Just Wondering wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Han wrote:
(J T) wrote in
news:3892-47598E19-457@storefull- 3337.bay.webtv.net:
So, maybe the thing to do would be to pick someone that's
actually qualified for the job, but doesn't want it, and just
make
them president. And, if they do a good job they only have to
serve
four years.
Can't be done anymore. Who would accept that nomination? But
while
we're on the subject, who would you propose? That is a serious
question, for a change.
Make "None Of The Above" a choice on every ballot. If it gets
more
votes than any candidate, all the candidates on the ballot go on
the
scrap heap, the parties have to come up with new names for the
runoff
election, and the office remains vacant until someone can garner
more
votes than "none of the above."
So we go for the next century without a government? Who keeps the
criminals in check after the police all have to quit policing and
get
civilian jobs because they haven't been paid in five years?
Not at all. Most offices will still be filled the first go-around,
certainly enough legislative offices will be to pass a spending
bill.
I think the result would be a wakeup call to the parties, to shake
them up and make them offer candidates that don't make you hold your
nose when voting for the lesser of two evils.
Another proposal: Eliminate career politicians by enacting
universal
term limits of no more than 16 years total in all elective offices
(local, state, and federal combined), with no pension or other
retirement benefits.
Do it for one house, not both. The original intent was that one house
would be filled with professional career legislators and the other
with short-timers who would go back to their lives after they finished
their terms. It didn't work out that way.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)