Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Do We Need a Transition Period?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 09:11 PM
Original message
Why Do We Need a Transition Period?
Edited on Thu Sep-23-04 09:17 PM by liberalpragmatist
Virtually no other democracy has one. Well, okay, to be fair, no parliamentary systems do. But still - I don't know why it couldn't work in the US. Why couldn't we just have all federal terms (Pres., Congress) automatically expire, say, a week before the election. The officials would stay in power as "caretakers" until a winner was authorized and his/her term could begin right after being elected, or a day or so afterwards.

I realize that with cabinet and all it may be tougher, but why not allow the President the opportunity to appoint his cabinet members temporarily for an interim period during which time they would be merely "acting" secretaries, subject to senate confirmation within, say, a period of 3 months.

Personally, I think even our current lame-duck period is too long.

UPDATE: I should add that I favor scrapping the EC or at the least, making electoral votes automatic, not cast by live electors. If either of these were the case, then transition periods would be meaningless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
greatauntoftriplets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Electoral College doesn't meet until about 1 month after the election.
Newly elected people need time to move to DC, losers to move out.

Do you really expect numbnuts to have his bags packed on 11/1?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Well, and to be fair, I think as part of this the EC should go too
So I'm talking about comprehensive electoral reform which would incorporate this. But even if the electoral college were to remain, if say the Constitution were amended to award electoral votes automatically (no actual electors casting votes), then this would still work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banana republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. I hope so
I don't want him arround any longer than necessary....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spinzonner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
3. What we really need is

an injunction to keep the previous administration from destroying records during the transition
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stavka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. What other democracy are you talking about? (that has no transition)
Most real democracies are parliamentary by the way. I wish we were. I would be great to see 3% of the house Green, and 1% actually Nazi-Klan types.

The two party system is a huge part of the problem.

I am a Democrat, because I have no other moral choice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalpragmatist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Most of them
In the UK the new PM and the new parliament take office THE NEXT DAY. Similar in India and Canada, or however long it takes for a cabinet to be named and approved. Sometimes that can take awhile. But as soon as a candidate for PM has a majority backing him in parliament, he's PM, even if it's just 1 day after the election.

For instance during the Potsdam conference towards the end of WWII, the UK election occurred where Churchill was defeated. So in the middle of the Potsdam conference, Clement Attlee SUDDENLY replaced Churchill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. Look on the bright side
originally, the transition period went on until March. FDR's 1933 inaugural was the last one held so late, after that the Constitution was amended to move it to January.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eye and Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. We need a transition. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. No, not "period". It's a legit question & deserves a thoughtful answer
I think some transitional period time is good. Clinton sure made an excellent use of his transition time, using it as a time to educate the public and garner public support and expert opinions on how to fix the Reagan-Bush mess he inherited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eye and Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Yes. Period. Lighten up. Think past your own "thoughtful answer"
and discover that there may be more to a few words than you think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. damn you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eye and Monkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-04 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Smile when you say that, Pilgrim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carpetbagger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-04 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
10. Transition periods provide several benefits.
1. Election disputes take time to resolve.
2. We don't have a parliamentary government, so the cabinet isn't pre-ordained, say like committee chairs are when control changes in Congress. It takes time to choose sub-cabinet officials.
3. Time to dig up dirt on cabinet officials and find the freaks and lunatics.
4. Gives the administration time to formulate an agenda, which is important given our multiple centers of government power.
5. Allows the army of low-level political appointees to move in and out.
6. Lets tempers die back after an election.
7. I don't like the idea of appointed secretaries. Let them understand from day one that they are accountable to Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 12:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC