Is the presidential role outdated

The end of the presidential election made me come to a re-realization of how needless the presidency is in this day and age. IMO, The people of the United states needs more power and not some douchebag sitting behind a chair signing bills deciding what we want for us. I think the best way to achieve a well balanced civilization is to give authoritative decisions to the people. Let the government create bills for the people to either vote in or discard. Of course it probably won't be easy to integrate such a system since so many bills are regulated on a daily basis by congress and the president 24/7. People don't really have that much time to spend passing and discarding bills. The best solution would be to divide the bills into different sections and have individuals choose which sections they want to work on. For example, if someone wants to vote on passing a bill that'll add finances to the educational board, then they would proceed to that particular section. Of course not everyone should be allowed to participate in such a system. No criminals, Illegal immigrants or underage/under educated. Speaking of under educated, citizens should take a test to get a voters license based on the section they're interested in (they must retake a test every 4 years to renew their license). What do you think? Isn't about time the presidential system be put to rest (I would've felt the same way if Hillary won btw)? People protest out in the streets when they want something accomplished, but what does that really do? Are our voices really heard when we log onto petition sites and reach the maximum amount of signatures? Isn't it about time for real change?

-------------------------

1)What is your opinion of the presidency?
2)What is your opinion of the above proposal in contrast to the presidency?
3)Do you have a better idea that could potentially give citizens more power in politics?

1)What is your opinion of the presidency?
A president to a republic is absolutely necessary, as to maintain the check and balances of the system. But the balance largely favors the executive branch because of the Bush and Obama administrations. Every couple years, people look for justifications to give it more power and by pass the legislative branch. Obama pretty much had the power to go to war without actually having to declare war.

2)What is your opinion of the above proposal in contrast to the presidency?

No, fuck off with your direct democracy bullshit. Also having citizens have to take some test is no different than post Civil War (and later Jim Crow era) literacy test. The system was ripe for the "ruling class" to abuse & disenfranchise the poor, the disabled and marginalized.


3)Do you have a better idea that could potentially give citizens more power in politics?

"Drain the swamp". I don't think Trump will be the one to do that though, but as the political left keeps doubling down on their stupid race/gender rhetoric, they will lose more power and elections. Perhaps then actual liberals and libertarians will challenge the conservatives and try to put the system of checks and balances back in order. Putting draconian limits on the those running for congress on what they can earn and receive, with term limits should also be considered.

Okay, I understand your concerns with citizens needing to take a test, but what is wrong with direct democracy in general? Care to elaborate your concerns in that regard?

As for draining the swamp as a solution to giving citizens more power, I disagree. All it does is give us more power to elect honest politicians to do the dirty work for us, which is lazy.

It essential says that rights and laws don't come from principle but on whatever whims some of the most populated states have. It will more than likely just cause secession everywhere, or keep people more divided.

>draining the swamp is lazy
No. The united states is a representative republic. Voting for the right representative and making your concerns known is already every citizens responsibility.

Like I originally stated, the citizens won't come up with the laws and pass them. Congress will come up with the bills and citizens will vote on which ones get passed. If economical statistics show something doesn't work, then congress can propose another bill that will appeal the last bill and people can vote on that. You say this system will keep people more divided, but you don't really know that for sure, it's just a baseless hypothesis. Majority of people want better education for their kids, a strong economy, equal rights, etc. As for your previous statement regarding the requirement of a test to vote, I forgot to mention that the educational courses needed to pass such test should be free and available in paperback and digital formats. So its not like the requirement can't be fulfilled by your average joe. And to solve the highly populated states voting problem, we should just combine all 50 states into one. Its labels that divide people. Combine the states and that's one less thing people have to concern themselves with (aside from the city they dwell in). Nationalism is already a problem for us, we don't need to be divided by state anymore. I'm aware we have different states because we have different laws based on the area, but nothing is absolute in that regard.

