Does the US even need a President?

[Cetacea]

Okay yes I realise the its in the Constitution and stuff but could the USA work even without a President?

As I understand it Congress makes the legislation and currently has to approve any official appointments, executive orders and declarations of war made by the President. So why not cut out the middle man? Ie Does Congress have the capacity to do those things directly?

How much would it upset the system? States would still have their representatives, the Military would be subject to Congress, The Supreme Court would still exist to interpret Law and provide judicial review on Congress.

So NSG is a USA with No President viable? Is it desirable?

I’m not from the US so might be missing something and Im a monarchist and thus prefer a non-partisan Head of State beholden to Tradition rather than politic, but I’m considering alternatives that might apply in the USA - (I suppose in absence of a President does the Speaker of the House become HOS?)

[The Black Forrest]

Yes. Who would veto bad or self-serving legislation?

[Adamede]

Per the Constituon yes.

I mean what are you going to replace them with? A prime minister? We’ll have the same problems except this time is congress voting for them, not to mention the whole point of the three branches is so that they can counteract against one another and keep them in check. A king? Not going to fucking happen.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Considering how many countries don't have presidents, the US doesn't really need one, but changing the system would be hard.

[The Three Palins]

I think you'd need a Cabinet, like Parliamentary Democracies use. They would be embedded in Congress rather than appointed. Chairmen of the Committees would serve well: it's a decentralized way to choose a Cabinet which does not require a Prime Minister and avoids putting even more power into the hands of Speaker and Senate President.

[The Three Palins]

Considering how many countries don't have presidents, the US doesn't really need one, but changing the system would be hard.

Harder than McConnell's shell tho?

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

The US needs a monarch: me Kenneth Branagh Alastair. Make America a Constitutional Monarchy Again.

[Bengal and Assam]

Considering how many countries don't have presidents, the US doesn't really need one, but changing the system would be hard.

Yes, but they have a Prime Minister. Who literally does the same job

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Considering how many countries don't have presidents, the US doesn't really need one, but changing the system would be hard.

Harder than McConnell's shell tho?

Maybe

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Considering how many countries don't have presidents, the US doesn't really need one, but changing the system would be hard.

Yes, but they have a Prime Minister. Who literally does the same job

There have been nations throughout history without one single leader. It is possible.

[Jehallowell]

It would need a president, or some sort of elected official, because replacing it with a dictator would most likely cause major uprisings. A monarchy? Not going to happen.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

It would need a president, or some sort of elected official, because replacing it with a dictator would most likely cause major uprisings. A monarchy? Not going to happen.

Exactly. I was making a joke earlier.

[The Three Palins]

Considering how many countries don't have presidents, the US doesn't really need one, but changing the system would be hard.

Yes, but they have a Prime Minister. Who literally does the same job

It's not literally the same. Appointing a Cabinet for instance: the PM has to give a little something to each faction of their party in Parliament, since they can themselves be replaced by a majority vote. They also appoint the Cabinet from among the elected members, which the President does not have to do (and quite often doesn't).

In European democracies, it's not unheard of to appoint members of other parties to Cabinet!

[The Three Palins]

Yes, but they have a Prime Minister. Who literally does the same job

There have been nations throughout history without one single leader. It is possible.

Triumvirates, also the Gang of Five.

[Thermodolia]

Okay yes I realise the its in the Constitution and stuff but could the USA work even without a President?

As I understand it Congress makes the legislation and currently has to approve any official appointments, executive orders and declarations of war made by the President. So why not cut out the middle man? Ie Does Congress have the capacity to do those things directly?

The thing is that the president can make appointments himself when congress is not in session. Congress doesn’t have to approve executive orders. That’s why both parties hate them when the opposition is in power. The president can issue as many EOs as they want on literally any topic. And the president can use the military for any action without congressional approval as long as it doesn’t go over 90 days.

Also the president has the power of veto, which means legislation doesn’t become law. Congress has to have a large supermajority in both houses to overturn the veto.

How much would it upset the system? States would still have their representatives, the Military would be subject to Congress, The Supreme Court would still exist to interpret Law and provide judicial review on Congress.

It would break the system to the point the US would be ungovernable

So NSG is a USA with No President viable? Is it desirable?

No to both questions

I’m not from the US so might be missing something and Im a monarchist and thus prefer a non-partisan Head of State beholden to Tradition rather than politic, but I’m considering alternatives that might apply in the USA - (I suppose in absence of a President does the Speaker of the House become HOS?)

If the president is unable to govern the Vice President takes office, while the speaker of the house is line for the Presidency there is constitutional concerns about the legality of the speaker being in such a line.

[Thermodolia]

Considering how many countries don't have presidents, the US doesn't really need one, but changing the system would be hard.

Nations that don’t have an executive president have either a neutral president or a monarch with a prime Minister as head of government

[Sundiata]

I think that the United States should keep the presidential system but abolish the electoral college.

[Postauthoritarian America]

On the one hand, the US hasn't had a President for the last four years. On the other hand, those were four of the most fucked up years the country has ever had. So yes, the US needs a President, a competent one, which is to say not a Republican.

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

On the one hand, the US hasn't had a President for the last four years. On the other hand, those were four of the most fucked up years the country has ever had. So yes, the US needs a President, a competent one, which is to say not a Republican.

The US did have a president.
Being Republican ≠ incompetence every time.

[The Three Palins]

On the one hand, the US hasn't had a President for the last four years. On the other hand, those were four of the most fucked up years the country has ever had. So yes, the US needs a President, a competent one, which is to say not a Republican.

The US did have a president.
Being Republican ≠ incompetence every time.

Maybe some of them should steal Trump's thunder and announce for 2024 before Inauguration Day!

[The Cazistan]

Let's ask the real question, does the US even need the US?

[Jabberwocky]

I think that the United States should keep the presidential system but abolish the electoral college.

Without the electoral college system, rural and unpopulated areas would be left without a voice. The only advantage I see to a system that was most relevant during the Pony Express era.

[The Three Palins]

I think that the United States should keep the presidential system but abolish the electoral college.

Three points of failure to implement legislation is too many. But the President is not the greatest of those obstacles (his veto can be over-ridden) and his discretion in spending can be limited as much as necessary by legislation. Neither the Senate nor the House can be abolished, because they wouldn't pass the amendment to do so.

How about restructuring government as a triumvirate of the three branches? Then either the House or then Senate could initiate legislation, and it would become law with a majority vote of the other, or the signature of the President?

This would also require an amendment.

[Sundiata]

Without the electoral college system, rural and unpopulated areas would be left without a voice.

No, rural and underpopulated areas would be left with a proportionate voice.

[Postauthoritarian America]

I think that the United States should keep the presidential system but abolish the electoral college.

Without the electoral college system, rural and unpopulated areas would be left without a voice. The only advantage I see to a system that was most relevant during the Pony Express era.

The Electoral College gives the most reactionary sectors of society an outsized voice in choosing an Executive. Theoretically it also is supposed to ensure no authoritarian, narcissistic, incompetent buffoon with foreign backing ever occupies the Oval Office; in that responsibility it has demonstrably failed and should be abolished or bypassed.

The EC has overturned the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box twice in the last six elections. In doing so it has given us two of the worst Presidents in the history of the nation.

The conflict in US society is not between people who live in rural areas and those who live in cities. It is between The One Percent and the rest of us. If the EC ever made any sense, and I submit it never did, it makes no sense today.