (or least, shouldn't be) an absolute monarch, who's every whim and inkling is translated into action as if he were some latter-day Roman emperor. Honestly, I'm waiting for him to start building aqueducts and oversized statues of himself.
But the problem goes beyond George "Dubya" Bush. It's a structural problem, and needs a structural solution.
Get rid of the Electoral College. Honestly, can anyone give me a good reason to keep it? I mean, how can you justify a system where the guy who gets the most votes doesn't necessarily win? You can't, not if you want to call it "fair" or "democratic." Ask Al Gore. Or Samuel Tilden. (In all fairness, Tilden probably won't answer. He's kind of a dick that way.) Try this exercise: Take a group of 30 nine-year-olds and divide them into five unequal groups of, say, 10, 8, 6, 3, and 3. Then tell them that each group has a certain number of "super votes." The group with 10 gets 5, the group with 8 gets 4, the group with 6 gets 3, and the groups with 3 get 1 each, for a total of 14. Now explain to them that they're going to vote to pick either chocolate or vanilla ice cream, but they're going to vote by group, and whichever flavor gets the most votes in a group gets ALL that group's "super votes." The flavor that gets 8 out of 14 "super votes" wins. So, you tell them, even though 18 kids might vote for chocolate and 12 for vanilla, vanilla could still win because it got more "super votes." After you've explained all this, enjoy the few moments of awkward silence that will follow while the children look at you as if you had just suggested in complete seriousness that they all take a shit in their desks. Then try to answer their questions without sounding like an idiot.
Make it so that the president must win with a majority. Once you've gotten rid of the Electoral College (has anyone ever actually graduated from that college, by the way? Just seems fishy to me), that leaves popular election. One man, one vote. Or one woman, one vote. Or one tranny, one vote. This seems much more fair. Under such a system whichever candidate wins a simple majority actually wins. In the event that no one gets a majority, there should be a run-off between the biggest vote-getters whose combined total was over 50%, and just keep doing this until you have a winner.
Alter the machinery for removal of a president. Much of this is borrowed right from Sanford Levinson's book, Our Undemocratic Constitution ($21.84 at Amazon.com). Basically, I suggest that we have something akin to a "no-confidence" vote, whereby a president could be removed not just for "high crimes and misdemeanors," but gross incompetence. Gross incompetence in the White House, you say? Never! But seriously, it could happen. No, really. Now, such a mechanism would have to be difficult to achieve (like impeachment), in order to avoid it being used as a weapon against one or the other party's political enemies. Perhaps a 60% threshold in both houses? Another important step would be removing the speaker of the house from the presidential succession list. Why? Because having one of the major players in any removal (whether impeachment or no-confidence) be a direct beneficiary of that removal is grounds for trouble. Also a good recipe for coup d'etat. (Man, I love coup d'etat with Cool Whip and strawberries. Mmmm.) I know Nancy Pelosi fans will object, but this could just as easily come back to bite us in the ass someday, too. Instead, if a president and vice president were both removed (like there could ever be a time when they were both such douchebags that... oh, yeah. Never mind), then either their party would caucus to choose a successor, subject to congressional approval, or the succession would skip to the Secretary of State and on down the Cabinet. Personally, I prefer the party caucus method. This would at least ensure that the intent of the voters, at least in terms of party, was being upheld as closely as possible.
Pass a Constitutional Amendment barring anyone named "Bush" from running for president. Okay, this one is just a personal dream of mine. But seriously, enough with the Bush family, already.
That about wraps up Part 3. For anyone who is on the edge of their seat waiting for Part 4 (are there people who are that big losers?), it will be the Supreme Court, tomorrow. Or maybe the next day.