Why do we need a president? (USA)

[James the Red]

Or rather, only one person in charge of the executive branch? For instance the elections for this one person is so divisive and is such a circus.

Would the executive branch be better off led by an elected council, much smaller than congress, like say, 10 people and one of them being a first amongst equals and gets to break ties or something. Would this be a good idea or bad?

[hellheaven1987]

And how to decide who is that first amongst equal, especially that first amongst equal has 90 days to launch military campaign without Congress approvement?

[O'Hea]

There's actually research out there that says that systems with strong presidencies are a lot more likely to become non-functioning or slip into dictatorship than parliamentary models. That being said I think the founders set up a president because they were influenced by classical political theory and the Polybian model of government called for a strong, independent executive exemplified by the Roman consuls or Spartan dual kingship.

[Astaroth]

Having a single person at the very top of the food chain is actually more democratic than having an equal council of sorts.

Why? Because it ensures that there is always someone who is clearly ultimately responsible and who the voters can remove if they like (yes, I know that the President is *technically* not elected 100% directly).

Sure, even a President can and will try to blame others for failures, but it is much harder for him to get away with that. In contrast, if you have a council of 10 that makes decisions, the decision making process at the top will be so intransparent that the average citizen can hardly follow it. Even if all 10 council members were elected, it would be much easier for them to shift blame amongst themselves etc.

It's also not practical in executive matters to make all decisions public so that the people can decide which councilor's performance they approve of (unlike laws in Congress, executive matters and decisions cannot and shouldn't be made public in all cases).

Second problem: lack of a clear hierarchy will lead to a behind-the-scenes hierarchy anyway. Even if the 10 councilors were "equal" on paper, you can bet all your money that a leader (even if only covertly) would appear in no time at all. The problem with this is again accountability. With a President, you know who has the final say. If he does a poor job, you can vote him and his entire cabinet out. If you have 10 councilors in which 2 have schemed to have the final say, this becomes much harder.

Third problem: while a hierarchy will form anyway (making the whole proposal fairly futile to behin with, see second problem), it probably won't be as strong as the current structure. However, sometimes you just need someone to make a final call on something. This particularly applies to executive decisions that might have to happen quickly. Also, the more people know of something, the harder it is to keep it secret: see the killing of OBL etc.
Having a council of 10 or 9 having a majority vote over every decision is simply not practical. Even if you were to split areas of responsibility clearly between the different councilors, there'd undoubtedly be strong disputes about who is responsible in an individiual case. While that can happen between cabinet members today, you at least have someone to make a final call and thus to resolve the problem for better or worse.

[Stavroforos]

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning, OP. You think an elected council might be better because Presidential elections are a circus? If the council (which isn't a good idea anyway for the reasons Astaroth outlined) were to hold the same powers, than the same circus would occur every time they were up for elections.

[Gaidin]

Or rather, only one person in charge of the executive branch? For instance the elections for this one person is so divisive and is such a circus.

Would the executive branch be better off led by an elected council, much smaller than congress, like say, 10 people and one of them being a first amongst equals and gets to break ties or something. Would this be a good idea or bad?

What's the system?

[Caligula's_Horse]

Having only a single person in charge of the executive branch is vital, not out of any political philosophy or democratic ideal, but out of simple practical necessity.

Seeing as its absolutely vital for the executive branch to be able to function in an emergency, and speak out with a single voice when it comes to foreign affairs, a single person in charge of the whole thing is the only way to do it.
Councils do not speak out in a single voice, and are by their very nature slow to react. A parliamentary body does better reflect the will of the people and is better suited for a legislative, but its simply too indecisive and cumbersome to be relied on in a crisis, and is not secretive enough for matters of security and war.

[YuriVII]

A dog could be POTUS and the result will be the same because the bankers put fido there.

[Heathen Hammer]

Theoretically president is supposed to be a figure that holds the most responsibility - and thus should be easily replaced.
However, in reality president is nothing but a sock puppet for the wealthy bankers, who actually have the real power over the country.

[Roma_Victrix]

There's actually research out there that says that systems with strong presidencies are a lot more likely to become non-functioning or slip into dictatorship than parliamentary models. That being said I think the founders set up a president because they were influenced by classical political theory and the Polybian model of government called for a strong, independent executive exemplified by the Roman consuls or Spartan dual kingship.

The regularly elected strategos of the various Greek leagues, or the archons of Greek city-states could have provided models for the founding fathers. However, from what I understand, they gleaned most of their history lessons from Republican Rome, not so much Classical Greece. Ah, the age when our political class was actually cultured and well-versed in history! At least that tradition died a slow death, lasting well into the 20th century. Your average congressman these days is perhaps fabulously wealthy in comparison, but far more ignorant about the world and its past from what I've seen. I shouldn't be a partisan and name names, but Louie Gohmert is a good start.

I'm going to have to agree with Astaroth's points in defense of a one-man presidency; his logic is sound.

Whether or not the presidency is compromised by the influence of big bankers is another issue entirely (as if every congressman isn't already in their pocket come election season when campaign donations are needed, plus the revolving-door retirement scheme of becoming a well-paid lobbyist on Capitol Hill after a tenure in Congress).

/thread.

