Alternatives to the current US presidential method.

Post Reply New Topic

A lottery ... might work ...

Let's add penalties for any of the following that happen during the president's term:
- increases in unemployment, national deficit, taxes, or inflation;
- if the nation becomes involved in a war, surrenders, or fails to meet its stated terms of victory;
- the president is involved in a personal scandal, or fraud, waste, and abuse within the government.

Let's add rewards for:
- decreases in unemployment, national deficit, taxes, or inflation;
- if the nation ends its involvment in a war, wins the war, or meets its stated terms of victory;
- the president exposes fraud, waste, and abuse within the government.

Let's set up minimum qualifications, as well:
- no prison record.
- no bankruptcies.
- no divorces.
- high school graduate (no drop-outs or equivalencies).
- either a college graduate or a commissioned military officer (honorably discharge only).
- no specific religious advocacy.
- age 22 or over (?).

Comments?

I see no issue with being divorced. Joschka Fischer and Gerhard Schröder were both divorced and I consider them both good politicians.

What I see as shortcomings to divorced people:

1) Lack of committment / fidelity.
2) Lack of a tolerable or tolerant personality.
3) Lack of communication skills.
4) Lack of empathy / compassion.

While these are not evident in all divorced people - and are not necessarily "wrong" or "bad" - these lacking characteristics are exactly what are needed in a leader.

What about "fooled by a sociopathic woman for only a while but then she walks out when you no longer want to play her little head games"?

Gullibility and lack of foresight. Not good assets considering the global diplomatic role of the US in world affairs.

No, actually, but I would probably enjoy reading him.

"The worst form of slavery is that which is called Caesarism, or the choice of some bold or brilliant man as despot because he is suitable. For that means that men choose a representative, not because he represents them, but because he does not. Men trust an ordinary man like George III or William IV. because they are themselves ordinary men and understand him. Men trust an ordinary man because they trust themselves. But men trust a great man because they do not trust themselves. And hence the worship of great men always appears in times of weakness and cowardice; we never hear of great men until the time when all other men are small."

This is the same thing as demanding personal flawlessness from ones leaders.