Poll for the day question 06/20/2007

Have fun back in a bit of to the Doctors office

Carol excellent question. My answer is no.

No need we have impeachment.
Beside we'd be like Italy , a new government every month.

nope

No, we're stupid enough to just vote for the best teeth and hair every 4 years.

The way Arnold Schwarzenegger got in was a pure disgrace and a sinister hijacking of a democratic vote.

NOPE!!

no

no

no

No.

If a member of the Executive Branch is guilty of malfesance or other crime there is always impeachment and binding no confidence votes could result in chaos whenever the executive and legislative branches are controlled by different parties, Binding no confidence votes would totally upset out system of checks and balances.

Yes. Impeachment is a legal process. No confidence is exactly that. It's the voter's way of saying I made a mistake in voting for you and I'm correcting it.

Normally I would agree with Carol, but our system of checks and balances has been so upset by Mr. Bush and his cronies that I'm beginning to allow the thought to sink in that perhaps my friends who believe he will find a way to circumvent the next election and install himself as dictator (though not with that name of course) may have a grain of truth in their beliefs.

Oh yeah, that's all we need...........NOT!!!!!!!!

I agree with Carolyn that Bush just may attempt to delay the next election with some kind of disaster of his own making based on his May directive. But, if the laws were not toyed with by this administration, impeachment would be the way to go rather than binding no confidence.

I do support term limits on the Congress, though. That was the original design of the Founding Fathers and they realized that anyone who esconced themselves in the Congress would not be an effective representative over time.

YES...we need some sort of cord to pull!

Perhaps.

I have not been impressed with our impeachment process or the ability of congress to do anything to address real problems using the power they constitution gave them.

Perhaps an overhaul is called for. Maybe our founding fathers gave too much credit to the abilities of those elected. Those elected certainly don't seem capable of putting the will of the American public into action.

NO

Maybe, yes. It carries no teeth, but at least you get to express your opinion.

I think we need to strengthen impeachment versus a no confidence vote. Un fortuantely our current president believes he is in charge of the world and has decided to throw out the constitution and congress is not doing a good job of pulling him in.

Yes. Maybe the elected President would do a better job knowing the plug could be pulled. Great question.

Let me jump in and add a few thoughts. I am always hesitant to change laws. With that said impeachment is a time consuming process. So with that in mind let me add this thought to the original question. Do you think the existence of a no confidence vote leading to a call for early elections keep abuses of power more in check than they are now.

We have fairly good "timing" built into the current system--the House accountable to a vote each 2 years, the Senate with a longer term, and the (maximum of) two presidential terms.

Campaign finance reform and candidate access to public forums is what is needed most to hold the incumbents accountable.

Dave I agree with you on this topic. I throw ideas out to see if they float. What was so great about the discussion on the 18 th was that not one person brought up political party, platform or liberal or conservative. It seems there are some issues where the voters maybe not the politicians can put all else aside and stand together. This seems to be the case on other questions I have posted when it comes to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Campaign reform is a biggie for me too. I just 18 yrs I have seen the amount needed to run for office to exceed the budgets of many small nations. That as well as the amount of money needed has reached and far surpassed obscene levels. Seems that a networks and TV stations could give every candidate equal time. Not one more than the other because the have raised more funds. But equal time. I mean down to the minute. I would set it up that each block of time must be used by certain deadlines so no one could save up time for a last minute blitz. And groups like Move On and the Swift Boat people would not be allowed. I dont know how that would float when it came to a free speech challenge. But it is unreasonable to have leaders whose elections affect so many Billions of people worldwide based on the content of what groups like this air in the media. There simply is too much at stake.

nope

I think that decision should be left up to individual states when it comes to congressional representatives. But for the Presidency, no. We have impeachments for a reason.

I agree TY

i was watching the BBC last night and parliment was meeting with the PM. And no confidence was the discussion. I thought I would throw out this question to all of you. I think they have it down to a science. The Brits have been doing this much longer than the USA has been around. But while watching the last presidental campaign I found that many people vote or dont vote for a candidate for reasons that have nothing to do with leading a nation. A few times I begin to wonder if we were electing a husband wife team. So many didnt care for John Kerry's wife. Many thoughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Waggy stood on the keyboard. We are not voting for the candidate spouse. Good looks really doesn't matter. So where we are in a young democracy leads me to believe that we really couldn't handle this type of parliamentary procedure. Simply it would be a mess. No Confidence resolutions, and calls for early elections are for a much more mature group of citizens. We are no where near in our growth at this time. Maybe some time in the next century god willing

A resounding NO. King Arnold and the man you'd most have a beer with are more or less living, breathing examples of why. Impeachment law with some teeth, and genuine campaign funding and voting reform would be nice though -- even imperative!

I think youre right peter its not something that is used a retaliation. I see what can happen when you give a guy like Ken Star over 70 million dollars. We would need to grow up a lot before a tool like that would work in the USA. We are still a very young country in a very old world. Sometimes I think we behave like teenagers (know it all lol). Just growing pains I think.

We are a bit arrogant from time to time. Dont respect our elders.

Sorry... no idea on this one.