A trial period for a President?

Question

After the president has been in office for a year should we be able to vote on whether to or not to keep them?

Most jobs have a trial period so why not the President too?

Answer 1

No. It sounds like a good idea given the nature of certain presidents elected in the past, but this would be way too complicated. It's likely registered voters of the opposing party would mostly vote against the incumbent, meaning the incumbent would need to spend his entire first year in office campaigning to protect himself against being voted out. If this were the case, the President would have no track record to go on. It would cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars more in campaign funds that could go to better use, and would distract the executive branch, the media, and the general public from focusing on real issues.

The ultimate solution to this is for voters to do some more research before they vote. Look at track records, look at the candidate's real stance on the issues, and resist being spun by the propaganda machines that dictate campaigns. That's probably unlikely to happen though.

Answer 2

It shouldn't happen. Because the president is troubled enough with election time BS. If we make a mistake we should choose our president better. There is no substitute for an informed decision.

Choose right the first time if you don't like it.

We do not want to have the instability that other governments have and loose our stability any time that a populace is angry over one situation. For example, Bush had a 95% approval rating after 9/11. 85% during the first week of the Iraq war.

Your proposal would further entangle the presidency to polls which are so fleeting and whimsical as it is. Our system works and is validated every four years for the presidency, two for the house and six for the senate.

Answer 3

No. It would mean there was a period when the country was without a clear leader. Any president under threat of being voted out of office after a short probation period would have no ability to negotiate with Congress or foreign nations. The lame duck period is bad enough, but at least it's only a few weeks and the president isn't trying to work under an ax.

Answer 4

FDR wouldn't have made the cut. Kennedy wouldn't have made the cut. Lincoln wouldn't have either.

Consider the complexity of the job.

Consider that results are almost never immediate.

For example; Bush senior lost to Clinton in part because of a recession. Yet it is clear that the country was coming out of the recession before the 1992 election.

Then imagine the constant barrage of negative propaganda from the opposition spent trying to convince the voters to throw the bum out.

Nothing would get done by either side and most presidents would last a year until the voters wised up.

Answer 5

No. I think the President should be elected for a one time six year term. If we did this it you would give the President time to do what he promised and not to take so much time to campaign for the second term. I also think the Congress and Senate should only get two terms. In this way we would not have so many in office that are in control of strong interest groups and we might start getting good politicians instead of career ones.

Answer 6

Maybe we should have a trial period for citizenship. The fact that someone is born here obviously doesn't make them an asset to the country. The fact that someone is born elsewhere doesn't make them a deficit. Let's just say that anyone can be a citizen if they can articulate a clear understanding of current events and pronounce the word nuclear. Oops!!! That lets our president out.

Answer 7

Good idea : How about shifting the Presidential system to Parliamentary - that way the U. S. Senate could vote to remove him at any time. Of course we would have to revamp the Senate and require that Senators be intelligent - non-partisan and not influenced by massive lobbying efforts. How about putting in a requirement that Senators not be elected, but have to interview through academic institutions for the position and must be high level intellectuals with expertise in economics, efficiency, statistics, philosophy, political science, law, sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, botany etc. etc. ) Sounds like there would need to be quite a big effort to amend the constitution. Since Congress would never vote themselves into a disadvantage we would need to start with a National convention - I'm in - how about you?

Answer 8

Then he'd have to make sure not to make any hard decisions for an entire year???

Because hard decisions, whether good or bad for the country, are going to disenfranchise somebody.

Look at the hard decisions our current president has had to make. Whether he got them right or wrong is irrelevant - if there was a one year trial period, the presidents wouldn't make the decision one way or another.

Answer 9

We can't even get the election system to work right the first time around. People who lose popular vote are still President. People who have quesitonable ballots win. We now have electronic voting machines which can be hacked into, and these machines are not able to be audited like paper ballots. And look at who we're forced to vote against: Rich Politician #1 or #2.... no real people.

Answer 10

Not a bad idea. But try this;
How about a six month campaign cap. No more two year campaigning, bashing the other guy. Six months. that's it!
A campaign contribution cap. No more millions of dollars, and who spend the most money wins. This will eliminate big business contributers and lobbyists in Washington.
Finally, If you popularity in the polls during the course of you term drops like our current genius, so called leader (cough, bullshite, cough), than VP takes over, we impeach the Prez. And with this one, I'd probably bring him up on charges for crimes against humanity, and impersonating a human being.