OpinionThis 'president elect' business in the US is unnecessary... the winner of a presidential election should be sworn in and take office within a week of the election date.
      – George, 2009-01-09 at 03:15:25   (7 comments)

On 2009-01-09 at 05:12:55, Thelevellers wrote...
Seems silly to me, it just gives petty losers like Bush a chance to screw with everything before he leaves, and creates a period of no real purpose for the country. Or at least that's the impression I get from here...
On 2009-01-09 at 05:38:07, Baslisks wrote...
@Thelevellers: You have a queen we have president elects.
On 2009-01-09 at 10:29:58, Lee J Haywood wrote...
See Wikipedia for a lengthy explanation as to why there has to be a President-elect... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President-elect ... not. There also the whole business of the outgoing legislation being permanent after so many days, or whatever - so Obama cannot simply choose to drop the rubbish he inherits.
On 2009-01-09 at 16:18:40, Thelevellers wrote...
@baslisks: Yeah, but at least the queen doesn't have any effect (ever) on the actual running of the country... The president elect thing just seems like a way of crippling the country for a couple of months... @Lee: Wow, that wiki is impressively detailed...
On 2009-01-11 at 04:00:38, BorgClown wrote...
I've sometimes wondered which electoral system works better: 4 years with reelection, or 6 years without reelection? The Mexican democratic system has been praised for its equality and transparency, although it wasn't that was just 18 years ago. All I know is that electing presidents every four years would feel like overkill now, specially since most do last more than one term.
On 2009-01-11 at 04:01:11, BorgClown wrote...
*it wasn't that way
On 2009-01-11 at 10:33:54, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Perhaps it'd be good to get rid of a president once their approval ratings have dropped below a certain level for a number of months. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/04/25/GR2005042500945.html Of course, this would never be implemented in practice and wouldn't really work anyway - since the population is split between those who support the current party and those who don't. I think I mentioned previously that I recently read about how the outgoing administration isn't strictly anti-science but rather ignores the 'reality' described by science in favour of creating its own reality by forcing policies on the world that match their desired outcomes.