Please forgive me for being an outsider looking in but I confess I have trouble understanding the American governmental system. Can someone help me out please?
I doubt that anyone with a role to play in reforming the government will read this, but it will enter the collective consciousness.
I mean no disrespect, but I don’t understand the primaries in a Presidential election. I don’t understand the way delegates are selected. I don’t understand superdelegates. I don’t understand the electoral college.
Why is it not the case that a simple election can be called, a simple, nation-wide vote be held and that’s that?
You’re going to need to forgive me this next one too, but I don’t understand why the President does not sit in Congress and assume the role presently occupied by the Speaker of the House or Senate, as leader of the largest party in the representative assembly.
Come to think of it, why not combine House and Senate and have the President be the leader of the largest party in the single house?
The President now becomes the leader of the largest party represented in the single house, as in Britain or the Commonwealth nations. The Commonwealth nations should also merge their two houses as well, in my view.
Supposing matters were to remain as they are today, rather than that we all ascend. As long as the President does not sit in Congress as the leader of the party with the largest representation, he or she has no ability to affect the outcome of a vote.
We’ve seen with President Obama that a President can be almost completely ignored or even thwarted by Congress. There’s no necessary arrangement by which the President’s words can be translated into legislation.
In President Obama’s case, a cabal of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats agreed to oppose every measure he put forth, to scramble words in his messages, to promote among the populace the view that Obama is part of the Illuminati, when he isn’t, etc. President Obama did not stand a chance from Day One. It’s a miracle he got as far as he did.
The President can say whatever he wants and the “bully pulpit,” as Theodore Roosevelt called it, is about the extent of his legitimate power right now. And ruling by executive order.
I say “legitimate” because all manner of illegitimate arrangements can and do take place, like bribery, entrapment, collusion, assassination (and we’ve seen enough of all of these), etc.
There’s no guarantee that the President’s legislative initiatives, like Obamacare, will get through Congress, or that these initiatives won’t be completely reworked by recalcitrant opponents, or that attempts to defeat it or its provisions will not be floated as a footnote to another piece of legislation.
This would never happen in the British parliamentary system. There’s no gridlock in that system, as there was at every step of the journey in Obama’s tenure because the Prime Minister leads the largest party and can get his legislation enacted. The President cannot.
(Add to the list getting rid of adding clauses to a piece of legislation, that affect a different piece of legislation. Where do these arrangements come from? Can anyone tell me?)
Until the President sits in Congress as the leader of the largest party in a Congress of a single house, there’ll be gridlock and frustration (barring Ascension).
Why are we tolerating the unwieldly, unrepresentative or downright unwise arrangements that exist at the moment? If we’re reforming government, I suggest streamlining the American system. But, hey, who am I to say? Just a friendly outsider.