From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: The Glorious Constitution (was: [UPI] Supreme Court strikes down...)
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:44:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.210443.5472@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de writes:
>The problem is that the position of President was intended to be similar
>to that of the British Monarch, in theory all powerful, but in effect
>powerless. There was never the belief that the Federal government would
>require a massive executive because the States would take care of almost
>everything except foreign affairs which boiled down to not getting
>invaded by the British, French and Spanish.

You could go so far as to say the States _feared_ a strong executive

>The problem is that such a system cannot possibly work today. The whole
>system is built upon federal regulation. The problem is that there is no
>way of properly bringing the executive to account. The President has
>much too much power.

And Jefferson aptly described the greatest danger of republican 
(that is, representative) government here paraphrased.  There is a
tendency in republican forms of government toward an agrandizement of
the legislature.  The legislative body is most likely to grow in
power by convincing themselves that they not only represent the people
but actually consider themselves to be _the_ people. 

I think that your statement is incorrect, the President has less power
than during the founding.  Witness the difficulty in vetoing spending
bills or in getting appointees approved.

>The other democratised countries developed a party system which
>functions independently of the constitution and provides a lot of the
>checks and balances. The US constitution has only scope for two parties
>which  have both ended up on the same end of the political spectrum. The
>introduction of a nation wide preferential voting system for the
>President would be a start, then third candidates could run without the
>problem of not getting votes because they arn't going to get in. This
>sort of candidate would bring people into the political process, voting
>for Jessie (Jackson/Helms) would bring people into the system, then they
>could cast second preferences for Bush/Clinton.

Be careful what you wish for...   This approach is highly unstable and 
as evidence examine _any_ country which has multi parties.  Who here
would really want either Jackson or Helms to become viable candidates?
What you propose could pervert into a volatile system instead of 
a stable on.

You are correct though, the system is geared toward two parties which
must obtain broad support across the country in order to gain the
Presidency.  I see this as a strength in that it promotes stability
and that is is less susceptible to the emotional whims of any moment. 
It also prevents regional (east coast only) or single issue (white supremacy)
candidates from having any real chance    _and_this_is_good!

The two parties aren't on the same end of the spectrum at all, it's just
that Bush has been acting more like a democrat for most of the past 4 years
than as a republican.  


Philip, as John F. Kennedy stated...


"When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change"


Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Organization: Art, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA