Instigator / Pro
12
1492
rating
333
debates
40.69%
won
Topic
#2551
In addition to presidential voting, implement trial/probation segments.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3
After 3 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
Venberg
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
21
1509
rating
2
debates
75.0%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
I am not sure how this is debatable but perhaps somebody can come up with an argument with this idea not working.
When you vote , you're going off of what the candidate has said that they'll do once in office. You have to have belief that they'll be committed to working for you. This is why I don't see the value in voting not knowing whether my vote will count. This is how so many folks are disappointed by the outcome of someone going into office failing to deliver on their "promises". I hear advertisements where someone says "I'll do (such and such) , you have my WORD . "
I understand that besides what anyone says at the time of a running campaign, debate session, press conference, etc., a person can look at a track record. That could be helpful to some degree in determining the best candidate. But the outcome can still be disappointing.
Therefore as an ancillary implementation, candidates should be given a trial period or probation stage. So that is to test drive the administration, the policies and all that so to speak.
There's no greater verification in truth then to see the actions of a person versus what they pitch.
Now a question is raised. What about when the trial is over, what happens then? All that vote, place their final vote. At this point, the individual voter has more to work with.
Next question is, what about the presidency after the trial, how do you know what was done in the trial will continue?
Now what could be implemented is governmental policy assurance. That is the removal of any president that fails to meet their intended goals. This can get rather complex as every issue can be. Sometimes plans do fall apart and the administration or whoever is not to be or shouldn't be immediately be penalized. So very careful consideration has to be applied in this process.
As far as the future is concerned, we don't know or can't verify how that will look.
For now, I don't see any formula that can help in voting decisions based on the future like past and present.
This idea in the topic here is more dealing with the present. This is not a full proof method that will cancel out all disappointment . If it did, then more than likely, 100 percent of all voting would just go to one person.
There maybe some that may not change their final vote versus some that will . Each party will see where their support went and what it meant. But at least, the voter has a little bit more to judge on in their decision just like a potential customer taking a test drive on a potential vehicle purchase.
Please comment or send a message for questions.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Your opposition to adding this other part I came up with to the voting system ,what is it?
Con
#2
I suppose I would say my objections fall into four broad categories. The first is practical, namely that a system such as this is too complicated to actually administer in any way that would ensure it lives up to its design. First, one has to question who would be granted a “trial period” as President. Presumably, as this is a two round voting system, we would give the top two finishers in the first round of voting a chance to occupy the office. Invariably, the two top finishers would be from the two major parties, Republican and Democratic. But one also has to consider that, in addition to the new two round voting system for the Presidency, the respective parties would still likely use primaries to select their nominees. Thus, Americans would generally be asked to cast around three votes to determine who their President will be. While this may make the system more accountable (though I think partisanship would largely render this in fact false), it would also likely create a sense of “electoral fatigue”. As we see in many places that use two round voting systems, such as Louisiana in the United States or in France where it uses such a system for its elections, turnout is drastically lower in the second round when compared to the first. In Louisiana’s 2016 Senate Election, for example, 1,933,635 people voted in the first round on November 8th. A little over a month later, on December 10th, only 884,007 voters turned out for the top two runoff, a 54.3% decrease. More than half of the people who voted in November did not do so in the second round a month later. Though in France this was less pronounced, turnout in the second round of their 2017 Presidential election was still down 4% from the first round. A two round system, with a long interval of probationary government in between, will surely see turnout decline, and may also lead to confusion which could easily disrupt results and create concerns about legitimacy.
