Quote:
Originally Posted by OICURMT
This single, simple, statement is the most truth you will ever get out of any political thread on this or any other site...
|
Yeah, re 2 presidential choices is what we would call a two horse race. The system in the US was a vast improvement on having a monarch, but was still influenced by the times, where countries, even empires were ruled by just the leader. My understanding was that President George Washington was offered more power for his role, but declined it. He understood the dangers in that offer.
Many people say, don't fix it unless its broken. IMHO, the system that has served the US well for over 2 centuries is now under strain, and may soon be broken. I suggest that the UK/Australian type of parliaments where the leader is elected by their party is a better way to go. However, it would be great if the US changed and again showed the way by improving (hopefully vastly, as ours is far from perfect) on the Uk/Aust parliamentary systems.
My biggest fear is that the US, under strain is looking for a strong leader. History repeats; Democratic Senates in both Greece and Rome collapsed. Both nation states had one gloriously strong leader shortly afterwards, Alexander the Great & Julius Caesar and then in was downhill from there.