Should the President of the US have more power?

British gov managed to be run well despite any party who managed to get 51% in Commons run in program. Election is the checking mechanism, not balance of power. Unpopular program will be reversed when other party gain power.

Phillipe, no, that's wrong. You have demonstrated a misunderstanding of American culture and government before, and this is a huge one.

There are very few Americans in this country that actually want to get rid of the office of President. And for all that we've had gridlock the last few years, you can bet there's no one that suggested doing that. We have no political reason to get rid of the office. We have no cultural reason to get rid of the office. And hell, even with gridlock, Obama managed to get the ACA passed, so you can't say that it's completely impossible to achieve any goal. Our entire system is set up to make such things relatively slow anyway, in order to ensure all sides are fully considered.

Our government is stable. We have no reason to get rid of the highest office in our land. NONE. Doing that would require a complete overhaul of our governmental system anyway, and we have no reason to create that fucking huge mess for ourselves when we're already frustrated with how slowly things get done. We don't need to go parliamentary.

Yes, i am not American and I agree that American culture now is very unlikely to commit reform like that. American seems strangely devoted to presidency and much prefer their gov not doing anything than doing something wrong.

But its unlikely to happen doesn't make suggestion like that stupid. Since OP already discussing reform in US, using successful example from other country seems logical and reasonable.

Obama get ACA passed seems strange example, Democrats have make health care reform their goal for more than twenty years. Twenty years for passing law that every OECD nations have is very very slow.

I think it's more accurate to say that trying to get rid of the president's office is more trouble than it is worth. However, that doesn't mean we can't make changes at the margin with respect to reducing presidential power. However, most of the deadlock is occurring because the House and Senate cannot agree, and within themselves cannot agree.

It's not so much that we should be afraid of a 51% majority doing whatever it wishes. That's usually fine. It should be a fear that when government needs to act, it can do so, and within a reasonable time frame to problems. Economic problems usually fester over years, so if it takes months to roll out legislation, people are hurt in the short term but gain in the long term.

But, I believe what is being suggested is that the US government is not passing anything even for the long-term and when it does, it's heavily compromised legislation that doesn't achieve much in order to account for short-term political (but not real physical) gain.

Even if you make the president ceremonial, you still need a head of government, so there's not much of a point.

The Framers kind of wanted a semi-prime minister, chosen by the Electoral College (actual people, not winner-take-all), having few formal powers, and subject to impeachment if parliament doesn't approve.

What? No that's absolutely false. You don't need a head of state.

The Framers did a lot of editing as they figured out what would work.

As for the ACA; I'm pretty sure that's the most comprehensive plan that any Democrat has pushed. And it is a victory that it got passed, and got declared constitutional.

IN any case, if the problem is in Congress, a reduction or increase of Presidential powers most likely isn't going to solve that. And you'd have to go through Congress anyway to approve that sort of thing. Basically, the office of President is not a symptom or a cause of any particular problem at all; it's partisan politics and office holders more dedicated to their party ideology than to serving the people they represent.

You need a head of government. Who's going to give orders without one? The only country that has a plural executive is Switzerland.

edited 14th Aug '12 8:44:51 PM by abstractematics

I'm not sure what you mean? Are you equating the Prime Minister in parliamentary systems to a head of state? The level of powers between an actual head of state and just the leader of the reigning party is a very wide gap.

Regardless, let's keep it to the American system.

Can we get rid of the super-majority requirement to override a senate veto? Can we do at least that?

Can we have line-item votes? Can we have it so that riders can be voted on separately?

I mean that we need someone to lead the executive branch. If the president is marginalized, what would you suggest in exchange?

My opinion is that filibusters should be limited to certain number or percentage per term, and probably length of bills too. That forces the minority to choose what's in their best interest to block. But we have threads for those.

Government US Government US Legislature

If the president is marginalised it doesn't matter. Overall, it's Congress that matters. They make the legislation and if they make bad legislation the only thing in the American system is a presidential veto. That seems like some kind of nuclear option to me. If Congress isn't making good legislation then you don't have good legislation.