The second concern stems also from practical concerns, in this case the relations between a probationary President and Congress. It goes without saying that Presidents are not dictators or emperors, and they need the consent of Congress to pursue their agenda in most cases. In this proposed probationary period, the President undergoing a trial would have a much weaker hand when dealing with Congress, regardless of what party had control. Let us assume that the Republicans control both houses of Congress after an election, and the two prospective Presidents have their turns, let us say that they are both to hold the office for a trial period of 100 days. When the Republican holds the office, the Republican Congress will eagerly pass laws and approve nominations (which create another problem I will soon discuss) that the President supports, approving popular initiatives to support their party’s candidate in the second round. When the Democratic candidate has 100 days, there would exist no incentive whatsoever for the Republicans in Congress to compromises. They would refuse to pass bills the Democrats supported, they would pass popular laws the President has objections to in hopes of forcing veto after veto, and would grind to a halt the machinery of government so that in the second round their preferred candidate could triumph.
This problem with Congress leads to my third objection, which simply is that a President during their trial period would not in fact enjoy the full powers of the Presidency, and would not have all the support that office usually provides. For one, the trial period is unlikely to be long enough to allow for the prospective Presidents to appoint cabinets, leaving very important Departments with temporary leadership for extended periods of time. In addition, the drafting and passage of major legislation, most notably the budget, would likely have to take place over the course of both of the trial periods, and therefore would be subject to changing and conflicting desires. If both possible Presidents were given 100 days for their trial period, with the first starting on January 20th when they would have otherwise been inaugurated, and the second round vote being held the day after the second trial period ended, we would not have a new President until August 8th. That is far too late to know who the next President will be. Further, the acting Presidents would lack the legitimacy conveyed by an electoral mandate, and thus would have a weakened hand to start with, and so their trial period would not give voters any real insight into how they would actually govern. After all, the election is not over, and so the trial period would just serve as an extension of the campaign style rhetoric it seeks to cut through.
Finally, this proposal is incompatible with the Constitutional role of the American President. The Presidency was designed to be a leader in times of crisis, a coequal of the other Branches, who enforced the laws and served as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. This proposal would in essence create an emaciated and impotent executive, unreasonable bound by a complicated electoral system and some sort of vaguely defined board that would render constant judgement. Under this proposal, the country would spend months on end without a real cabinet, with a weak President unable to create deals with world leaders (who would know full well that the acting Presidents could very well be gone within weeks), and with leaders forced between following their promises (which the proposal is designed to advocate), creating a sense of whiplash among administrators and public servants, or with making no serious changes, and thus all but conceding their powers to Congress and weakening the Presidency to the point of near irrelevance. Our Constitution is centered around the belief in the need for checks and balances to ensure rights are protected, and in this system the Presidency would essentially seek to serve as such a check, or at best would only be able to serve as a check after the better part of a year had passed.
In short, this proposal is impractical and unwise, self defeating, and incompatible with the American system of Constitutional government.
Round 2
Pro
#3
" The first is practical, namely that a system such as this is too complicated to actually administer in any way that would ensure it lives up to its design. First, one has to question who would be granted a “trial period” as President."
I don't see what's so complicated about a trial run. You will have to elaborate what you find to be so difficult.
The candidates are given a test run.
"Presumably, as this is a two round voting system, we would give the top two finishers in the first round of voting a chance to occupy the office."
As mentioned in the description, the candidates are given a final vote after probation termination.
Before I respond to anything else, let me help you understand what the probation period is for this.
It would be just like the candidate is president officially. Everything is at full power and we get to see policies fully in effect. Now with the probation period, it gives voters an opportunity to not have to settle with their disappointment and can change their vote.
See you look at a car you like at first impression, then just buy it. Once you buy it and drive it, you find out you don't like it but you'll have to settle with whatever loss there comes with the purchase.
This is just a test drive for presidency.
This idea is for voters who car about voting and wish not to be dissatisfied with their vote.
It's not setup for anyone else with any other kind of position.
Now I'll respond to what you wish to say with this now in mind.
Con
#4
I suppose my objection comes from this logic especially
It would be just like the candidate is president officially. Everything is at full power and we get to see policies fully in effect. Now with the probation period, it gives voters an opportunity to not have to settle with their disappointment and can change their vote.
The bolded part would not be true. The Constitution does not grant the President unilateral power to enact their agenda, they have to work with Congress to pass legislation. The only other means by which the President could really introduce new policies would be by issuing executive orders, which could be overturned by any future President (including the other potential President if their trial period comes later) and which really do not have has much power when compared to laws passed through Congress. The argument could be made that this would simply reflect how the President would work with Congress if they were elected to the office in the second vote, but this ignores the fact that a trial period would change Congress's incentives to work with the President. If the majority in either chamber have a preferred Candidate, then they have no incentive to work with one of the two candidates. Even though opposition in the House and Senate can back up a President's agenda, the opposition party usually still has some incentive to compromise, as the President will likely be in office until at least the next election if not later. But in the trial period, no such countervailing incentive would exist. Simply put, opposition in Congress would stonewall any legislation that could help bolster the candidate they dislike in the final vote, even more so than the already do.
Now, as the proposal has very broad wording, I really cannot fully understand what the probationary period would actually be like, but I could see that perhaps what you are arguing for is a probationary period only for the initial winner of the election. Now, this makes slightly more sense, but frankly it still would fail to get around the problem I noted above. Unless the President, in their trial period, had the full support of the House and Senate, then their agenda could be ground to a halt as Congress would still be acting under the new incentive structure that this system creates. Assuming this is the system as you intended, and again the wording is not clear on this, the President would still lack the legitimacy of a full mandate. Everyone would act, and logically so, as if this President may be gone in the space of several weeks. No one, be they foreign leaders or Congressional leaders, would want to make lasting deals with a President who may very well become something of a footnote in a few weeks time. The probationary period is just that, probationary, and by its very nature it would not allow the President to truly function as he would if he had a full mandate from a completed election and four years in office ahead of him.
We also have to wonder if a President in the probationary period would actually be able to assemble a staff to effectively implement their policies. It seems rather improbable that his entire Cabinet would be well situated (or even confirmed) by the end of this period, and numerous other major positions would unlikely be filled by people in high office when the possibility exists that in just a few weeks time this President will no longer be in office, his administration being voted out before it even received a full mandate. The probationary period, then, would in all likelihood fail to give us an accurate view of departmental leadership in the prospective administration.
I also do not understand why this procedure is needed at all. In four years time, the President will have to answer to the voters anyway. Only if the President is barred from serving again, as would be the case after two terms, would they have any real incentive (beyond principle or practical concerns) to defy public opinion. We also must consider that the President is tasked with making difficult decisions during their time in office, and should their be a crisis in the midst of the probationary period, we would want the President to do what he felt necessary to address this situation. But what if this would prove unpopular? History is riddled with Presidents who were faced with great challenges early in their terms, none more so perhaps than Lincoln. Can you imagine Lincoln, in those early pivotal days of the Civil War, acting without a mandate, lacking the authority and legitimacy that a full term conveys? The simple fact is that we need to allow our Presidents room to make decisions during a crisis, even if such decisions may be unpopular. In a normal system, time will ease tension and give the President this sort of room; he would be checked by the Courts and by Congress. In this proposed system, frankly, the President would be on tenterhooks for what may be the greater part of a year, and in a crisis this sort of perverse incentive could prove dangerous.
Finally, I suppose, I would close by asking the proponent of this proposal to identify in any meaningful way why this proposal is so necessary that we should jeopardize the Constitutional and structural prerogatives of the President. The President must be free to do their job, for the entirety of their time in office, and this proposal would by its very nature make that impossible. Presidents need to be free to make unpopular decisions when they are needed, and they and their parties answer for those decisions at the ballot box at the next election. If the proponent would like the United States to become a parliamentary democracy then so be it, but we must recognize that this sort of plebiscite on the President after a probationary period simply is not compatible with the nature of our Constitutional republic.
