General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat if we held an election for "Dictator" for 1-4 Years?
What if we held an election for "Dictator" for 1-4 Years? (to be predetermined before election)
The candidates would have to make a list of everything they would do. They would have to adhere to that list without deviation. Keep all promises, do nothing that was not promised. The government as a whole would have to do whatever it can to implement the list. I don't know what we do with congress.
SCOTUS remains untouched unless a new appointee is needed.
Campaigns would be limited to only discussing what is on each candidate's list.
Then whoever the people vote for has a mandate to take the country where the people want it to go. After the dictator term is up we go back to our current form of govt. with new elections for every seat.
I just don't think we can wait for whatever it will take to turn this country around again. TPTB are so entrenched and the people are so misinformed I just don't see it happening any time soon. It seems the only way to fix it is to give someone the power to do the people's bidding without any roadblocks. I'm not saying this is the answer - I think it's pretty clear this is hypothetical - but was just pondering it and thought it would be fun to throw it out there and see what people think...
Too risky?
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)It ended badly.
Seeking Serenity
(2,840 posts)and they're still going....
Oh, wait. Never mind.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It was only a powerful position because the Hapsburgs also owned Austria and lots of Italy. Being the Emperor didn't actually give him any power over the German princes.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)And if they are doing the work of the people you can bet TPTB would want an election. Or would they find a way to take over the "dictator"?
wandy
(3,539 posts)They would have to "admit" to wanting to be dictator for life and would have to be elected on those terms.
Like that would happen?
How often has history shown a ruler voluntarily giving up power.
You are most correct "You wouldnt be voting again in 4 years".
We have already gotten a little too close to that.
Forget "what would Jesus do"?
What would Romney do!
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)On edit: I see that previous posters already pointed that out.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Reality is that the doge was constrained by what the elites wanted
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Most obviously, it would mean that the government would often have to wait four years before it could respond to a crisis.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)the mandated "list".
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Also, who is going to arbitrate whether someone fits the list or not? There's no way you can specify every detail of four years of government policy.
An elected dictator is not an absurd idea, although it's not one I like.
An elected dictator who is not permitted to do anything not on a list, however, is, I think.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)since situations arise over the course of an administration that might necessitate a "dictator" taking some action that they couldn't have possibly known about back when they were campaigning.
You can hold a candidate to the promises they make once elected, but I don't know how you'd prevent them from also doing things they didn't promise (or even discuss), and therein lies the problem.
Even the promises they did make can be tricky.
"I promise that the federal government will pay the tuition for all students that attend college, so no one will leave college saddled with a debt". Sounds good, right?
And then once in office, they keep that promise... but do this by significantly limiting the number of students that can attend college, requiring them to take specific majors for skills that the government needs, and/or requiring them to work for the government free of charge for X number of years after college.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)The OP is suggesting vesting the entire power of the state in one person. Once that person has the power, real life will happen. Promises won't be kept. And how will that dictator be controlled? What would be the mechanism?
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Your idea is sort of like putting a killer Pitbull next to a person's pork chop laden throat. Not a good idea. The solution is sane people need to vote in every election.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Sane people voting won't fix it. The heads of the parties pretty much determine who gets to run. The corporations control candidates and elected officials with money. The media controls the message.
There is a lot broken that needs fixing and the people who can fix it refuse to do so. Even if we voted in a bunch of Dems, I don't hear them yelling about campaign finance reform. I don't hear them worrying about corporate monopolies. I don't hear them screaming for regulation. I don't hear them hollering about corporate welfare. There are a few voices that do of course, but as a whole the party is not doing that.
So we need a way to get the people's work done.
idendoit
(505 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)idendoit
(505 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Or close enough for most practical purposes anyway.
wandy
(3,539 posts)Even over the short span of a year, things change.
For a government to function it must remain somewhat fluid and have the ability to respond to changes in the external environment.
One of the problems we face at the moment is that Teapublican obstructionism follows a predetermined path.
Obstruction.
Think of the opportunists we have lost.
Token Republican
(242 posts)The enabling act made Hitler Germany's dictator on an emergency basis. His emergency powers could be extended until the emergency was over. The acts were renewed twice, once in 1937 and again in 1941.
The act itself was very short. Read up at the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)does not work well. Are you going to suspend the Constitution? We would never get a representative form of government back.
Being a dictator doesn't make you more efficient, you know. It just gives you the tools to remain in power.
If you think corporations have too much power now, just wait until they have to deal with just one man or woman.
Our real problem is that we are evolving an Imperial Presidency NOW, not that we need one. Congress is happy to sit back and shift all the responsibility - we need to get people in Congress who will deal with the issues, not try and find a president who's a superhero. Comic books do not have anything to do with real life.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And the world was much smaller.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Because once you're the one in charge you have to decide on who to get things done with, and rather than having to compromise, or work with people, you wind up choosing whoever will do things "as quickly" or "as efficiently" as possible. Once the inner circle is built it becomes a disaster. Mismanagement, whole nine yards. You lose transparency, numbers get fuzzed, resources just flat up disappear.
In effect, if you think shit isn't getting done now, it'll be far worse and far more costly than doing it the "let's talk it over" kind of way. The Teabaggers are louses, but they won't be around forever, and American demographics are trending in one direction. We'll get stuff done, don't doubt that.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Stuff that no one could've predicted was even possible in 2000.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Those things don't change the status of the 1%. Don't change campaign finance. Corporate welfare. TPTB don't mind giving us things that don't change their profits and control.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Require a person-to-person sit down between legislators and lobbyists and they must draft the general idea of the legislation right there.
Then of course you can send it to the paralegals and pages to get the actual written words down so that they're concise.
Then you compare the two, if the to be voted legislation are considered the same by the legislators, the lobbyists and a third party, then it is considered the proposed legislation.
There, now it doesn't matter if you try to buy candidates, they actually have to do their job. Their conscious is going to get to them. They'll be involved in the process. Civilians then would elect people on their character as opposed to their pronouncements.
This would make pork difficult to get passed, but for pork you'd have a day of "Financial Assistance to the States," throughout the year the drafted legislation and pork projects would be guaranteed to pass, because on that day everyone wants to get their states projects going or whatever and benefit whatever local community thing is wanted (yes there are bridges to nowhere sometimes but they are minimal).
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)You win!, You said it right there. What is worse is were are now conditioned to accept these bones thrown at us as real progress and as a bonus keep us distracted fighting against one another instead of fighting them.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)What does that mean?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Remove any obstructionism that may be present.
During this administration the main reason given for progressive policy not being implemented and only centrist at best policies getting passed is that we have an obstructionist oppositional party. So just threw that in to not have that as an issue.
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)Just publish the 'lists' and have referendums. Then if congresspeople fail to implement them they are swiftly recalled, and if any congresspeople try to profit or undermine the items, then they are given life in jail.
ananda
(28,876 posts).