by Terry M.
Member since:
August 25, 2007

Changing the Way We Elect the President

September 10, 2007 08:14 PM EDT
views: 110 | rating: 9.3/10 (29 votes) | comments: 31

In our first Presidential Election,  the candidate who came in first became President. The one who placed second was Vice President. But in our third Presidential Election James Adams, the Federalist, placed first and Thomas Jefferson, the Democrat, placed second. To prohibit this from happening again, an amendment was added to the constitution that permitted both candidates to run on the same ticket.I say lets go back to the original way,

However I think we should take the reforms even further. I think that the person who comes in third should be Secretary of State and so on. If this system would have been in affect the 2000 election results may have looked like this.


1st place-Gore-President
2nd place-Bush-Vice President
3rd place-Nader-Secretary of State
4th place-Buchanan-Secretary of the Treasury

Can you imagine an election where the people decide the President's Cabinet? And even if your candidate did not win, he would still have the opportunity to hold public office. Your vote would not be wasted. What are the chances of these type of reforms taking place?


My guess is absolutely ZERO.

link to this page
Bookmark this post:
Facebook
Twitter
Delicious
Buzz
More

Comments: 31

Donald C. Sep 10, 2007, 8:25pm EDT
Please consider the flaw in your suggestion. You would have people running for office against each other, then have to work for the person they just ran against. Not a wise governmental system.

The Presidents Cabinet is setup as trusted advisors who provide information, choices, suggestions in each of the areas.

The only wasted vote is one not made. People should vote for who they desire to be in office and not feel pressured to vote for a big name. Just because you might vote and not vote for the winner doesnt mean it was wasted..means simply someone else got more votes.

When someone runs for President of the United States it doesnt mean they want to be Sec of Transportation for someone they hate.
Sandra (secretary of Lalaland) C. Sep 10, 2007, 8:25pm EDT
I your kind of thinking. I agree that should do it that way it seems simple.
Terry M. Sep 10, 2007, 8:29pm EDT
In the beginning Washington had both Federalist and Democrtas served in his cabinet.
Partisan politics was set aside. True this opinion is flawed, because people in both parties hate each other.
L S. Sep 11, 2007, 9:05am EDT
There is no Constitutional provision for a cabinet, nor a procedure to obtain a cabinet position.

There are numerous schemes to make outcomes more "fair", but none of those changes a chance as long as the Constitution requires the Electoral College -- and that means a Constitutional Amendment.
Jennifer P. Sep 18, 2007, 10:13pm EDT
I agree the chances of that are most definitely zero. But I still think the way we elect our president needs to be better and there also needs to be a way to hold them accountable.
Mark Lange Sep 18, 2007, 10:18pm EDT
A Simple solution! I like it!~
Barbara B. Sep 18, 2007, 10:22pm EDT
Well I agree with you, chances of this
happening are slim to none Terry.
Just Me
Barbie
John M. Sep 18, 2007, 10:24pm EDT
Well the cabinit positions require the possession of some type of specialist knowledge that a presidential condidate may not have.

The Pres/Vp might work.
Vivian P. Sep 18, 2007, 10:24pm EDT
I agree not gona happen
Timothy S. Sep 18, 2007, 10:26pm EDT
If there needs to be a change in the way we elect a president. Then the people need to change it! Our country is a goverment of the people. And I honestly don't think it works that way anymore.. It's quite sad and very disturbing...
Erin P. Sep 18, 2007, 10:27pm EDT
Not everyone who runs for President is also so suited to be Secretary of State. The cabinet positions are chosen by the President as his advisors. Yes, they are often people that he knows in some way, but most times they are people that he feels are very knowledgable or experienced in a particular area for the cabinet seat in question.
andrew c. Sep 18, 2007, 10:29pm EDT
cool
Robert - just a simple man - B. Sep 18, 2007, 10:33pm EDT
Never happen. But it does entertain the old brain cells considering it.
Thanks.
Dellani O. Sep 18, 2007, 10:38pm EDT
Actually, I rather agree with this method. Then maybe the mud slinging we get during elections would cease. No one wants a gossip monger as a boss any more than the boss wants to work with folks who hate him. Oh, and by the way, I voted for Nader and intend to do so again. I'd love to see someone win who isn't a politician.
Marilyn M. Sep 18, 2007, 10:47pm EDT
I like it. But I'm sure THEY wouldn't.

Dellani, I'm with you. I'd love to see someone other than a politician get in.
April H. Sep 18, 2007, 11:55pm EDT
I asked this in third grade!
Tara T. Sep 19, 2007, 2:42am EDT
Buchanan as Sec. of Treasury, that is almost as frightening as Buchanan as President. The best way to change the way elections are run is for every voter to register as an Independent, not Independent American, just as an Independent. Then the candidates couldn't hide behind party lines and PAC groups and lobbyists. They might actually have to have an idea about leadership. Candidates would be forced to consider the country, the entire country, not just special interest groups.
James T. Sep 19, 2007, 3:57am EDT
The problem is they are politicians not normal people...they say one thing then do what ever they want without regard to what we the people think...oh well, I'm no politician...

:O)
Heather C. Sep 19, 2007, 4:14am EDT
It is the Electoral College that makes the ultimate decision. You have a good idea but we are really voting for a team of people lead by the candidate.
Amanda C. Sep 19, 2007, 7:56am EDT
Interesting idea,
Thanks for sharing with us.
Christy J. Sep 19, 2007, 8:10am EDT
Hmmm.. Nader for Secty of State? I don't think that would have been a good thing - No offense to Mr. Nader, but I don't see his forte in dealing with foreign lands...then again, Condi hasn't been all that impressive, either....

I'm all for getting rid of the electoral college -- I'm not really up on political history - can anyone advise when exactly that practice came into play? Was it always in the Constitution???
Richard Frisbie Sep 19, 2007, 5:00pm EDT
But then Gore wouldn't have had time to win an emmey and an oscar! Seriously, I would like to see more bipartisan unity, but given the outcome of the elections lately and the rabid infighting in both houses of Congress, I don't think either the electors or the electees are up to the task.
Janice Mitchell Sep 19, 2007, 5:22pm EDT
Good idea. I think we are in the pickle we are in because it takes a less than honorable person to make a powerful polititian. That's why honest people never make it to the top.
G. M. Lupo Sep 19, 2007, 6:35pm EDT
Instead of reforming the system, they decided to extend it. I'm already sick of the 2008 election and it's still more than a year away.
gaelyn k. Sep 20, 2007, 1:49am EDT
It seems hard enough to get things done when they choose their own cabinet to begin with.
Roberta A. Sep 20, 2007, 3:09am EDT
I agree the pres and veep should still be voted in as origininally set up, but the cabinet should be up to them. As for needing a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college. So what? There are alot of amendments and will be plenty more as the need arises. The time has come for a change and it should be made now before our elitist government can screw this country up any more.
Kim J. Sep 20, 2007, 1:30pm EDT
No, don't like it--I think, whether I agree with the person who is president, s/he should have trusted people around to request information/opinions from and who can be trusted not to run to Fox noise if the person doesn't like what is being said in cabinet meetings.
I do feel that the electoral college should be done away with(and its been used since the 1st election).
Nina A Sep 25, 2007, 1:49am EDT
As it is a great idea and I believe that had Gore been elected president, we would not be in the chaotic mess we are in today. I think Gore could have done a lot of great things for this nation - BUT the sad fact is that popular vote really doesn't count for anything. It can influence the way a state rep. votes but the decision still rests on his or her shoulders. It is all up to the electoral college who becomes president.....not us. On anothe not I think these supposed "Freedoms" that we have need to be examined. We are not as free as most of us think.

Join the Conversation
Chime in! Become a Gather member to comment.
Already a member? Sign in
top
 
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16836, "Oz"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.