Read the following article and respond:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/451114/hail_to_the_presidents_of_the_united.html
Additionally, Congress is essentially comprised of the same kind of people that become president--people with a basic knowledge of everything, but experts in nothing. Congress was created to be a form of checks and balances, and to have them legislating left and right seems counterproductive. I think by splitting the executive branch into specific parts, where the president of those areas spends their time focusing solely on the issues affecting that area, would allow for more to get done.
Not only would the government be more productive, but the proposals/bills coming across Congress would be better thought out and more effective if they get passed.
The only real problem I see is with each department asking for too much money for whatever issue they are trying to resolve. That is why Congress would act more as a form of checks and balances/debt preventi
2007-11-17 08:50:55 · 7 answers · asked by Joe D 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
No.
2007-11-17 09:03:23 · answer #1 · answered by avixiva1938 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, I disagree with this point of view. The ideal democracy is one where every citizen has an opportunity to vote on every piece of legislation, and every act of the executive. In a large country such as ours, this is impractical. The closest thing we have to that is the US Congress. Because we have 300 million people, we have 300 million ideas on how this country should be governed. These ideas are put in a big pot at election time and boiled down by the press, by polls, by the political parties, and by the people into a political platform for the next four years. Are a lot of people unhappy? Yes, most of them are unhappy because their entire point of view was not accepted, but they have the wisdom to compromise that we might have a workable government that represents most of the people rather well. The Roman Empire tried a two headed system during the period of the Republic, but it did not solve the issues that were troubling them, and they went to a dictatorship during the period of the emperors.
2007-11-17 09:39:32 · answer #2 · answered by Bibs 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the framers of our Constitution constructed our government the way it is because they didn't want it to be too efficient. It's because of the inefficient nature of our government that many bills that would be bad for the country were stopped before they ever reached the President's desk. There is some merit in what he says. When our Republic first started there were fewer issues for the President to deal with, but that's why the president has a Cabinet, each with their area of responsibility, to help the President make more informed decisions.
2007-11-17 11:23:04 · answer #3 · answered by Mike W 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Now are you sure this type of goverment would be more productive..? or more single winged.. if the house majority is democratic..than who you think is going to get the houses democratic presidency?....All I'm trying to say is it is fine the way it is now. the only problem is these fat overpaid unpatriotic politicians get in and they curropt the system with worrying about gay marriges..and tax issues..where they should be worrying about the real issues.
Our goverment is not a broken system just a misguided system from its original making
2007-11-17 08:56:30 · answer #4 · answered by ashtonw05 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO. Administration is about making choices and treating each thing as though it is equally important with all others is the road to chaos.
There can be only one conductor of the orchestra at a time.
2007-11-17 11:06:44 · answer #5 · answered by Mister J 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the US should do away with political partys... then the ppl would be forced to vote on issues and character rather than play the party line...
cheers!
2007-11-17 08:53:41 · answer #6 · answered by michael 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no freakin' way...
2007-11-17 09:18:17 · answer #7 · answered by sdrew33 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