The proponent of this proposal has compared this trial period to test driving a car, but this analogy misses the point. The President serves the people, yes, and he must answer to them and to their Representatives in Congress, but he is not a car that is to serve us mindlessly. The stresses of that office, the trials and turbulence that have so often shown the greatness in its occupants, these are times when the President best serves us by ignoring our wishes and thinking instead of our needs. The President must act for the good of the nation, and though he will ultimately answer to the voters, he must know that he cannot be removed simply because he has changed course or been forced by circumstances to alter his aims. We often speak of allowing the man to grow into the office, and we must not create unnecessary impediments to that process, which this proposal would.
Round 3
Pro
#5
"The Constitution does not grant the President unilateral power to enact their agenda, they have to work with Congress to pass legislation."
Well at the present moment, this probation period I'm speaking of is not granted.
See you might as well look at a wider view of things.
If I'm bringing forth something that is pretty much a hypothetical idea, naturally there would have to many other hypothetical things and changes.
Do you figure what I'm saying?
I'm not understanding what you mean by incentive or what the point is. The point of the trial period would be for the candidates as well as their administrations to present what it'll be like under their government.
"Now, as the proposal has very broad wording, I really cannot fully understand what the probationary period would actually be like, but I could see that perhaps what you are arguing for is a probationary period only for the initial winner of the election"
Yes let me help you here. Try to imagine one of the candidates going into office by the start of a year. Everything as it is now with a new president would be the same for that candidate in a probation period. Just like a worker on a job has a probation period, they're expected to do in the probation stage just as they would do outside of it. All of their responsibilities and duties are the same.
Yes you have to really sink into the hypothetical waters for this topic.
"Unless the President, in their trial period, had the full support of the House and Senate, then their agenda could be ground to a halt as Congress would still be acting under the new incentive structure that this system creates."
Yes the candidate would have full support. You would have to accept that these changes come along with the implementation.
"No one, be they foreign leaders or Congressional leaders, would want to make lasting deals with a President who may very well become something of a footnote in a few weeks time. "
What do you think happens when a president becomes a footnote in 4 years?
Also the length of the probation period was never adjucated. So maybe you're thinking a few weeks but this would have to be worked out later.
"The probationary period is just that, probationary, and by its very nature it would not allow the President to truly function as he would if he had a full mandate from a completed election and four years in office ahead of him."
Yes this one will work at full capacity. You have to try and comprehend that. The probation period as stated would allow the voters to make their final vote. They have more to go on besides just talk and a track record. They can see where their vote went based on present actions of the candidate- acting- president.
"The probationary period, then, would in all likelihood fail to give us an accurate view of departmental leadership in the prospective administration."
Maybe in your case, seeing is believing. This may be just too hard to imagine.
I mean people from the 15th century couldn't imagine the 21st century. People from the 5th century I would say had no idea.
"I also do not understand why this procedure is needed at all. In four years time, the President will have to answer to the voters anyway. "
I don't know what you mean by "answer to the voters".
I said the point of this implementation is to add more to work with in voting.
Let me ask, have you ever voting for somebody that turned out to be a dud?
"Finally, I suppose, I would close by asking the proponent of this proposal to identify in any meaningful way why this proposal is so necessary that we should jeopardize the Constitutional and structural prerogatives of the President. "
By now I have addressed this several times and the remainder of your points I will address in summary here directly or indirectly as this is as straightforward as can be.
The test drive is to see whether a thing lives up to its function. Now you may tell me how good the thing functions and how well it worked in the past. But actions speaks louder than words.
That's the basic point and truism that you'll ever get from this topic.
Now if you don't want to accept that the candidate in their trial period won't be or absolutely cannot be a full capacity acting as president, we have a fundamental breakdown in this topic.
We have to agree at the foundation in order to move forward.
I'm am enjoying this exchange by the way. This thing is really out of sight.
Con
#6
I take your point that the President would, in your understanding of the trial period, be given the total powers of the Presidency. I think this is simply impossible, that the trial period would not practically allow for that to happen. Whatever the law would say, the President in the trial period would not in fact enjoy the full prerogatives of his office, unless during the trial period the powers of the Presidency were expanded to be near dictatorial, which is what I now understand your trial period to be. So, as this is your proposal, I will engage with it as though an amendment to the Constitution has been passed giving the President the powers you envision. I shall attempt, from your statements in this debate so far, to extrapolate out what this amendment would need to look like in order to fulfill all the conditions you have ascribed to it.
