Who, once and for all, do you think American leader should be?

[Boris Godunov]

There was no official term limit but most presidents (at least not those who craved power) knew of and accepted that their was an unofficial limit on their terms since George Washington did it.

Given the state of the economy and geopolitical state of the world in 1940, I don't think FDR taking more than a second term was about craving power, it was about ensuring stability. And he did win pretty overwhelming victories.

if Americans could really vote who they want in I don't think Bill Clinton would have been elected at all, possibly no "modern" president would have been except George W in the most recent election because Clinton didn't even win the majority of the popular vote, he just won more of the minority that anyone else at the time.

This doesn't make sense to me, so please clarify. Did not Clinton receive the MOST votes? Is there any system whereby the guy who comes in 2nd wins? Oh wait, that did happen last year...oops.

[JellyDonut]

EUGENE DEBS for the status of AMERICAN LEADER today!



Edit: Whoa! I'm not the first person to suggest this. Eugene Debs should not be the Communist leader, because the Civilization definition of Communism does not reflect Debs' views in the slightest. That whole leader-per-gov't is not a good one, because not every country has experienced every political gov't type. Only Russia, maybe Germany (depending on what you consider Germany to be). Who would the leader of the Iroquois Communism be? The Aztec Republic? The American Despotism? The Babylonian Monarchy? The Chinese Democracy? And what about anarchies?

[Gothmog]

I voted Washington. Without him, the US would not exist in its present form. Oh, it probably would have become independent eventually as Canada did, but then things would have turned out very differently. Washington's two main accomplishments were to hold the Continental Army together and declining to become America's first King.

[orange]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Easy choice for me:

Thomas Jefferson. Let us recognize, finally, what this man has meant to the United States. He may not have had more influence than Washington or led in as troubled times as Lincoln. However, his writing of the Declaration of Independence, his purchase of the Louisiana terrority during his Presidency, and his ideas of a weak federal government which won out over Hamiltonian ideas of strong federal government colored American attitudes, even today (even though we have a strong federal government these days).

Jefferson didn't purchase Louisiana. It was purchased during his presidency. Jefferson wanted New Orleans and the surroundings and told the diplomat to France, James Monroe, only to spend a certain amount. Monroe paid 10 times that for the whole Louisiana territory after it was offered by Napoleon.

Jefferson had a good first term, but a fairly bad second term, IIRC.

Edit: may I add that I am unbelievably shocked that you didn't pick Reagan

[gremalkin]

Ronald McDonald.. Or possibly Mickey Mouse?

They've done more for spreading American culture round the globe than anyone else..

[orange]

One note about your comment about the 22nd amendment. if Americans could really vote who they want in I don't think Bill Clinton would have been elected at all, possibly no "modern" president would have been except George W in the most recent election because Clinton didn't even win the majority of the popular vote, he just won more of the minority that anyone else at the time.

What the hell are you talking about

George W. was the first President that did NOT win the popular vote and still won the election since 1876!

Clinton won the majority of both the popular vote and the electoral vote both elections.

IMHO, there should be a third "none of the above" option for elections and if that option wins more than either cantidate then we have the election again, only with better cantidates.

Yes, this would be efficient

Otherwise you risk the dubious "choice" of voting for the lesser of two evils (which is what happens anyway), and just trying to counter-act some of the blind radicals who want the government to do everything for them in their lives.

So join a third party and start changing our government. It's a slow process, the only way to make it a fast process is with a nation wide revolution...I don't think you have the resources to pull that one off And it's been done before. Federalists and Republicans, Whigs and Democratic Republicans, Republicans and Democrats, Progressives thrown in there...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by orange


What the hell are you talking about

George W. was the first President that did NOT win the popular vote and still won the election since 1876!

Clinton won the majority of both the popular vote and the electoral vote both elections.

100% incorrect. Clinton did not win a majority of the vote in either 1992 or 1996. But, unlike Bush Lite, he did win a plurality in each one:

1992:

Clinton: 43%
Papa Bush: 36%
Perot: 20%

1996:

Clinton: 49%
Dole: 44%

This in no way delegitimizes Clinton's authority, since 1) the American system is designed to win by plurality, not majority, and 2) There is NO truth to the claim that most of Perot's voters would have voted for Bush if big-ears hadn't been running. Exit polls and subsequent research showed that such voters either split evenly for Clinton/Bush without Perot in the mix, or wouldn't vote for the two major candidates, or wouldn't vote at all.

But Baba Bush can be the first president in 100+ years to win by just one vote. Anthony Kennedy's!

Cheers.

[Provost Harrison]

Harrison because he had a cool name Although he didn't last very long in the job before departing from this world...

[orange]

Majority - Popularity...who cares? More people voted for Clinton than anyone else...by a decisive amount.

You sure about 20% for Perot in '92?

Edit: If Nader hadn't gotten all the votes that he did, Gore would have recieved more votes as well. What's your point

[Boris Godunov]

Majority - Popularity...who cares? More people voted for Clinton than anyone else...by a decisive amount.

Yup, I agree. I don't care because in general I supported Clinton's policies. Clinton-haters cared because they would do anything to try and de-legitimize his presidency. Now they are strangely silent on Bush's own legitimacy problems (which are far more obvious!)

You sure about 20% for Perot in '92?

100% sure. He captured a large part of the voters who were disgruntled with Bush and Clinton both and were sour about the economy. It didn't help that many of them were weirdos, too!

Edit: If Nader hadn't gotten all the votes that he did, Gore would have recieved more votes as well. What's your point

My point was that conservatives repeatedly whine about if Perot hadn't run, Bush would have won and Clinton would never have gotten elected. This is rubbish, as studies showed the lack of Perot in the race would not have changed the final outcome. It might have stopped Bush Pere from earning one of the lowest popular vote percentages in the nation's history for a major party candidate (I think only Goldwater is lower this century), but not have prevented Clinton's win.

Regarding Gore, I think that since the margin was so small in Florida, the argument would hold more water. But it's meaningless. If they voted for Nader, they voted for Nader, end of story. More important is the thwarting of the popular will by the botched Palm Beach County ballots, which would have easily given Gore a 2000+ vote victory margin. But again, you can't count intended votes, despite the ludicrousness of elderly Florida Jews voting for Pat "The Nazis weren't so bad" Buchanan.

Cheers.