The idea of executive orders replacing legislation is crazy.

I'll just put it like this. Since 1970, Canada has been slowly converting the Prime Minister's office into an executive role. At this point in time, I will tell you, once a useless piece of neocon crap like Harper gets in, rigging elections like he was Putin, you're screwed. Don't make the same mistake Canada made. We concentrated a lot of power into the hands of Chretien in the 1990s to get good legislation through but once the good times were done because he was done in by internal party politics, Canada was hurt a lot.

edited 14th Aug '12 9:07:51 PM by breadloaf

That sort of encroachment happens here too. Clinton put in place a lot of anti-crime and anti-terroism legislation in order to, basically, one-up the Republicans. And it worked really well, because Dole had no issues left to complain about in the elections. But then W. came along...

If what I remember of my junior high class is still valid, the POTUS already has more power than, say, the French president. It was apparently something that "explained" the importance everyone gave to the Lewinsky case.

edited 15th Aug '12 1:39:29 AM by Medinoc

I think our president has more power than most presidents. You have to remember that he is essentially filling the king/emperor role in our government, which was modeled after that of England and Rome. In many more recent democracies the president is more in the Prime Minister role, which is filled over here by the Vice President and the Speaker of the House.

I think comparing the President to Prime Ministers in parliamentary (and semi-presidential) states, is a moot point.

Prime Ministers are only powerful because parliamentary systems stipulate that the PM has to be leader of a majority of M Ps in the lower house. They have their power due to the fact that they can effectively force legislation through because of this majority. The President is lucky to have a majority in both houses, and cannot count on that to help him push legislation through. The Prime Minister (in most states) needs only the confidence of the lower house to push legislation through.

Aye, the US President can only rely on Persuasion, both within his own party and of the opposition, to get his way, while a Prime Minister is supposed to be directly in charge of his/her own party and can rely on his Whips to get support in Parliament.

Basically, a the US President isn't in charge of his Party in Congress (isn't that the VP's Job?), while a Prime Minister is directly in charge of his Party/Coalition in Parliament.

I would like the president to have some more power, but I can't say what exactly. I mean, I obviously didn't think BUSH needed more power, but he exercised executive privilege and signing statements a whole lot more.

W. Bush actually did it far less than Clinton.

I can't comment on the Clinton situation, since I wasn't politically aware back then. Can you give some examples of Clinton using it?

I mean, it is true that as a number, the president has been using that particular technique less and less recently. But that may be a distortion-the real question is what the impact of the technique is.

The legislature are unable to reach agreement because of large cultural differences and flaws in the system.

Clearly the solution is to give power to a single man.

Or woman.

In 1998, President Bill Clinton became the first President since Nixon to assert executive privilege and lose in court, when a Federal judge ruled that Clinton aides could be called to testify in the Lewinsky scandal.

edited 21st Aug '12 1:01:08 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Hard to say. One alternative would be a strong, independent Cabinet—chosen by the weakened Chief Executive, but not answerable to him in most matters. I don't think that's a good idea—it's probably far worse than the system we've got—but it could work after a fashion.

There are some instances where inaction is worse than bad action. Now, distinguishing what those circumstances are and how to minimize the amount of bad action is a valid discussion. But oversimplifying things to "A buncha people can't make a decision therefore it's stupid to think one person making a decision is better" is really a non-argument.

The presidency wouldn't get abolished.

People would explode if that was even suggested. The President is more well known than most members of the congress. It's easier to get attached to a single individual than a mass of people.

Which is probably why most governments have symbolic heads of state.

I imagined what the US could look like with a divided executive, and how that could be possible while still having separation of powers. One thing I thought would be to have a President as the Head of State, Commander in Chief and with the Veto power, while another office is actually the Head of Government (let's call it the Chancellor). For example, the people could directly elect the Chancellor, while the President is chosen by an actual Electoral College made up of delegates elected by tne legislatures of the various states, as originally intended. The main reason we have a strong unitary executive is because everybody who counted wanted Washington in that office.

edited 5th Sep '12 6:23:08 AM by Lawyerdude