• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

What changes should be made in how we elect the President?

What changes should be made in how we elect the President?

  • The age requirement should be older

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • The age requirement should be younger

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A naturalized citizen (not born in USA) should be eligible

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Term eligibility should be one 4-year term

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Term eligibility should be one 6-year term

    Votes: 2 14.3%
  • Term limit should apply only to consecutive terms

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • There should be no limit to number of terms

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Electoral College should be abolished in favor of direct election

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • The President and Vice President should be voted on separately

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • I favor no changes

    Votes: 6 42.9%

  • Total voters
    14

Alcott

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The President of the United States, as we know, is elected every 4 years. He or she must be at least 35 years old and a natural born citizen. And we vote not for the President and Vice President directly, but for Electors who make up the Electoral College, who come together a few weeks after the “general election” to formally elect the President and VP. The President can serve no more than 2 terms, plus, if he had been VP (or Speaker of the House) who assumed office upon the President’s death, up to 2 years of the previous presidential term.

Do you consider these facts optimal in the office the Chief Executive of the country? If not, what changes do you want to see? This is not partisan, as it would apply to all Presidents, current or future. Please answer the poll by what you wish to see, disregarding that any changes would require a constitutional amendment, and are therefore very unlikely. Also note that multiple answers are allowed, so vote all that your favor.
 

Ryan.Samples

New Member
I've been advocating a single six-year term for some time now. I also think we should adjust the legislators' term lengths as well (maybe extend HoR to 4-6 and Senate to 8?) and then add a term limit for them. But the single term presidency seems the best to me. You get one shot to do your job, none of this "well I didn't want to hurt my reelection prospects." Although I am sure some presidents would get less controversial as their term started to wind down, to ensure they didn't hurt the follow-on candidate from their party.
 

LadyEagle

<b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
I voted no changes from the current system. However, when it comes to Congress, now that is a horse of a different color. We need changes there.
 

Alcott

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Some might want to see a prohibition against Mormons running.

That would require a constitutional amendment to change or abolish the "no religious test" clause as a requirement for public office. How would you word an amendment to that effect?
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
Make all the changes you want it won't matter none so long as we keep trusting our elections to easily hacked and manipulated electronic voting machines and the handful of companies that make them.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
I propose that each state or Commonwealth have proportional representation based on statewide rests ( as opposed to congressional districts.

For example if the Greer party received 3% of the vote in California they would receive 3% of 53 votes = 1 electoral vote. (I would retain the thought of the statewide winner{if receiving at least 50%) receiving both of the "Senate" electoral votes
 

saturneptune

New Member
I propose that each state or Commonwealth have proportional representation based on statewide rests ( as opposed to congressional districts.

For example if the Greer party received 3% of the vote in California they would receive 3% of 53 votes = 1 electoral vote. (I would retain the thought of the statewide winner{if receiving at least 50%) receiving both of the "Senate" electoral votes
Each state has the power to change how they choose electors now. It has nothing to do with the a federal decision. One proposal came from California that never passed to award all of their 55 electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Any state that wanted right now could implement your proposal.
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
How about we just let the global bankers and corporations select a CEO of the United States instead of having a president? It would save us a bunch of money and the long drawn out theatrical production the "election" has become. Hey, why not? The global bankers and corporations always get one of their men in the WH anyways. But with my way we'd be saving a big bundle of cash and the big let down of finding out after the election that the new boss serves the same banking and corporate interests as the old boss. Again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

saturneptune

New Member
How about districts that include no more than 30,000 people? I believe that's about what the numbers were when the system was set up. That would mean an increase in the number of politicians running around. Naw, bad idea. Nevermind.
And where is the Congressional District or state that only has 30,000 people? Nevermind is a good idea since none exist.
 

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
There should be minimum testing requirements prior to voting. Immigrants wishing to become citizens must be tested...why not every citizen who casts a vote?

Oh...and it would be in english ONLY.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
There should be minimum testing requirements prior to voting. Immigrants wishing to become citizens must be tested...why not every citizen who casts a vote?

Oh...and it would be in english ONLY.
:thumbsup:
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
There should be minimum testing requirements prior to voting. Immigrants wishing to become citizens must be tested...why not every citizen who casts a vote?

Oh...and it would be in english ONLY.

There should be a minimum requirement that candidates for POTUS meet the natural born citizen status as framed in the constitution. Oh wait there is but we don't care about it anymore. :tonofbricks:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

preachinjesus

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No changes from the above list. I think we have the best system for electing the executive officer and keeping them in check in the whole world.

That said, I highly favor term limits on Congress (6 terms for House and 2 terms for Senate.) There should be something said about significant campaign finance reform, but that isn't germane to this discussion.

I really do think our system works extremely well and shouldn't be toyed with at all.
 

Arbo

Active Member
Site Supporter
That would require a constitutional amendment to change or abolish the "no religious test" clause as a requirement for public office. How would you word an amendment to that effect?

I myself do not believe that. I was referring to Zaac.
 
Top