[Ciciro]

Theoretically president is supposed to be a figure that holds the most responsibility - and thus should be easily replaced.
However, in reality president is nothing but a sock puppet for the wealthy bankers, who actually have the real power over the country.

What does that make Putin?

[Heathen Hammer]

What does that make Putin?

Same thing. He is a puppet of oligarchs.

[James the Red]

Perhaps, but then the Roman republic and Spartan Diarchy (and Carthaginians) had 2 people at the very head. If a larger council is not good for the job than would a small group of 2 or 3 be preferable to just the one guy?

[Sire Brenshar]

Im fairly sure it doesn't actually matter if its a president or instead some group of politicians - besides pragmatic reasons like having one face people can remember - but Im sure a representative elections can technically elect the latter.

Or more likely its constitutionally stated that a competing party must have a candidate for the presidential seat simply because its traditional to have one single leader. How many (successful at that ) binary or tertiary heads of states have existed in history? Not many. Its not really important though, its a trifle detail that more than anything just looks nice with the how many other people are in power across the branches: 1 president 6 (or 7 is it) supreme court people and the 600 ish (i don't know these numbers) of congress and the Senate.

Im sure the founding fathers glossed over more important things too when designing the US government.

However, in reality president is nothing but a sock puppet for the wealthy bankers, who actually have the real power over the country.

About as true as your posting in this forum being the result of kremlin financing, who decide what opinions you can post.

[Heathen Hammer]

About as true as your posting in this forum being the result of kremlin financing, who decide what opinions you can post.

Incorrect: I wouldn't be working two jobs in that case.
Also how is my above statement not true? I understand that you are against any criticism of US or its political system, but it is pretty obvious that it has a long and rich history of corporate control over state matters, from healthcare to foreign policy,

[Sire Brenshar]

Incorrect: I wouldn't be working two jobs in that case.
Also how is my above statement not true? I understand that you are against any criticism of US or its political system, but it is pretty obvious that it has a long and rich history of corporate control over state matters, from healthcare to foreign policy,

If its pretty obvious, provide some examples to back your claims.

Corporate interests are of course present in the US government, and rightly so, but that's something else to claiming they 'control' anything. Some congressmen or members of the administration have wealthy friends. Some have big businesses, and some likely take bribes.
So what, they don't cooperate with each other and its not like corporate gains dont translate into american citizen gains. Which really is your only point. You treat 'corporations' like some kind of entity separate from the US with capacity only for malevolence. Not the case. Its a lazy and meaningless generalization.

The US system was designed that no one person or faction dominates - to prevent the emergence of tyrants. That has not changed, it still works as it should. Congress can yet even outlaw corporations if they were dumb s.

[Alkaline Earth]

The usa government did not have executive branch under the original Articles of Confederation. This was because we were sore from king George 3rd after revolutionary war. However the founding fathers discovered, because of shays.rebellion, that a gov w/o a executive was ineffective. So we replaced the Articles with the Constitution in 1783. Also we didnt have a.judicial branch really until 1789 with the Judicial Act. What i am trying to say is that we have been there, done that, and we learned from our mistakes, fortunately.

[Heathen Hammer]

If its pretty obvious, provide some examples to back your claims.

Any war that US government started for the past 2 decades?

Corporate interests are of course present in the US government, and rightly so, but that's something else to claiming they 'control' anything. Some congressmen or members of the administration have wealthy friends. Some have big businesses, and some likely take bribes.
So what, they don't cooperate with each other and its not like corporate gains dont translate into american citizen gains.

It is exactly that. American people do not benefit from things like Guantanamo, American wars in Middle East, constant support for rogue states such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, etc. However, oil corporations, military-industrial complex and Zionist groups do.

Which really is your only point. You treat 'corporations' like some kind of entity separate from the US with capacity only for malevolence. Not the case. Its a lazy and meaningless generalization.

Incorrect. Corporations do not care about interests of American nation. They exploit their power over the government to make profits and gain further power.

The US system was designed that no one person or faction dominates - to prevent the emergence of tyrants. That has not changed, it still works as it should.

Not really. Again, events from the past 20 years prove otherwise.

Congress can yet even outlaw corporations if they were dumb s.

Oh yes, what would American people do without constant violations of their privacy and wasting of their tax money on things they do not benefit from.

[James the Red]

Do we really need a leader though?

I mean, this whole one person in charge of the executive branch allows some presidents to become cult personalities that doesn't even match who they really are after time. ie Ronald Reagan. As well as create a political scapgoat out of other presidents (everything is the presidents fault, even for things congress keeps screwing up or things the President has no say over).

[Caligula's_Horse]

Do we really need a leader though?

A single leader on top is the only solution that can be reliably expected to make decisions quickly and decisively in face of a crisis. Secretly too, in case of security matters where the other side is listening in (parliamentary bodies are notoriously leaky when it comes to information).

In fact, the entire top leadership of the executive branch can often feel useless at times when nothing is going on. Their civil service subordinates can do the day-to-day stuff in their sleep without much input, and life goes on regardless of who's running things so long as they don't start making ill-considered changes. Throw in a time critical crisis, like say a war, plague or natural disaster, and all that changes.

One possible compromise is appointing a single leader only during times of such crisis, as was done in the Roman Republic. This however, runs the risk of a single leader being appointed too late, where as a standing single leader can start dealing with a crisis at day 1.