I already know what the U.S is based on. Citizens are pretty much powerless when it comes to this system, that's why I proposed the idea in the OP. Protesting and other methods that try to reach out to the government rarely does anything.

No, I'm saying direct democracy will divide us further. The US a representative democracy because it's made of states, not a single populace. Removing the function of states will only lead the end of the union. You say that nationalism is a problem yet you suggest the most nationalist thing ever.

Also people already have the ability to propose/suggest laws to their local and state representatives.

Having a single president is one of the things that seems to upset everyone in the country at one point or another. The left despises Trump just as much as the right had contempt for Obama. It's a side effect of minority rule. A consequence of the first past the post election system. Neither the Democratic nor the Republican candidate took more than 50% of the popular vote. Ultimately about half the country is going to be dissatisfied with the outcome unless there's some incredible majority victory. And ultimately I think it's ridiculous that one person is trusted with so much influence.

So what else is there? More generally, there are other systems like the UK which have proportional representation. This type of system allows for representatives of many different political groups to earn a seat in the government. The UK does have a prime minister, whose powers differ from the POTUS but in this case I'm just talking about how proportional representation works. And alas, the UK isn't doing so hot these days, what with an insane surveillance law, that ridiculous law against "non-conventional" pornography, and their anti-drug law all in 2016. I don't follow the UK government very closely at all but it seems like despite having "better" representation, they still suffer from the same stupid shit. Ultimately every system is going to have its own strengths and weaknesses. There is no best, although I do think the US could do better.

Ultimately no matter what type of government there is, we have to remember that the people at the top are still just people. They will be corruptible, weak, foolish, selfish, stupid just like everyone else. Some will be better than others, but that's just variance. What I'm trying to say is that real progress has to happen at the social level. Even if our governments did an outstanding job of representing their constituents you are still going to get all that dumb shit because people want it. People often don't know what's good for themselves. And that's why AI should control everything. AI doesn't make mistakes. AI can assess information more neutrally than we can.

If the states were to be eliminated, then the union would be replaced by unity/unison. Also, its better to have just nationalism, then have nationalism in addition to state pride.

People may have the ability to propose/suggest laws, but that's not enough.

Who would you rather perform a surgery on you.

The highly trained doctor who studied intensely for years to do said thing.

Or some guy in a back alley who once read a book that mention the surgery once and assures you that is enough to know what needs to happen.

That's why your idea is retarded.

The problem isn't the style of government.

It's the fact that the various branches were allowed to remove or bypass a lot of the checks of power that were there previously over time. This allowed for more corruption to enter in and slowly over time it's created this kind of stalemate of power were no one wants to actually get anything done for fear of costing what particular brand of corruption they get money from their power.

Hence the need to 'drain the swamp'. It's the reset the checks in place and to get rid of the corruption which is the main reason that nothing is getting done.

Not a very good analogy. unlike a surgeon, any average joe can become President so long as they fit the criteria. I'm just saying cut that part of the system and allow the people to vote for which bills go into effect directly. The president is supposed to represent the majority anyways in terms of virtues, but oftentimes they fail to meet up to the people's expectations. We keep saying drain the swamp, drain the swamp, but how are we supposed to do that without power?

You apparently don't understand analogies very well.

My analogy wasn't suggesting it wasn't possible for an average joe to become President. Though the actual possibility is nonexistent because of obvious reasons.

My analogy was suggesting you wouldn't want the super unqualified person who would be retarded about it to take it. You would want the super qualified person to take it.

So you're suggesting that we need power to drain the swamp and you have an issue with that.

But, where exactly do we get this power to enact your retarded idea? I'm pretty sure it would take a lot less power to drain the swamp than to enact your retarded idea.

You're shit at arguing.

I must ask, how do we know the person in office is qualified when all he/she did to get in was get the most votes? Its not like the president went to school for the job specifically. They pretty much have to learn the ropes from the former president. Did Trump seem like a qualified President despite his display at the debates? IDK, maybe I am shit at debating, but your lack of elaboration isn't helping me get better.