First, the President would have a trial period of a certain period of time, that time not being particularly important. That is simple enough, and would likely be specified in the Amendment.
Second, the President in the probationary period would enjoy the full powers and prerogatives of his office. Again, though I think it is quite clear this practically impossible, it would also be quite reasonable that an amendment creating a trial period would include such language so that, at least de jure, the probationary President can function as a regular President would.
Third, you state that
Yes the candidate would have full support [of Congress]. You would have to accept that these changes come along with the implementation.
What would this entail? To be frank, it seems to me that during the trial period the Senate and House would not be part of the lawmaking practice under your proposal. Only through such a procedure could you actually ensure full support. When I refer to "support" in Congress I am not referring to legal or Constitutional support; Congress would of course recognize the probationary President as legitimate. What I am referring to is political support for the probationary President's agenda. I take it, therefore, since you are arguing that the President in the probationary period would enjoy the full support of Congress, that either
a) The probationary President's party will control both houses of Congress during their probationary period, or
b) The probationary President would have the authority to make binding laws, not just Executive Orders but full laws, without Congressional approval or initiative.
To the first possibility, I think it hardly needs to be said that such a proposal would be fraught with difficulties. For one, how would the majorities be decided? Would the President's part get barely enough seats to govern? Or would they be given a supermajority? What if the Senate is already so heavily dominated by one party that flipping a full 1/3rd of seats would not cross the required majority threshold? Would you abolish the Senate, change how it is elected? And why would you give probationary President's full control of Congress when in all likelihood they well spend at least part, if not most of, of their term with a Congress that is at least partly controlled by a party or faction hostile to them? It simply would not present a realistic picture of the President's performance.
I think I hardly need to explain how plainly terrible the second option is, but for the sake of thoroughness let us examine it. To grant the President unilateral power to implement their agenda is frankly anathema to the American Constitutional order, it is in fact incompatible with democratic or constitutional government in any form. Not only that, but it would be illogical for a probationary President to be given such sweeping powers when he would not enjoy this power when actually President.
So, in essence, your proposal that the President would have the full political support of Congress during the probationary period requires us either to create artificial majorities for a temporary time to implement the President's agenda, or to allow the President to bypass Congress altogether. In either case, you would have expanded the powers of the Presidency for the duration of the probationary period under the auspices of giving voters a sense of how the probationary President would serve as a real President. I think it goes without saying that it is illogical to change the office to this extent just so voters can get an idea of how the President would govern in normal circumstances.
This gets to the heart of my objection; their is no way to structure a probationary period where the President would actually be able to govern in a way to showcase to voters how they would govern while in office. If, as you assert, the aim of the probationary period is to be a sort of "test drive" where voters are able to see the President in action, then you would have to ensure as best as possible that the probationary period reflected what a regular Presidential term would be. This is not possible. In order to even come close, we would have to artificially inflate the powers of the President and thus make the probationary period unlike the remainder of the President's term. Conversely, if we seek to change as little as possible about the office's power, the probationary President will find themselves unable to actually pursue their agenda to the fullest extent for myriad reasons I have already detailed. To this charge, you argue, the President would be given the power to implement their agenda, which brings us right back to the other problem.
