|
|
Post by Swampy on Jan 6, 2013 1:46:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Jan 6, 2013 5:58:09 GMT -5
Three terms? Tom and I would like to see it reduced to one 6 year term. No re-election to campaign for.
But if Obama gets three terms, it's fine with me. From the last election results, it would be fine with most other Americans too.
But no doubt it would not be fine with most others in this forum.
-Don-
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2013 9:18:14 GMT -5
Not wishing to split hairs here, but I will anyway. ;D I don't think that Obama got over 50% of the American vote this year, nor did over 50% of the American people support him, it was way under that. So technically, he does not have the support of the majority of the people.
I will admit to appreciating him more than I did at the beginning of his first term as there were several instances that I felt were very presidential. I fully understand that the majority of Americans on this forum are opposed to him but he is who we have and I'll provide him with the best support I have. Doesn't mean that I will agree with him all the time, just that I will support him when I can.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Jan 6, 2013 12:43:15 GMT -5
Merged.
|
|
|
|
Post by boxcar on Jan 6, 2013 13:42:04 GMT -5
Superfluous.
D>From the last election results, it would be fine with most other Americans too.<
Don, if you look at the popular vote, he just squeaked by. The electoral vote where winner-take- all distorts the picture and the democrats want to believe they are so loved. Hogwash.
|
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Jan 6, 2013 18:30:33 GMT -5
Not wishing to split hairs here, but I will anyway. ;D I don't think that Obama got over 50% of the American vote this year, nor did over 50% of the American people support him, it was way under that. So technically, he does not have the support of the majority of the people.
-Don- |
|
|
|
Post by dontom on Jan 6, 2013 18:34:20 GMT -5
Don, if you look at the popular vote, he just squeaked by.
-Don- SSF, CA |
|
|
|
Post by mcnoch on Jan 12, 2013 13:17:52 GMT -5
Here in Germany the chancellor can be re-elected as often as he gets the majority of the votes in parliament, but I think the two-term solution is good. There might be advantages of having a very experienced government-head, but there are also disadvantages as the party is reorganizing itself too much around this person and becomes too closed to new persons and ideas, so I wouldn’t recommend switching to three terms. In fact we are - one and off – to have a similar limitation for the Chancellor to, as we have with the President (2 x 5-year terms max).
|
|
|
|
Post by griffin on Jan 12, 2013 23:48:58 GMT -5
From outside of the 'fish bowl', I see the limitation as a serious problem in the US. Think of having FDR being replaced at the start of the US involvement in WWII?
I also can't understand the logic of having a national election being subverted by State Secretaries of State that mess around with districts, or states being in charge of federal elections voting sites, including the highly questionable rules on voting, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2013 11:13:13 GMT -5
From outside of the 'fish bowl', I see the limitation as a serious problem in the US. Think of having FDR being replaced at the start of the US involvement in WWII? I also can't understand the logic of having a national election being subverted by State Secretaries of State that mess around with districts, or states being in charge of federal elections voting sites, including the highly questionable rules on voting, etc. Would you care to elaborate on your last paragraph? I can't respons until I know more about which you are referring. |
|
|
|
Post by griffin on Jan 13, 2013 19:29:07 GMT -5
Well there was a lot of news coverage about attempts to exclude US citizens from voting, including trying to deny service personnel serving overseas. In one case a Secretary of State for one state was caught claiming the new anti-fraud legislation was designed to defeat Democrats who had a larger number of minorities for them. This nonsense was also done in other Republican governed states. Re-Districting to favour one party or the other is also not a new thing to US politics.
What many of us outside of the USA wonder is why do states have control over federal elections; especially in light of various problems that have gone on for years? Intrernational viewers 'don't have a dog in this fight', however that does give us the advantage of not being politically aligned and therefore we can at times be neutral.
I'd suggest that a federal election body, similar to ones in many democratic states, perform the role of re-districting based on population shifts, run election sites, have enforcement authority to track down election abuses, etc. Then let the states take care of just their own elections, which should reduce their costs as they wouldn't have the expenses associated to federal elections. I would also take away Governor's current right to appoint Senators between an election cycle and have the federal elections body run a by-election for a replacement Senator; which is also done in other democratic nations.
Regards
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Jan 13, 2013 20:04:17 GMT -5
How come FDR could serve 3+ terms?
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by griffin on Jan 13, 2013 20:06:50 GMT -5
How come FDR could serve 3+ terms? SJ My understanding is that the change came post FDR and not during his tenure as President. |
|
|
|
Post by Swampy on Jan 13, 2013 21:10:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerryfmcompushaft on Jan 14, 2013 0:30:39 GMT -5
One needs to understand the organization of the United STATES of America. The elections ARE state elections as the people of the states are electing folks to represent the state in the federal government. In a presidential election, for example, the vote is not really for the president, but for electors who will meet and elect the president. This group is known as the Electoral College and they are representing the state in the choice of a federal president. Time was when the Senators were all appointed by the state's governor to represent the state in federal matters. The someone got the big idea to have them elected by the "informed" electorate. Congress critters were always elected by the general populace to represent them in the House of Representatives (the lower house as it were). In summary - the United States were formed as just that - States united - and they sent folks to represent them in Federal matters - Representatives elected by the general public , the number being based on the population of the state and elected by district as mandated by the state - Senators (two per state) to represent the state in Federal deliberations. Laws enacted by these two bodies were to be executed by the Executive - the President - elected by the Electoral College as selected by the individual states. this arrangement was to limit the power of the Federal Government and ensure the sovereignty of the individual states.
Insuring the power of the states is not ursurped by the Federal Government argues for term limites for all elected officers not just the President, and certainly argues that it be retained for that office. Even with the current term limits, the Federal Government has become too powerful - even to the extent of mandating that we purchase a product that many of us do not want.... or be fined for not complying....
|
|
