A New Kind of Presidency?

The ARTICLE for this week focuses on the fact that the position of president of the USA has become too complex for one person. I’m not sure that there isn’t some truth to this idea. However, I’m less sure of the 3 alternate proposals for the presidency. Thoughts?

10 responses to “A New Kind of Presidency?”

  1. Jessica Ortiz says:

    Two-Presidents, the craziest idea ever. Nothing would get accomplished.

  2. Joey Pierron says:

    I agree with the idea that the job of the president has gotten much more complex over these last few decades. As far as the alternate proposals I think the first and third ideas were a bit over the top. However, I personally think the second idea which would grant the cabinet more power is somewhat reasonable. I see the president as the head of the cabinet anyway, so it wouldn’t be as big of a transition to simply give them a little more of an influence in the president’s decision making.

  3. Ariana Hansen says:

    As far as the alternatives go, I think that the first alternative is somewhat good and somewhat problematic. I think it’s a good idea because it would allow views from both political parties which I think is something this country needs. I also think it’s problematic because no task or job would get done because since they are two different political parties, they wouldn’t be able to agree on any topic. I think that the second alternative is good because using the Cabinet members would lessen the stress on the president. Lastly, I think that the third alternative is not so good because that would mean that technology is replacing the “president’s” work.

  4. Amber Nichols says:

    I agree that the president’s job has gotten a lot more complex and more burdensome for one person, however I think the alternative ideas they have would cause more harm then good. I think that having two presidents from both political parties wouldn’t accomplish anything. Each president would be advocating for their party and would clash with the opposing president. For example, the republican president would want to make abortions illegal, while the democratic president would oppose that and they would spend most of their term fighting each other on trying to pass new bills. The video game option is definitely not safe. There are too many hackers in the world that would abuse the system and do horrible things simply because they could. Or like the article mentions, the internet would most likely vote for absurdness such as Maru, the Japanese box loving cat as chief of staff. The only reasonable option is #2, president by committee which wouldn’t be that far off from what is already in place.

  5. Mariah Galarza says:

    Yes being president has to be complex and stressful but we elect a person who we believe could tackle on the burdens/problems that may come along. I feel that the political party and the individuals working underneath the president should help with any issues that may be hard for one to manage alone. Having multiple presidents would only cause more conflict and none of the issues would be resolved. A good question would be could a female be the “co-president”? How then would the views be different an how many problems would be resolved? I personally would find it interesting because it would allow a male and a female point of view to every issue.

  6. Laura Schwartz says:

    I do agree that the job of the President is difficult to say the least. Although as far as having two Presidents, I don’t think this is going to work out very well. People with some of the same views still butt heads while conversing about some topics. That being said having people of two different political views work together to solve many of the world’s problems, I don’t think you are going to get very far. The second solution doesn’t seem as irrational as the first and if I had to pick I’d probably say this one would be your best bet since they know more of the ins and outs of the government and there are many people that can help make a clear and wise decision. The third way of helping the President doesn’t seem logical at all. The fact that it’s even compared to a video game says just how ridiculous the idea is. Having everyone be able to put some sort of input in on how the United States is run is just going to overwhelm everyone involved.

  7. Kirstyn Behling says:

    While I don’t deny that the job of the president is obviously a big one, I highly doubt that having two presidents would prove beneficial. I feel like to have two presidents representing each major political party would only create conflict at the head of the government. Not only would they disagree on everything, making executive decisions would just be a major conflict. The idea of strengthening the cabinet is the most rational of the three options. It does make sense to allow them to help the president more, considering he is the highest level and could probably use a little more help. As far as the video game idea goes, please no. There is a reason that the president is the president and not all of us. I have had the displeasure of going on Facebook and having to see my friends get into political debates on numerous occasions, I can’t imagine the level of ignorance of debating politics online would be like if we allowed them to have an actual say in the government.

  8. Taysia Justus says:

    I do agree that the job of being the president of the United States has gotten way too complex for one man/woman to handle. I think that the first idea, having two presidents to help each other out would be a fantastic idea, however I think that the majority of people will agree that, that will never work. The saying “Two heads is better than one” is often true, however not two heads that have opposite views on how our country needs to be run. I think that the way it’s being run is too tough for one person, but deciding on a way to “split” the power of presidency is way more absurd.

  9. Jenna Otterholt says:

    I think the three alternatives are very interesting. I would probably eliminate the third one. Technology seems to take over too much at times and I don’t think the Presidency should be included in that. I do agree that the President has a lot to do but isn’t he/she aware of that when they are running? Also, don’t they have tons of people to help them already? As far as the first proposal goes about having two presidents, that would most likely solve a lot of hatred towards other people’s political parties. On the other hand, I feel like that would cause gridlock if the Presidents are completely opposite in opinions.

  10. Kate Hazelbauer says:

    The Presidency has become more than what it was in the past but I do not think that having two Presidents will solve the amount of workload. Two Presidents could mean that there would be more ideas/solutions to everyday problems but it could also mean that the two Presidents, having come from different parties, might have a few disagreements which could cause problems for everyone and fewer solutions because they cannot agree.
    As for the “Video Gamer Presidency”, it may be somewhat taking place right now but it also will not work if used in the future. The magnitude of information that one gets off the internet is great but if everyone has a say in what is going on in the nation, it will become more chaotic than imagined and even few solutions.
    In my opinion, the President should stay one person with multiple people helping him. The President may have a lot of jobs to do and a lot on his plate but everyone should know that he cannot and will not be able to get everything taken care of in four years…everything takes time, a lot of time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *