How would you reform the Presidency?

[Green Line]

I guess the first question would be, do you think the Presidency needs to be reformed?

It absolutely does, and it's not a partisan issue.  We've been steadily moving towards the Imperial presidency with each passing administration.  The whole idea of "executive orders" needs to be abolished.  We really need to have a stronger Congress. 

[Frodo]

We did start off with a strong legislative branch, though over time that shifted to the executive branch (and, to a lesser extent, the judiciary).  The reason why the Presidency is so much more powerful today than in the past is because past Congresses have been so deferential and acquiescent, especially if the President is in the same party as they are.

We could have the Constitution rewritten to create a true parliamentary system with the President merely being a figurehead like the governor-general (crown representative) in British commonwealth countries.     

[President Johnson]

- Extend one presidential term to five years. Term limit: Two consecutive terms; no life-time. Senators should be elected to a five year term, half are up each 2.5 years; Congressmen/women to 2.5 years (midterms in May).

- Get rid of the electoral college: direct popular vote election.

- Allow a line-item-veto.

- Get rid of the natural-born-citizen clause. 15 years citizenship necessary to run for office (minimum age of 35 is fine).


I would not move to a parliamentary system. I prefer the presidential system with two major parties and strong checks and balances.

[Kingpoleon]

Move to a semi-parliamentary system.

We elect a parliament by list: we select a party, and then number the candidates on the list. Parties are dealt seats proportional to NPV, with the candidates seated being those with the most votes by IRV. Parliament is composed of 251 members. Parliament composed a Cabinet with eight-ten top members and up to twenty total. A President is elected who appoints a Presidential Cabinet. Finally, states are split into five regions, each of which elects a Regional Deputy. Anything passed by any two of the three branches is made law.

[Blue3]

I guess the first question would be, do you think the Presidency needs to be reformed?

It absolutely does, and it's not a partisan issue.  We've been steadily moving towards the Imperial presidency with each passing administration.  The whole idea of "executive orders" needs to be abolished.  We really need to have a stronger Congress. 

Executive orders are how the Executive Branch executes the execution of government. The power a President has here is lent to the presidency by acts of Congress, or are inherent in the Constitution.


I think we should allow the President to have some more legislative power, be able to introduce legislation that needs to be vetoed by a simple majority in both houses of Congress in order to block. But give Congress more oversight over the military and intelligence communities.

[Virginiá]

I think we should allow the President to have some more legislative power, be able to introduce legislation that needs to be vetoed by a simple majority in both houses of Congress in order to block.

I was thinking about this, but in the end if we came to a situation like now where one party controls Congress and the White House, but only has a small Senate majority, they would then use the president to push legislation to get around the filibuster. It would be significantly abused to the point where the filibuster becomes meaningless.

-

In regards to the topic, I haven't thought too much about this, but off the top of my head:

1. There needs to be a small committee/agency outside of the direct control of the president and Congress whose sole behavior is to investigate the executive branch. Whatever we have right now isn't sufficient, and we can't depend on Congress to do anything if the president's party is in control. I'm not sure how this would be staffed, but I'm sure with enough thought it could be done in a way that mitigates excessive partisan influence.

2. Perhaps Congress should be able to roll back a regulation with only a 60 vote requirement, and by this I mean the president can veto it but it would only take 60 votes to override a regulation normally subject to the Congressional Review Act. However, I would say that any regulation repealed with CRA should only be "banned" for as long as this particular president is in office. As it stands now, the CRA permanently bans that regulation, which is ridiculous.

3. War Power Resolutions should be time limited and require a large majority to renew after a certain small time period. No more extended periods of unnecessary power.

[Blue3]

Well I do want the filibuster to become meaningless... and if I could go farther, have a unitary government with a unicameral and larger House with nonpartisan districting. Public campaign funding, runoff or IRV/ranked voting, universal voter registration (maybe even try Australia's mandatory voting). Replace the Electoral College with national popular vote.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

As I've said elsewhere

Strip the President to appoint ambassadors and all government functionaries except those of the Cabinet, whose membership would be restricted by law to heads of relevant government departments. Ambassadorships and certain positions like the head of the FBI or CBI should be in-house with each relevant body providing a short list of five, of whom the President and Congress jointly decide. All other appointments should be made by a public appointments board completely independent of the Government. This will require a new Civil Service Act which would give much greater independence to the administration of state than is the case at present.

That's just to start with, but it's important.

[Blue3]

As I've said elsewhere

Strip the President to appoint ambassadors and all government functionaries except those of the Cabinet, whose membership would be restricted by law to heads of relevant government departments. Ambassadorships and certain positions like the head of the FBI or CBI should be in-house with each relevant body providing a short list of five, of whom the President and Congress jointly decide. All other appointments should be made by a public appointments board completely independent of the Government. This will require a new Civil Service Act which would give much greater independence to the administration of state than is the case at present.

