We need to amend the US Constitution to add votes of no confidence.

[originalpckelly]

Poll question: We need to amend the US Constitution to add votes of no confidence.

The Senate and the House should be able to call for a special election any time during the last three years during a President's second 4 year term, with a simple majority in both houses.

The special election will confirm whether or not the people wish to retain their President. To keep the President a double majority would be required, meaning that the President would have to be confirmed by an absolute majority of the US population, in order to continue in office.

If the President fails to stand in the vote of no confidence, the entire executive leadership will be removed from office, and the Speaker of the House shall lead a transitional government for a period of one year. During that year a full Presidential election will be held, and a new Vice President and President be elected. The Speaker of the House would be ineligible to stand in the Presidential election. The Senator(s) and/or Representative(s) who introduced the vote of no confidence in the Senate and/or the House will also be ineligible to stand for election. Any member of the administration which was removed in a successful vote of no confidence will also be ineligible to stand for Presidential election.

In addition to prevent abuse of this measure, no more than one vote of no confidence may be introduced per year.

The special election will occur at the soonest possible date, and no later than 6 months away from the vote of no confidence's passage of both house of Congress. Governors of the various states will be required to issue a report to Congress when their respective states are ready to participate in the vote of no confidence special election.

-------------------------------------------

Do you approve of the aforementioned proposal?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. How does one know

when the "last three years" of a President's term are? Clinton could well have been voted out in '94 if this were in effect.

I'm not in favor of making drastic changes to our form of government because of one bad President. the republic will survive.

[originalpckelly]

2. The last three years of a second 4 year term.

Not the last three years of a first 4 year term.

[originalpckelly]

3. I understand that it was unclear, I have fixed that. Only during the second term...

because a President is completely without account to the people during that time, since s/he will not be up for another election they don't have to worry about what the public thinks.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. well I still disagree with it

it's a very drastic measure that would be sure to bring on way too much political mischief.

Let's get rid of Presidential term-limits instead.

[JVS]

4. No fucking way.

Clinton would have been gone in 97. Simple majority is way too low a threshold.

[originalpckelly]

6. Not unless a majority of the people disapproved of his leadership.

Maybe the double majority is too much, because it kind of sets up a situation where more people must keep him/her in office than those who elected him/her.

[Nutmegger]

5. I vote no on this. [n\t]

[originalpckelly]

7. What concern do you have with the proposal. Can it be made better?

Or is the idea totally off?

[Perky]

8. Read Federalist Paper #10

No confidence votes only really work in Parliamentary systemwhere the committe structure closely mirrors the goverement and all all the ministers actuall come from the House. We have sepeartae and equal branches of government and this would make the aPresidency a puppet of the majority Party.



Besides which, The american Presidency should not be held hostage to the tyranny of either the majority of a minority

Think of it. Hillary wins and 13 months later she is at 45^ in the polls with a hostile though small GOP majority.

Unfortunately and Fortunately, we should not change the costitution on the basis of the passions of the moment or based on the power of aany nuber of factions which emerge from tiem to time.

[Thothmes]

10. Vote of No Confidence

It appears this is aimed at the current administration. As such, it may not be a bad idea. Had this procedure been included in our Constitution at the turn of the century, not only would President Clinton been ousted from office, but so would have been Presidents Wilson and Truman.

[maine_raptor]

11. Sorry, a very bad idea.

The effectiveness of the American Governmental System would be at the mercy of only 269 individuals (218 in the House and 51 in the Senate).

Kinda takes the wind out of the sails of participatory democracy.

And as for a new general election to confirm the vote. You really want to trust the fate of a future president's administration to a bunch of "Blackwells" and "Harris's"? Especially if it's a progressive president that you might like?