Of course, as you have noted, this proposal would require major changes. The implication of this argument is that, perhaps, these expanded Presidential powers would not be temporary but rather would become a permanent fixture of the office. This is a deeply concerning possibility. Are we going to ask citizens to, in essence give the President unilateral law making power so that they could peruse their agendas without impediment, without the checks that Congress was designed to provide? That is perhaps a legitimate, view, but I take it you don't share it. It does seem to me, however, that your probationary period would only make sense if the President had such powers. In its current form, your proposal would by its nature wither greatly weaken the office of the Presidency, at least while it was occupied during the probationary period, or render Congress impotent during the same period. I understand that, under your proposal, by the law the probationary President would have the full powers and trappings of that office, but as a practical matter your proposal would require us to change the office beyond recognition in order for such a thing to actually be possible in a practical sense. I'm not arguing that your Amendment could not include language that would give the probationary President "the full and complete powers of that office, to be exercised as it would be by any President at any time in their term", indeed I conceded the Amendment would include such language; I am simply stating that, in practice, it would not actually translate in a practical sense.
You seem to concede this point, quite explicitly in fact, by recognizing that the only wat a probationary President would in any way be comparable to a President elected to a full term is if they have the total support of Congress, though of course this too fails to give us an accurate idea of how the President would govern because it supposes that President would actually enjoy majority political support in both houses. So, logically, it is impossible to actually create, in a practical sense (not simply in a purely legal sense), a probationary Presidency that would provide information valuable to voters in making their decisions.
I would be interested to hear more about your proposal, because as I see it now, it in effect is self defeating regardless of how we seek to implement it. I do not see a way in which we could implement this trial period, and in any event it seems to me that this proposal creates far more problems then it solves. Is it really worth it to change the entire structure of the Presidency, possibly undermining some of the basis of our Constitution, to fix what is on the balance a fairly minor problem.
I think this debate has been very interesting, and I am interested to see your proposal as it is more fleshed out.
Round 4
Pro
#7
In a nutshell my friend, you really have to look at the probation period like the candidate really did get elected.
Maybe you can understand better if I just say each candidate gets a short presidential term shorter than four years.
After that short term, we can see if the vote is for them to continue as they were or have the other candidate replace them after they finished their brief term.
This may be tricky to conceptualize like a cellphone in the days of telegrams or earlier .
But just look at the general idea. A way to add to the voter's decision I don't believe will be shunned. I believe the voter will accept all the helpful information they can get.
Feeling better about voting , avoiding bringing in duds. That's a happy meal all day. Now this is just a rough draft concept. All the details, mechanics , changes, and timings will have to be worked out as we build . It's the way it works with all technology.
Con
#8
This has been a long and informative debate, and I feel that we have over the course of it had very serious discussions on a wide variety of issues. I don't feel the need here to revisit every argument made, but I shall briefly endeavor to combine my many objections into one final argument.
First, we must ask ourselves why do we need a probationary period. "To prevent duds" we are told. Is this really compelling enough? For over 230 years, the United States has elected its President's without probationary periods. Have there been duds? Yes, of course. Franklin Pierce did next to nothing to stop the nation's slide to civil war; Herbert Hoover failed to address the Great Depression; Jimmy Carter presided over soaring inflation and a hostage crisis. And none were returned after the end of the first term. We do not need a probationary period when our electoral system already provides for check and balances. We have midterms, and as we saw with Bill Clinton or Donald Trump for that matter, when the President is not preforming well, voters can and often do elect new Congressmen to keep them in check.
This brings us to the second point, one that the pro side has failed to refute and indeed has not attempted to refute; namely, a President subject to a probationary period would represent a weaker executive. While we may disagree about the proper powers of the Presidency, and indeed I would like to see executive power constrained, there is an important distinction to be made between constraining the powers of the President and the permanent weakening of the office itself. The President needs to be able to act in a crisis, they must be able to work with Congress and foreign leaders to advance the national interest. A weakened President, whose term may be truncated after a frankly redundant probationary period, would ultimately prove a great disservice to our nation. Simply hand waving this, charging that "well, you don't get it" is not a sufficient response. Legally, yes, the President during the probationary period would be vested with their full Constitutional powers, but in all practical sense this will not be true. The pro side has failed to respond to this charge, has not in fact even attempted to respond to it, and the reason why is clear; it is indisputably a fact that a probationary period would weaken the Presidency and destroy the carefully created checks and balances that our Constitution relies on to protect liberty and stability.
