Presidential Election Changes?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9832

Presidential Election Changes?

Post by JohnnyL »

I think there should be a law of recall/ no-confidence, similar to what other countries have.

In other words, if elected official breaks their promises, they can be recalled and a new vote taken. This can be at any level, but especially presidential.

Also, no winner is to be announced for one month after final votes are in. This way, all charges of voter fraud, cheating, manipulation, busing, etc. can be investigated and hopefully concluded (time can be extended once). Once that is cleared, the votes are forwarded to the electoral colleges to decide.

(Bush and Obama both made and broke so many promises it's unbelievable.)

In the end, can't stress enough the importance of electoral colleges, and especially juries.

User avatar
gkearney
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5346

Re: Presidential Election Changes?

Post by gkearney »

What you want is what is called a Westminster form of Government, such as England and Canada have. In this form the executive is the leader of the party that gets or can form a majority on the lower house of the legislature. He serves at the will and pleasure of the legislature. Should it, or even his own party caucus, decide they no longer have confidence in him he is replaced by the new party leader and a new election is called.

The head of state in such systems is usually an unelected monarch, Queen Elizabeth II for example. They have very limited but very specific powers and duties. They are charged with insuring a functioning government and to call new elections when there is not one or when asked by the legislature to do so. They give consent to bills passed by the legislature, this along with the courts insures that the legislature does not pass illegal legislation. The head of state (monarch) is not permitted to engage in any form of politics and can't even vote in elections; neither can any of his or her family which might ascend to the throne.

I seem to recall, correct me if I am wrong, a bit of unpleasantness with the American colonies who did not want to employ this particular system.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Presidential Election Changes?

Post by Sunain »

gkearney wrote:What you want is what is called a Westminster form of Government, such as England and Canada have. In this form the executive is the leader of the party that gets or can form a majority on the lower house of the legislature. He serves at the will and pleasure of the legislature. Should it, or even his own party caucus, decide they no longer have confidence in him he is replaced by the new party leader and a new election is called.

The head of state in such systems is usually an unelected monarch, Queen Elizabeth II for example. They have very limited but very specific powers and duties. They are charged with insuring a functioning government and to call new elections when there is not one or when asked by the legislature to do so. They give consent to bills passed by the legislature, this along with the courts insures that the legislature does not pass illegal legislation. The head of state (monarch) is not permitted to engage in any form of politics and can't even vote in elections; neither can any of his or her family which might ascend to the throne.
It's a bit different than you described here in Canada. Parliament can call for a motion/vote of no confidence at any time they wish but in reality it only works with a minority government. We currently have a majority Liberal government with Trudeau. In order to kick out a sitting Prime Minister, Liberal MP's would have to either 'cross the floor' or vote against their own party but like you said, they have that safety option to do so. If it came to that with a Majority Government, it would be more likely that the sitting Prime Minister would go to the Governor General to dissolve government and call another election rather than to be disgraced by their own party dissenting to the point of agreeing with the opposition parties.

We've actually had motions of no confidence happen for the last two sitting Prime Ministers, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper, so they aren't out of the ordinary here in Canada but both had minority governments. In Harper's case, it actually caused him to go from a minority Conservative government to a majority government, so it backfired on the opposition parties.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/m ... dence-vote" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The way our governmental structure currently goes in terms of political power is: Prime Minister -> Governor General -> Queen. Like most the commonwealth countries, the Queen is more of a figurehead these days but technically is still the head of state of the country. If she told us to go to war, we would be obligated to do so. Prime Ministers report to the Queen in person on occasion. Like in the UK, here in Canada the Prime Minister and Parliament are responsible for the day to day activities of the country.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau ... -1.3335960" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Prime Minister is a member of parliament (the house of commons) and where the prime minister votes for their parties bills. Bills are first passed in the house and then sent to the senate, then the governor general reviews it. Unlike the United States, the Prime Minister does not have veto power, the Governor General acting on behalf of the Queen has that authority.
JohnnyL wrote:I think there should be a law of recall/ no-confidence, similar to what other countries have.

In other words, if elected official breaks their promises, they can be recalled and a new vote taken. This can be at any level, but especially presidential.
It is a nice backup that's for sure. Trudeau is also mulling over a change to our electoral system as well.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/monsef- ... -1.3428593" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9832

Re: Presidential Election Changes?

Post by JohnnyL »

I meant more in the manner that, if a presidential candidate gets elected on promises, then after elected goes back on/ drops all those promises, the electoral college/ people could vote him out for that reason.

User avatar
light-one
captain of 100
Posts: 712

Re: Presidential Election Changes?

Post by light-one »

Well, if government officials followed the law, men or women of questionable character would never be elected in the first place. But since no one cares how many times the president commits murder, treason, and other felonies, it's like the Hildabeast said "what difference does it make?"

Since the media is totally corrupt and chooses only evil candidates, what difference does it make?

Since politicians have careers of opulence instead of public service, what difference does it make?

When government becomes afraid of the people, we will get our freedom back. So, maybe when the elders of the church make the government afraid, we will be on the right track. But the church is afraid of the government so it will have to be the elders on their own.

A good start would be for every ward to assemble every single member in the town hall for county commission meetings and city council and demand that the sheriff immediately side with the people against the feds and kick out all BLM and DNR type organizations or be arrested and jailed. It could be fun.

zionminded
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1438

Re: Presidential Election Changes?

Post by zionminded »

When (not if) this happens next year, who's going to step in until we do another election?

Obama?

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13112
Location: England

Re: Presidential Election Changes?

Post by Robin Hood »

gkearney wrote:
I seem to recall, correct me if I am wrong, a bit of unpleasantness with the American colonies who did not want to employ this particular system.
Let's let bygones be bygones. ;)

ChristopherABrown
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: Santa Barbara California

Re: Presidential Election Changes?

Post by ChristopherABrown »

JohnnyL wrote:I meant more in the manner that, if a presidential candidate gets elected on promises, then after elected goes back on/ drops all those promises, the electoral college/ people could vote him out for that reason.
Hmm in order to vary from the structures of government for Canada and England the other posters have detailed and respect the republic; if the president elect reneges on a specific campaign promise that relates directly to the constitution, it is likely that their party interest took precedence. Whereupon logically 60% of the states could counter his election and the candidate of an opposing party with next highest number of votes could take the office until the next election. This would make sure parties do not apply undue influence to their candidates in favor of their agendas.

Not a bad idea. But it is only because partisan politics is so messed up that we even consider it.

If we really wanted such a thing, we would have to use our right to a lawful and peaceful
Revolution which can only be powered by our agreement upon constitutional intent, because it is Article V and the people are the only entity that can define constitutional intent.

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Presidential Election Changes?

Post by freedomforall »

light-one wrote:Well, if government officials followed the law, men or women of questionable character would never be elected in the first place. But since no one cares how many times the president commits murder, treason, and other felonies, it's like the Hildabeast said "what difference does it make?"

Since the media is totally corrupt and chooses only evil candidates, what difference does it make?

Since politicians have careers of opulence instead of public service, what difference does it make?

When government becomes afraid of the people, we will get our freedom back. So, maybe when the elders of the church make the government afraid, we will be on the right track. But the church is afraid of the government so it will have to be the elders on their own.

A good start would be for every ward to assemble every single member in the town hall for county commission meetings and city council and demand that the sheriff immediately side with the people against the feds and kick out all BLM and DNR type organizations or be arrested and jailed.
Along these lines, when the Elders come forward and save the Constitutions it won't be through any Fed agency, the police force or any other political means...it will be by a straight frontal attack. Why? Just who could they trust? What few politicians would stand and fix the problems we face with regards to our freedom and liberty being replaced with government control without some type of pressure to do so?
When the Elders come forth I have no idea, but I hope it will be soon because the Constitution is in dire distress.

Vision
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2324
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Presidential Election Changes?

Post by Vision »

JohnnyL wrote:I think there should be a law of recall/ no-confidence, similar to what other countries have.

In other words, if elected official breaks their promises, they can be recalled and a new vote taken. This can be at any level, but especially presidential.

Also, no winner is to be announced for one month after final votes are in. This way, all charges of voter fraud, cheating, manipulation, busing, etc. can be investigated and hopefully concluded (time can be extended once). Once that is cleared, the votes are forwarded to the electoral colleges to decide.

(Bush and Obama both made and broke so many promises it's unbelievable.)

In the end, can't stress enough the importance of electoral colleges, and especially juries.
I was talking with my Brother last night and he floated this idea for the general election. A "None of the above" box on the ballot. If None of the above was the people's choice then the parties have 90 days to get another candidate on the ballot.

User avatar
Separatist
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1150

Re: Presidential Election Changes?

Post by Separatist »

Forget promises.

How about he simply stick to his duties under Article II or be impeached.

Post Reply