Would this change to the POTUS/VP format change anything?

Wouldn't make any difference as the vice president doesn't do anything.

Congress is probably the most broken branch of govt but the problem is that the Constitution is outdated and in need of change that won't occur because it's almost impossible to do so.

 

You mean like when the country first started? Wonder why they changed the system? :grin:

 

They're the swing vote in the senate Sam.

 

Probably wouldn't work though. We don't need no Brutus' running around.

 

That's how they used to do it, if this was old school government where you deliberately ignored the VP and didn't give him any security clearances or a professional staff I'd say go ahead. But there's way too much access and incentive nowadays for him to not sabotage the President in some untraceable and perfectly legal way.

 

Would provide lucrative work for assassins.

 

Why would the VP want to be VP unless the president would to be offed?

 

Quarter million a year with no responsibilities?

 

Except for figuring out how to KILL THE PRESIDENT!




Data mining here we come!

 

Congress right now is the biggest problem.

One thing that I truly think needs to happen is an expansion to Congress. As the population of the US grows, our Congressional districts have become the size of smaller states in terms of population. The average Congressional district now consists of around 600,000 people which leaves little room for anyone to actually know their Congressman nor does it give room for any real old school retail politics.

As the population grows, Congressional races are little more than loud gerrymandered ad wars that don't allow for the old way of politics. At the end of the day door to door canvassing is the most effective method of politics but is virtually impossible because of sheer numbers. Underfunded candidates used to be able to win just out of sheer will to engage in old retail politics.

Ending partisan redistricting and expanding the number of congressional districts to shrink their size would be a helpful change in my opinion. Otherwise its only going to get worse.

 

The prez will die from 'mysterious cause' every 4 yrs. j/k
I'm for these...
Shorter terms- cut them in half.. 2>1, 6>3("not representing our interests, ur gone"
more representatives (like geeim says),
some kind of filibuster amendment to restrict its use - fili being misused/abused for obstruction
punish/outlaw obstruction... recalls? (when voting against a bill they helped write, supported under another president/at another time, or against the interest of the majority they represent)
evolve

Or maybe just abolish the two party system, if that can be done. That way representatives will be accountable to issues, and ppl will elect based on issues - not parties

 

And that has been relevant for what, .0001% of all floor votes in the last 100 years?

 

It's dictated control of the Senate before (2000, for example), which determines the majority leader, committee assignments, floor votes, etc.

 

For about a 4-month period out of 200+ years of history.

It's not controversial to observe the office of the VP has kind of been a running joke since it's creation largely due to its powerlessness, see John Adams (one of the few VP's to actually break important ties in the Senate...):

"My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived."

 

If you want to see a system where the loser gets the say then we should switch to a Parliamentary system. That has other problems though.

 

Wouldnt it be the opposite? In a parliamentary system, the loser gets very little to no say. Whoever forms the governing coalition basically gets control of the entire government.

Personally if we're going to continue to get hyper polarized, a parliamentary system is pretty much the only solution. Our system of power sharing only works when parties are willing to work together rather than using the system to create gridlock. (i.e. Republican abuse of the filibuster and the inability of the house to pass basic legislation like a farm bill or until recently a transportation bill)

 

Over the course of my lifetime, and particularly through the Clinton years and beyond, the VP has evolved into a Deputy President more than the traditional "bucket of warm spit" job it was for the first 150 years.

Under this proposal, what incentive would a president have to include their opponent, the VP, on any briefings or involve him in any decisions knowing the VP would likely leak like crazy in the worst possible way to spin everything as a negative for the president? Imagine the mischief the VP could create with foreign policy or discussions about budget and domestic programs. Under this scenario, if the Pres did die, the VP would have been frozen out and then put in a position of governing with a Cabinet and an Executive Branch full of appointees from the other party and made up of people who likely hate him. In normal times, this would be a disaster. In times of crisis, it would be horrific.

This is a bad idea.

 

With where we are currently, partisan but numerically narrowly divided, under a parliament we would likely see a coalition government. We would occasionally get single party dominance like in an election like 2008, but more often I think we would see coalition governments where the loser gets a say.

Anyway I am not recommending a parliamentary system.