As I write this we are beset with a situation in which the president and the congress are in a virtual deadlock. They are of opposite parties and neither will compromise on most issues. As a result very little is being accomplished and we have a “Do Nothing” government. I suspect that whatever is proposed by the President is opposed just because the congress is determined to have him fail and in doing so, loose the next election. On the other hand, the President will use his veto power to kill any legislation with which he does not agree. Compromise is not in either side’s vocabulary. We are beset with obstructionism by both.
It makes one wonder … Would we be better off if we did not elect a president. Maybe the vice president could be selected by the senate. Then his position as the President of the Senate would have meaning and be a useful office. The president could be selected by either the majority party of the members of both houses of Congress or by the members themselves, our elected representatives. (as is the Prime Minister of many governments.) In that way, there would be some degree of unity of purpose between the president and the congress and things could get accomplished.
Do we damage the “checks and balances” intended by our founders? Maybe. But it would greatly reduce deadlocks such as we now face. Besides, there would still be diversity within congress itself and provide its own internal “checks and balances”. We do not now elect the administrative branch of the government by direct popular vote but through the useless Electoral College which would be eliminated.
An added benefit would be the money that would be saved by eliminating the Presidential election campaigns. Just think of the elimination of the mental angst that would not occur for those who would not need to listen to the commercials, the debates and the rhetoric of the campaigns.
We, the people, would be served by having our choice of majority party make the choice of the President.
Just a thought!