Hiring a President

[C1ay]

Suppose you were selected to be part of a committee chosen to hire a President for the U.S.A. via traditional hiring methods. What requirements and qualifying restrictions would you include in your solicitations? What job experience and education would you expect to see in resumes submitted for the position? What qualities would an optimum candidate possess?

[Moontanman]

I think we should hire the president by lottery, every one will be given a lottery ticket. Anyone who wants to be president can buy as many tickets as they want from individuals. Who ever is selected by a random drawing will serve two years at the end of which everyone votes to either keep them another four years or to hang them. At this point he has no choice but to submit to this vote. If the person is hung then we hold another lottery, if he is kept in office he stands for another vote of confidence in another four years at which time he comes up for hanging or affirmation or at this point he can retire by choice. Every four years his life is on the line until he either retires by choice or is hung. The next candidate gets two years to prove himself and it starts over again!

[Moontanman]

Oh yeah, the president would have (within the confines of certain wide limits, we have to decide ahead of time what those limits would be) absolute power, all decisions would be made by him. he would either get the acclaim or the blame for all of his decisions.

[Thunderbird]

With Mcain its all about oneupsmenship and voting blocks
Not experiance.

McCain Picks Palin
Washington Post - 1 hour ago
DENVER -- John McCain has selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his vice presidential running mate, according to the McCain campaign, a surprise pick sure to shake up the race and reinforce the idea of the Arizona senator as a reformer

[Boerseun]

Not a bad idea, at all.

Arthur Clarke wrote in "Songs of Distant Earth" about a planet colonised by humans in the somewhat distant future, who had a constitution which made it a very peaceful and successful planet. One of the strong points in the constitution of this imaginary planet was that the president is randomly selected by a foolproof computer; there are no presidential elections. And every individual who shows any interest in becoming president is summarily deleted from the selection list.

In my mind, a successful country should be run by consensus. That kinda goes without saying, but what consensus can you have when you have a president with such vast executive powers as we see in the US? The smaller the number of people where ultimate authority lies, the bigger the role played by ego. We have seen this over the last eight years in the US - or Bushistan, and are seeing it now in Russia. Or Putinoslavia.

What would be the ideal, would be a legaslitive house elected by popular vote, and a ceremonial president who can be either voted for or appointed by the House - it doesn't really matter, seeing as his only function in life will be to open new hospitals, visit schools, smile at the camera, etc. The real nitty-gritty would be done in the House, and in committees getting down to the details.

You might say that it is basically the case in the US already, and you might be almost right. But any instance where a single person can get to undo any good work done by the legaslitive assembly by veto, makes the concept of governance by the people null and void, and will make one single idiot's ego run the country. A single individual, prone to all the quirks and psychological issues and stresses the rest of us are exposed to, should not have as much executive power as is currently seated in the Office of the President of the United States. Or Russia, for that matter.

[freeztar]

I think veto power is a very powerful tool, and a good one to maintain checks and balances. Remember, the veto can be overruled with a legislative vote.

Anyhow, as for the qualities of a good president, I think that has been covered in questor's thread. The idea of hiring a president sounds good until you consider that this is already the way things work for the most part when you consider special interest groups and lobbying.

[GAHD]

Originally Posted by C1ay

Suppose you were selected to be part of a committee chosen to hire a President for the U.S.A. via traditional hiring methods.

Would the committee be run akin to jury duty?

What requirements and qualifying restrictions would you include in your solicitations?

I'm a head hunter? Can I in turn create a sub-committee of psychologists prospects have to be profiled by?

What job experience and education would you expect to see in resumes submitted for the position?

extensive financial experience(non personal), law experience, environmental studies,

What qualities would an optimum candidate possess?

Depending on available selection, Strong personal ethics(not necessarily in line with my own), decisive, research skills.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Who ever is selected...will serve two years at the end of which everyone votes to either keep them another four years or to hang them...Every four years his life is on the line until he either retires by choice or is hung. The next candidate gets two years to prove himself and it starts over again!

I kinda like this idea. Ultimate power with ultimate accountability. better put their immediate family on the line too, just so no one can use them as leverage.