That's just to start with, but it's important.

Trump's antics are a bad example, but sometimes it is good to have an outsider come in with a fresh perspective.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

As I've said elsewhere

Strip the President to appoint ambassadors and all government functionaries except those of the Cabinet, whose membership would be restricted by law to heads of relevant government departments. Ambassadorships and certain positions like the head of the FBI or CBI should be in-house with each relevant body providing a short list of five, of whom the President and Congress jointly decide. All other appointments should be made by a public appointments board completely independent of the Government. This will require a new Civil Service Act which would give much greater independence to the administration of state than is the case at present.

That's just to start with, but it's important.

Trump's antics are a bad example, but sometimes it is good to have an outsider come in with a fresh perspective.

Can you please give one example of this happening?

As it is all those positions are given to donors and flunkies and help discredit the United States government, as well as making it possible for the President to operate his shadow government almost completely independently of Congress. Court favourites like Steve Bannon should be impossible in a genuinely democratic system.

[Blue3]

As I've said elsewhere

Strip the President to appoint ambassadors and all government functionaries except those of the Cabinet, whose membership would be restricted by law to heads of relevant government departments. Ambassadorships and certain positions like the head of the FBI or CBI should be in-house with each relevant body providing a short list of five, of whom the President and Congress jointly decide. All other appointments should be made by a public appointments board completely independent of the Government. This will require a new Civil Service Act which would give much greater independence to the administration of state than is the case at present.

That's just to start with, but it's important.

Trump's antics are a bad example, but sometimes it is good to have an outsider come in with a fresh perspective.

Can you please give one example of this happening?

As it is all those positions are given to donors and flunkies and help discredit the United States government, as well as making it possible for the President to operate his shadow government almost completely independently of Congress. Court favourites like Steve Bannon should be impossible in a genuinely democratic system.

What are some appointees that you liked under Obama, Bush, Clinton, other Bush, etc.?

Kerry and Clinton were Senators, not from the State Department. Moniz and Chu were scientists, not from the Energy department.

Not every position is given to a donor/flunkie.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

As I've said elsewhere

Strip the President to appoint ambassadors and all government functionaries except those of the Cabinet, whose membership would be restricted by law to heads of relevant government departments. Ambassadorships and certain positions like the head of the FBI or CBI should be in-house with each relevant body providing a short list of five, of whom the President and Congress jointly decide. All other appointments should be made by a public appointments board completely independent of the Government. This will require a new Civil Service Act which would give much greater independence to the administration of state than is the case at present.

That's just to start with, but it's important.

Trump's antics are a bad example, but sometimes it is good to have an outsider come in with a fresh perspective.

Can you please give one example of this happening?

As it is all those positions are given to donors and flunkies and help discredit the United States government, as well as making it possible for the President to operate his shadow government almost completely independently of Congress. Court favourites like Steve Bannon should be impossible in a genuinely democratic system.

What are some appointees that you liked under Obama, Bush, Clinton, other Bush, etc.?

Kerry and Clinton were Senators, not from the State Department. Moniz and Chu were scientists, not from the Energy department.

Not every position is given to a donor/flunkie.

You are talking about the main cabinet posts. I am talking about the head of the National Park Service  or the Secretary of the Air Force. In pretty much any other country, these positions would be for career Civil Servants. In the United States you can be picked for such a position with zero experience or knowledge for such a post, and with almost no oversight once selected. This has a toxic effect on American governance. And this isn't even mentioning the diplomatic posts, a real zone for bottom feeders and life long party donor hacks. No wonder American diplomacy and knowledge of foreign affairs is so poor.

And if you are doubting this, two words: James Comey.

[The_Doctor]

No reforms are needed. Our system is fundamentally sound. This is counter-intuitive but our political crisis these days are because of the lack of a clear directive given by the electorate on where the country should go (and the lack of clear directives given since 2000).

Before 2000, we had a general direction everyone knew where 55% of the country wanted to go, but after, we've become a 51% nation and with 49% disapproving of anything at any given moment, we've ended up with gridlock.

Well, I'm wrong, the only thing I would reform is to add a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing broader privacy protections to all Americans from the federal government but that's not within the scope of this question.

[MarkD]

Borrowing an idea from Alan Dershowitz in "Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000," I think there should be a panel of political independents who create a list of the best people for appointment to the Supreme Court, and the President has to select from that list. The panel should look for objectivity as the foremost important quality.

[politicallefty]

I would adopt a parliamentary system and reduce the President to a strictly ceremonial role. Both the House and Senate could be left as they are. The party or parties constituting the majority in the House would elect a Prime Minister (or Chancellor or whatever we would want to call the new position) and Cabinet that would exercise most of the responsibilities and powers of the current POTUS (the job, not the individual in the position).