The point of this thread wasn't to get people to actually enact the idea of a direct democracy, I was just wondering what people thought about the Presidency in general, and I proposed this idea because imo its much better than the system we have because it gives people more power to shape the economy to the majority's ideals.

You talk about state pride like it's some toxic force as opposed to nationalism.

Caring about your immediate community is altruism, caring about people thousands of Kilometers is just being pathological altruism. That's why there's a clear distinction between your local representatives, your state representatives and those which represent/serve you at a federal level. Otherwise, I who lived in the most populated state, would subject almost everyone who doesn't live in my state to be beliefs despite never even being to the places where I'm passing laws.

I don't know why this is difficult for anyone to grasp, but then I forget you're you.

If it were up to me we'd be a confederate akin Switzerland.

I never compared the two in terms of toxicity, they're both bad, but eliminating one would be one less problem to worry about in terms of pseudo altruism. When I say pseudo, I mean its false on the grounds that there's a catch. Typical altruism is where you do something positive for someone unconditionally. The altruism you're refering to has conditions: It has to be in the same region/community in order for you to care about it. That's why it's important to get rid of state pride and combine all the states into one. You're just left with national altruism which is still pseudo altruism, but it's better than having two. You're argument is based on the current model of how things are done. If we assume the direct democracy model was put into practice, then there wouldn't be a need for Presidents or state representatives. It would just be the people working together to make life better for themselves. That's how I think it should be.

Caring about your local community/state is not bad. You can't eliminate the term. You can't put in a system in place that recognizes differences without given them some sovereignty otherwise you'd end up with a state with undefined powers, an identity crisis and mass contempt (Like the EU).

>that's how I think it should be
Again, it's still mob rule.

Are you implying the EU is in bad shape because it doesn't have as many divided states as the US? Also, if you're so certain "mob rule" would ruin the country, then why the hell are "mobs" allowed to vote for a leader responsible for the well being of the country? Anyway I try to slice it, your reasoning just doesn't make sense. I'll agree to disagree on the pseudo altruism aspect of caring for one's community/state.

>doesn't know what I'm talking about in regards to the EU
>mobs vote for the leader and not the electorate.

Holy shit, you're actually serious.

I'm genuinely glad you get no real say in how any system works when you're so ignorant to your own.

Dude. There's no point in trying to argue with him. I think he's legit retarded.

Yeah, and that counter argument really cleared things up for me, thanks for that. XD


You said that instilling this plan to the U.S in adittion to making it a one State country would make it fall under the same fate as the EU. I got that part, or rather, I was trying to get you to clarify what you meant, it was a little vague. As far as I'm concerned, the EU doesn't have a direct democracy, so I have no idea how you KNOW for certain that the system would fail.

I'm aware that the electoral college vote gives leverage to who gets put into office, but that's not saying much since the only difference between a regular voter and an electoral voter is one of em is chosen by whoever is running for president. If you're somehow implying the Elecoral vote takes away the people's power to vote in a President, then that's all the more reason why the system itself needs a makeover. My entire argument is that the people need more power. The government is supposed to work for and favor the citizens, not the other way around.

You're a pretty stuck up guy, I can see that in your writing. Looking down on me or my ideas isn't going to get you brownie points, but it will make you come across as an asshole.

Why do I need one when you're outright wrong? You don't even understand the system you're criticizing. You don't even see how you're at odds with yourself sometimes.

I know I can only blame myself for humoring you, but if you're being genuine, stop being so proud and admit you don't know much at all. Try looking at what you wrote and compare it to how our current model actually works.

[edit]
Didn't see your edit.

Yes, there is a substantial difference between the two and goes back to a previous point I made. Don't try to write it off "worse than nationalism" again if you're going to bother replying.
And again, I mentioned the fractured state the EU is in, with it's identity crisis and growing resentment from many nations inside.