“I keep thinking we should include something in the Constitution in case the people elect a fucking moron.”
Amendment to The Constitution
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ...
Add to favorites Tags: Humor, Politics
Processing your request, Please wait....
Leave a comment ?
August 25, 2008 at 7:21 am
I wish.
August 25, 2008 at 7:25 am
Soo True…
August 25, 2008 at 7:55 am
Wouldn’t that be the second amendment?
August 25, 2008 at 9:26 am
awesome!
i think there should be an IQ test in order to vote.
or at least use the ACT or some shit.
August 25, 2008 at 9:55 am
IQ to vote? How about an IQ test to be president…
August 25, 2008 at 10:20 am
Let’s spin the election results to favour my demographic: It’s democracy. You know, as long as it’s my demographic otherwise it’s tyranny.
August 25, 2008 at 10:37 am
So you want to argue the fact that president monkey is a dribbling moron?
August 25, 2008 at 10:48 am
We get what we deserve, especially if we wind up in an obamanation.
August 25, 2008 at 11:55 am
Its called impeachment
August 25, 2008 at 12:43 pm
It’s called Parliament… if the chief executive is an idiot, then you can give him the boot. Significantly more efficient and far less painful than our system, in which the only way to remove a President from office is to put the country and the rule of law before your party, which simply doesn’t happen here.
August 25, 2008 at 4:10 pm
1) The party/government whip (or equivalent) keeps the party line in a parliamentary system, so don’t think a vote of non-confidence doesn’t require legislators to defy the party.
2) Vote of non-confidence only works when the ruling party holds less than half the seats in the more powerful house of the legislature. In theory the party in a “confident” parliament could rise up against its leader but that has never happened.
It’s a trade-off really.
I think the Presidential system can be just as good as the Parliamentary. The real problem comes from using the archaic ‘first-past-the-post’ election system. First of all, it’s less democratic, as votes aren’t proportionally represented and many get thrown out. Second of all, it encourages less parties, which means less power-sharing, which means less compromise.
August 25, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Erm, just as a note, what I described in 2) has happened on a small, insignificant scale, but it’s pretty unlikely to happen on a large scale in general. And again, the vote of non-confidence is nearly worthless in a two-party system (meaning the two parties hold at least 90 of parliament; how many parties form governments is another matter), unless the election is really close, which most of the time it isn’t.
August 25, 2008 at 8:41 pm
You USAders couldn’t impeach anyone, much less overthrow the government because a bunch of morons are in power.
September 10, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I thought Obama was an unqualified flip-flopper, not a moron? I could live with a moron in office.