Bloodless Coup

In support of your argument, the FOX poll (!) puts Bush at 33%. Can we hold that vote of no-confidence now?

in the current political climate, i can think of nothing more foolish than having a new chief executive every six or eight months, but in the current political climate that's exactly what we'd get. notwithstanding my ongoing nausea, i'll pass.

Moon, I cannot figure out why the spam filter is hitting you every time. The program log doesn't say that it's banning you for any reason (such as using the ellipsis) but simply says that it is sending you to moderation. I'm still working on it.

Moon,
Unlikely as it seems, we're agreeing yet again. The elections were set at four and six years for President and Senate just because they didn't want Washington choreographed by the political circus which the media would prefer.

Morris for someone who seems to want to so frequently defer to what you think the founders REALLY meant it's worth pointing out that: 1) Washington didn't exist when 4 and 6 year terms were set and 2) what the hell "political circus" do you think was in existence prior to the writing of the Constitution.

And as much as I admire Franklin and Hamilton, I don't see why we should always revert to the choices made by rich white guys who were planning an agrarian society featuring rampant slavery, few political rights for women, and a complete lack of anything like modern communications and information sharing.

And you see lots of stability in many of the systems were you can have a PM ousted at (theoretically) any time. One party has basically ruled Japan for decades. Tony Blair's been in office for over 9 years. I could make a really long list.

I just find it peculiar more people don't talk about this more. If you win a majority in the electoral college (not the people's vote) on one day every four years you get to rule for four years. That's not really a system that demands much in the way of the president behaving according to the popular will - which you'd think a democracy would want. We happily haven't faced a situation recently where someone who was desperately unpopular was ruling for years on end. But it's looking more and more like that's going to be the case for the next few years.

And while I am no fan of instability and chaos, stability is by no means the hallmark of good governance. Stroessner, anyone?

accountabiility falls instead on housemembers, and to suggest that the white house isn't responsive in its own way to the electorate through its concern (whether same-party or other-party) for the fortunes of favored housemembers is sort of silly.

so do you really think a two-party parliamentary system a) is even feasible or b) will serve this country's needs? do you think a parliamentary system would spawn new minority parties, and that this would be good for our system? i don't see anything in the major first-world parliamentary systems i know anything about (england, canada, israel) that suggests it's a system superior to our own, and indeed i have the impression that sometimes for years on end the fractiousness in these bodies precludes any progress on anything.