Implementing a 3 President System: 1. Each party would have their primary selection, and a primary for the independent party would need to be created. 2. GOP would select 2 candidates in their primary. 3. DNC would select 2 candidates in their primary. 4. IND would select 2 candidates in their primary. 5. Each legal voter would now vote for 1 candidate from each party in the general election. 6. Those candidates from each party winning the general election would now become the 3 Presidents governing the executive branch of the U.S. government. 7. A 2/3 majority vote of the presidents would be required for any/all executive decisions. 8. Each president would have their own advisories, but again their recommendations would require a 2/3 majority vote before any of their recomendations were enacted or related in representing the United States on foreign or domestic policies. 9. All other executive statutes would remain intact i.e. term limits etc., except where executive decisions are involved. 10. In the event of a death of one of the presidents, an emergency selection of 2 candidates from the party losing respresentation would be formed and a general election would be held to select the new president. 11. That newly elected president would serve the remaining time in office of the former president's elected term. In the event that I left out any furhter explanation, please feel free to advise.

Discuss

User_rpho_2aec28a5b

Aaron Straus Garcia on January 16, 2008, 2:08 AM

Ah, OK I see the 2/3 vote. I still disagree believe with this system because of the influence the words of our leaders have abroad . How would other governments interpret three different messages, in the event of foreign policy disagreements?

Default_normal

Julian Chung on January 17, 2008, 6:44 AM

I think an obvious downside to the 3 president system would be that elections will feel even less relevant than it does now; no matter how badly those two parties screw up, they will NEVER lose the presidential election. Why give Democrats and Republicans guaranteed seats in the new presidential posts? What if Republican or Democrat candidates are so outrageously insane that Americans do not want any presidents from those parties?

I see why you came up with the number 3; it may lessen the dictatorial aspect of American presidents. However, I don’t think the fact that the democratic way of decision making almost has no place in the Executive branch is that big of an issue, considering that the lawmakers should be able to reflect people’s opinions at the root of our government and considering that not everything should be decided democratically, especially when the answer is an absolute regardless of opinions, such as 2 2 = 4; you certainly wouldn’t want judges to rule based on popular opinions of the people.

As an alternative to your proposal, I’d like to suggest a much more widely studied and tested system: preferential voting or at least instant run-off voting system. Basically, you put your 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, … choices on the ballot and in case your 1st choice doesn’t get enough votes to become a finalist, your 2nd choice gets the vote and if your 2nd choice doesn’t make it to the final round, then your 3rd choice gets the vote… in the end, the winner of the election will ALWAYS win with the majority vote and you can vote for whoever you want, without worrying about your vote “going to waste” or helping the bigger evil win, like a lot of Democrats claim Nader votes did in the year 2000 Presidential election.

It does nothing but help better represent people’s choices in elections, and it will definitely help independent and 3rd party candidates really get some viability in people’s eyes. A huge step toward solving the duopoly system of Republicans and Democrats in America.

User_rcge_86e57577f

Taylor Englander on January 18, 2008, 10:05 PM

Thank you both for your comments. First, let me state that the idea posted by Julian stating the votes be counted in such a manner as to allow losing votes to go to the second, third and so on candidate is creative yet somewhat counter productive to the process (from my understanding of what you put forth). I ask you think about the intention of the 3 party presidency in a different light i.e. no one person can run away with a presidency given the concept of majority rule. As seen by the seating president, it is not a difficult task to take the country in a completely opposite direction of the will of almost 50% of the American population. Thus the concept of a more equal representation and consensus building prior to any execution of executive orders, vetoes, foreign policy (war, nation building etc.).

To address Aaron Straus Garcia: I have absoulutely no idea if you understand the concept. Although a novel idea it is, I don’t think you grasp the concept given your statements. The 3 president system acts in uniformity of policy based on majority rule. I appreciate your comments none the less.

Add a Comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register