Comments on: Too long between election and inauguration?

By: aldenrw

aldenrw — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:27:44 +0000

“It is time for a majority-win presidential election.”

No. No, it is not. It’s time to recognize that POTUS is, perhaps, the single most important job on the planet. It’s time to apply at _LEAST_ as much effort to choosing the president as our companies apply to finding a CEO. ,

By: janabanana

janabanana — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:39:56 +0000

I think a new President needs at least a month to put together his cabinet. 2 1/2 months isn’t too long.
I think getting rid of the antiquated electoral college system is more important. It is time for a majority-win presidential election.

By: bth

bth — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:44:15 +0000

A change that could be made now – allow the Senate to begin preliminary confirmation hearings – just to get the information into the record. Then all confirmation votes the day after inauguration.

By: aldenrw

aldenrw — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:16:21 +0000

I’ve heard that tired old argument “oh, they just didn’t have planes back then” so many times I’m ready to puke. What about _television_? Hah? Did they have _TV_ back in 1776? Heck, no! And they were better off for it! TV bypasses rational thought and goes straight to the limbic system. We need the Electoral College now, more than ever.

Imagine a Fortune 500 company whose CEO is retiring. They announce they’re going to choose the new CEO by a vote of all the employees. They’re going to bypass resumes, interviews and careful discussion in favor of parties, bribes and closed-circuit television ads. Now, how long do you think that company would stay in business?

Isn’t President of the United States a far more important job than CEO of any company? Shouldn’t we apply “best practices” to the hiring process?

Well, duh! Of course we should! And — lookie here! That’s how the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution!

Now, perhaps _you_ believe, amidst all the hoopla and the blizzard of campaign bucks, that _you_ are able to make an informed choice for the best President — but _I_ don’t have that much hubris.

By: Phantom

Phantom — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:08:08 +0000

The country and world is antsy for 43 to pack his luggage.

By: Jed

Jed — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:40:39 +0000

aldie,
A lot of the delay allowed by the constitution was because ballot counts in far-lung districts often took a while to get to the state and federal capitols by horseback, and electors had to have travel time too. In an era of electronic communications and commercial air travel, such delays are unneeded.
Of course there may be a need for the new administration to have time to get a cabinet and its act together and get everybody up to speed on complex issues so the transition to a new government can go smoothly.
Our founding fathers designed a government for their world. They couldn’t have imagined what the nation is like 232 years down the road they sent it on. Even so, they did a pretty good job of allowing enough flexibility for us to develop as a nation.

By: StevenEDavis

StevenEDavis — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:27:46 +0000

I’d be for this proposed change, especially if it is applied retroactively. Send the Chimp back to Crawford, ASAP. He really wants to go, if he’d be honest once in his pathetic life.

By: sursum

sursum — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:14:10 +0000

Parliamentry systems have a wait time afer an a election before it is recalled, but not 3 months for members of any cabinet come from elected members only. The theory being the ability to tax can only be proposed by and enacted by, elected representatives. New cabinets are sworn in ususally within a week or two afer an election but Parliament may not be actually called for a month or so afterwards, nonetheless the new Cabinet gets on with the day to day running of government. There are no “civilian” members of governments at all in the UK (or their former colonies) for something called “answer period” demands that the govenment minister be in the House to take direct and pointed questions/critiques from the opposition on any topic. And they MUST answer. However their civil service is much stronger than in a Congressional Republic so it is hard to do any real cleansing/change. So parliaments are faster, but not necessarily resulting in any real change of how governmental departments are adminstered.

By: aldenrw

aldenrw — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:05:36 +0000

Well this ranks right up there in the top ten dumbest ideas.

Let’s review the Constitutional wording, shall we?

On Nov. 4, the states choose Electors (as in, _we_ vote for electors).
Between Nov 4 and Dec 15, the Electors discuss, debate and decide who should be President (this is implied, but obvious).
On Dec. 15, the Electors vote for the President (unfettered by any pledges, party loyalty or promises).

If no one gets a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives chooses from the “short list” supplied by the Electoral College.

This is a pretty good system. Or rather, it would be if we hadn’t already screwed it up by 1796. It would have let “we the people” focus on issues, by selecting Electors who pledge to support, not a _person_, but a _position_.

It would have allowed Electors to interview Candidates, rather like a CEO search committee. It would have prevented the “circus-like” atmosphere that surrounds our Presidential Elections today. It would have kept parties and factionalism down.

Oh, yes, it would also have meant the start of “lame duck” season wasn’t until Dec. 16. And _that_ is the _right_ way to shorten the transition period.

By: ksfarmgrrl

ksfarmgrrl — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 14:00:03 +0000

One thing for sure, there ought to be NO pardons issued by ANY president after the election results are final. Let them make any pardons BEFORE the election so voters know what they have in mind.

Why would it be so hard to say NO Pardons may be issued between November and February in ANY year?

By: Monkeyhawk

Monkeyhawk — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:22:45 +0000

I dunno.

Giving a disaster such as George WMD Bush a couple of months to screw up things even worse is disquieting. He will, you know.

The election in 2000 wasn’t decided ’til Bush v. Gore on December 20th. That’s not likely happen often in the future but it is a consideration.

I rather like Obama’s approach to the transition; thoughtful, deliberate, inclusive, pragmatic instead of ideological.

By: Political_mama

Political_mama — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:11:20 +0000

I say leave it as it is. After all that campaigning, the candidates deserve a decent break. It is also time for them to prepare for their administration.

By: lvs24neek8

lvs24neek8 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:10:16 +0000

But, how about the Senate ratification processes for the top executive jobs, e.g., the Cabinet, DAs, etc.? Wouldn’t they be feeling a bit rushed?