Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-02-2009, 10:07 PM
 
Location: California
25 posts, read 62,852 times
Reputation: 34

Advertisements

Okay...what if we try electing TWO presidents, one democrat, one republican..@ the same time. Then let the two of them fight out their concerns in the Oval office, until they came up with something agreeable and equitable to all/most sides....we elect one of each. Does anyone think we could gain a "political balance?" Or am I dreaming and just talking so much fluff?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2009, 10:11 PM
 
Location: Long Island,New York
8,164 posts, read 15,141,481 times
Reputation: 2534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feddup1 View Post
Okay...what if we try electing TWO presidents, one democrat, one republican..@ the same time. Then let the two of them fight out their concerns in the Oval office, until they came up with something agreeable and equitable to all/most sides....we elect one of each. Does anyone think we could gain a "political balance?" Or am I dreaming and just talking so much fluff?
Well this kind of already exists.It's called the house and senate.In the past it seemed like when we had a Democratic president the majority in the H and S was for the Republicans and vice versa.So when they were trying to make a bill a law there was always opposition.The problem is that in the later years I think they purposely went against presidents no matter what the bills stated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2009, 10:13 PM
 
18,129 posts, read 25,278,015 times
Reputation: 16835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feddup1 View Post
Okay...what if we try electing TWO presidents, one democrat, one republican..@ the same time. Then let the two of them fight out their concerns in the Oval office, until they came up with something agreeable and equitable to all/most sides....we elect one of each. Does anyone think we could gain a "political balance?" Or am I dreaming and just talking so much fluff?
I don't feel like looking for it,
but I think that a long time ago, the guy that lost became vice-president.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2009, 10:29 PM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,458,172 times
Reputation: 4799
This already exist. We have the front man Obama. And the real president The Federal Reserve.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2009, 10:37 PM
 
Location: Huntsville, AL
1,618 posts, read 4,788,834 times
Reputation: 1517
Quote:
I don't feel like looking for it, but I think that a long time ago, the guy that lost became vice-president.
True story. This would make more sense if it was "best guy elected, second best guy as veep", but our politics are so completely polarized now I don't see how it would serve any purpose aside from giving disgruntled people more incentive to assassinate #1.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,476,501 times
Reputation: 4185
The Roman Republic had two consuls, either of which could veto legislation. It went pretty well for them for a while. I wouldn't suppose it's fundamentally worse than our system, especially since I think most legislation is damaging.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 33,261,277 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenjenn View Post
True story. This would make more sense if it was "best guy elected, second best guy as veep", but our politics are so completely polarized now I don't see how it would serve any purpose aside from giving disgruntled people more incentive to assassinate #1.
Great idea. Now who decides which of them is best? Seriously, someone has to decide and now we have a czar of who is best. I don't think that I would pick the same one as best as many people here, but we would think our man was best, no matter how a majority of the people felt.

Maybe it would be best to just elect two, put them in the Oval Office and let them fight it out to see who should have the job. I'll bet Joe the Plumber could whip many others from his build and appearance. I will vote for Shaquille ONeal if we use this method.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 12:56 PM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,203,236 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
I don't feel like looking for it,
but I think that a long time ago, the guy that lost became vice-president.
yeah...it used to be after the election, first place was president second place was vice president. What do you think would be different if we had Obama-McCain in office?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,813,019 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feddup1 View Post
Okay...what if we try electing TWO presidents, one democrat, one republican..@ the same time. Then let the two of them fight out their concerns in the Oval office, until they came up with something agreeable and equitable to all/most sides....we elect one of each. Does anyone think we could gain a "political balance?" Or am I dreaming and just talking so much fluff?
Balance is a part of US constitution already. Every adult American has the power to elect the President to lead the executive branch. The Congress and the Judicial branches ensure check and balance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2009, 01:29 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,040,586 times
Reputation: 15038
I wouldn't call it fluff, but foolish would do nicely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top