Why don't we, in elections, test drive the candidates.
We could have each of them have the presidency for a month, then we can decide afterwords.
Genius.
2007-12-20 03:12:28 · 16 answers · asked by Elutherian 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
In one month a bad president could destroy the world.
2007-12-20 03:15:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
That wouldn't be fair - there are so many issues that come up - the right candidate might get thrown into the wrong situation or have to deal with a completely different crisis than the other contender - while the wrong candidate may slide through the month with not a lot of complex decision making. Besides.....what a waste of time that would be!! Who would be running the country while this is going on??
2007-12-20 11:17:46 · answer #2 · answered by gigi 2 · 5⤊ 0⤋
A month is not enough time to test drive them. Think about a relationship, you find a bf/gf... they're great for first 3 months then the psycho comes out in them. So a month is not long enough, but I do think that impeachment should be easier and faster than what we can do as of now.
2007-12-20 11:19:22 · answer #3 · answered by Me!! 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I always felt that our founding fathers set the bar too high for impeachment (and Clinton's impeachment didn't even come close). Since a president currently in office usually runs uncontested for re-election, my suggestion is this. A year before his term is over the country holds a confidence vote. If the majority have a high level of confidence in the sitting president he will be allowed to run for re-election, if the majority votes 'no confidene' then he is not allowed to run for re-election. I also believe strongely in term limits for all representatives.
2007-12-20 11:24:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sure why not it doesn't really matter to me that much cuz I just live my own life and only care if a super huge matter comes up but we need a real person who knows how to run the country people just hang onto all the promises the candidates make and then they get all upset when they don't go through with them when it's really obvious they just say that stuff to get elected we've gone through the same thing so many times and they always make the same promises and people hang onto their every word like its breathing or something f**k the fake promises they make VOTE FOR SOMEONE REAL.
2007-12-20 11:16:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
great. We have about 15 candidates running. We'd be into the next election by the time each one had his month. Never work.
2007-12-20 11:27:34 · answer #6 · answered by Nick Name 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Considering the results we've been getting maybe we ought to just hold a draft from among the common people.
Or maybe, we ought to just outsource the government including the Presidency. Let's contract with the Swiss. Come to think of it, let's hire the Dali Lama to keep the peace in the Mideast, with Swiss troops.
2007-12-20 11:18:20 · answer #7 · answered by balloon buster 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Nah, what I do think is that any citizen should be able to bring ''impeachment proceedings" before a court and have it's merit considered. Bush just seems to laugh off all the laws he swore to uphold.
2007-12-20 11:27:50 · answer #8 · answered by Bob H 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'd be up for pre-nomination, voluntary lie detector tests, and drug tests. Not your grandma's lie detector (which ended up with getting your ear ripped off). A real lie detector, like the new brainscan machines scientists are cooking up. Full transparency in government.
2007-12-20 11:18:17 · answer #9 · answered by ThomasS 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They can't implement change in a month, it's not enough time. Especially coming off the ministration we have now.
2007-12-20 11:37:47 · answer #10 · answered by frenchsilkcream 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