> I actually proposed that the "king" be democratically elected, so instead of hundreds of bickering congressmen, he would have largely unfettered power to then make decisions as he saw fit. The one thing he could not influence, at all, would be the process by which the cycle continued fairly after four years.
Do you really think that once someone is in power that they couldn't just ignore that limitation?
> I don't see how that's all that different than today in terms of risk of executive takeover. I mean in theory the president could stage a military coup and declare himself dictator for life tomorrow. And the legislative branch could vote in measures by which it could be exceedingly difficult to remove the currently sitting members.
The reason that the president can't stage a military coup is because there is more to the government than just the executive branch. If the 'president' by and large is the government, then the military just does whatever he says. Sure the president is currently the command-in-chief of the armed forces, but do you really think that they would obey an order to take over Congress? But you are proposing that there is no Congress. It's much easier to obey an order to suppress the population (i.e. 'keep them at bay') in order to keep the 'president' in power than it is to obey an order to completely restructure the government (i.e. remove power from Congress by force). Even military coups in banana republics are pretty 'small' when compared to taking power from every Senator and Congressperson (i.e. you only have to take out the current 'leader' and some of his associates).
> It was just a thought experiment, vary at your pleasure. How about dramatically reducing the number of legislators to, say, 12? Would that really be much worse? It's still democracy, just a different spin on it.
I was under the impression that we have such a system of Congress so as to make sure that everyone gets a fair hearing. The real issue isn't that Congress no longer listens to the people, it's that the people feel helpless to do anything about Congress. Most people don't deal with political matters anymore, they just ignore them. Maybe it's just a sign of our country/population being too large to be governed by a single body. Maybe we should take the more Libertarian route and give power back to the state governments with a severely neutered federal government.
And your example of a 'democracy' isn't really a democracy, it's a republic (which is what the US really is).
Do you really think that once someone is in power that they couldn't just ignore that limitation?
As I said, they have that power now.
I think you're being unfair. You presume - rightly, I believe - that the military would likely not obey an order to take over congress today. But why would they suddenly break all the rules once my proposed system was put in place? There would be very clear rules in place as to how long this super-presidency would be allowed to last. The military then would presumably be just as inclined to follow them then as now.
Congress doesn't have any power other than that ascribed it in the law, otherwise they're just a bunch of old men. The president has no power in law to take away that power now and would have no power to expand his own tenancy in my proposed system. The military, courts, etc, would presumably obey the law in either respect.
Anyway, I admit what I said was a bit extreme. How about a compromise - today's system, but with the congress relegated to "advisor" status? In other words, today's system, but with the president able to force through any bill he really wanted? Wouldn't that be interesting?
Maybe we should take the more Libertarian route and give power back to the state governments with a severely neutered federal government
I have a lot of sympathy for this idea too. I would like to see meaningful competition between the states with the federal govt just providing a kind of basic national infrastructure. I feel this benefit of the state system has been lost with creeping purview of the fed.
And your example of a 'democracy' isn't really a democracy, it's a republic
Actually, that's a US-only use of the word. The rest of the world would call the USA a representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy.
Do you really think that once someone is in power that they couldn't just ignore that limitation?
> I don't see how that's all that different than today in terms of risk of executive takeover. I mean in theory the president could stage a military coup and declare himself dictator for life tomorrow. And the legislative branch could vote in measures by which it could be exceedingly difficult to remove the currently sitting members.
The reason that the president can't stage a military coup is because there is more to the government than just the executive branch. If the 'president' by and large is the government, then the military just does whatever he says. Sure the president is currently the command-in-chief of the armed forces, but do you really think that they would obey an order to take over Congress? But you are proposing that there is no Congress. It's much easier to obey an order to suppress the population (i.e. 'keep them at bay') in order to keep the 'president' in power than it is to obey an order to completely restructure the government (i.e. remove power from Congress by force). Even military coups in banana republics are pretty 'small' when compared to taking power from every Senator and Congressperson (i.e. you only have to take out the current 'leader' and some of his associates).
> It was just a thought experiment, vary at your pleasure. How about dramatically reducing the number of legislators to, say, 12? Would that really be much worse? It's still democracy, just a different spin on it.
I was under the impression that we have such a system of Congress so as to make sure that everyone gets a fair hearing. The real issue isn't that Congress no longer listens to the people, it's that the people feel helpless to do anything about Congress. Most people don't deal with political matters anymore, they just ignore them. Maybe it's just a sign of our country/population being too large to be governed by a single body. Maybe we should take the more Libertarian route and give power back to the state governments with a severely neutered federal government.
And your example of a 'democracy' isn't really a democracy, it's a republic (which is what the US really is).