Now, of course, perhaps Congress would not be such a problem. No, the pro side assures us, they amendment would deal with that. The pro side does not say how, though asked to elaborate, Congress would be made to give the probationary President its full support, but as I suggested two main courses of action seem possible. Ultimately this strikes at the heart of the the matter. Pro is not advance a coherent program of reform here, but rather a magic panacea for voters remorse, an amorphous and ever shifting miracle fix that will legislate out of existence partisan rivalries and the redress the balance of government with ease. This matter is not analogous to someone from the 18th century being confused by a modern cell phone, but rather someone from the 21st century expressing doubts (thus far unrefuted in any substantive way) about a generally unfeasible program that would run counter to our general Constitutional system.
Our Constitution is centered around what we call "checks and balances". The powers of the President are tied up in the nature of that office as created under Article II of the Constitution. What this proposal would do is knock the whole system off kilter. Either we are given a President with, in effect, a bifurcated term that makes them even more slavishly devoted to chasing popularity and constantly campaigning then they already are, who enjoys less respect with Congress and leaders abroad who are unwilling to make deals with Presidents who may very well be out of office soon and are thus perpetually "lame ducks"; or, we have a super empowered President who governs without the consent or the oversight of Congress, who can at will enforce like a King his views on the American people. And so, in effect, we are asked to make our nation a parliamentary democracy or a dictatorships all so that voters won't feel bad sometimes because the candidate they voted for vetoed a bill they liked. We have a system that checks the President, and which allows the President to check Congress and to make tough calls when needed; to throw that all away, to in essence reconstitute the whole of American government around a seemingly redundant probationary period is unwise to say the least.
I think pro, in this debate, advanced what they believed was a good plan for improving our government. The ideas presented here constitute an interesting start. But quite simply this probationary period is the wrong way to reform government. A desire to avoid "voters remorse", for which our system already provides means of real and meaningful electoral redress, is not sufficient grounds on which to unbalance our Constitutional order. Pro readily concedes that this proposal would require radical change to work, and so ultimately it must be asked; is it worth it? Is it worth either an effectively impotent executive or a near King-like President, worth constant campaigning and public opening chasing, worth even more soundbites over substance just so you can express disapproval sooner when you don't like the President's tax plan or new policy proposals? Pro has failed to refute any charge leveled against this proposal, and I think it is beyond clear that on this plan, while well intentioned and understandable, is ultimately not worth the Constitutional and structural trouble it will put us through, not even close. Our system of government is far from perfect, but President's being able to serve four years before another election is far, far from the top of that list. If their poor performance is criminal, we have impeachment, we have midterms to elect members of Congress who exercise oversight function, we elect our Presidents every four years and if the majority of voters don't like the job a President is doing chances are they will vote them out. This is a solution in search of a problem, and radically altering a 230 year old Constitutional order to address a problem that already have many existing remedies is simply imprudent. Whatever your objections to the current system, a Presidential probationary period will not serve to meaningfully solve any real, systemic problems that cannot be better addressed by some other reform, and will in fact create many, many more such problems in its implementation.
I thank pro for this debate, I've had a lot of fun with it, and I look forward to the results. I think this is a truly interesting proposal, and if it were more fleshed out I think it could make for another interesting debate.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Arguments:
This debate could really be boiled down quite simply - It is simply not practical to implement Pro's proposal as suggested. While Pro did rebuke certain claims and such, none of their points on the topic were refuted in their entirety. For example; The point of Voter Fatigue was never mentioned by Pro,
The ones the Pro did rebuke were rebuked correctly in return. For example; The president not enjoying their full presidential powers, as the proposal would literally limit them to a trial period.
In all, Pro simply did not refute the impacts of Cons arguments with any real weight. This point goes to Con.
The rest are tied, no one provides a single source, S&G are equivalent across the board, and conduct is not violated by either debater.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con wisely pointed out that the presidential powers are already held in balance by congress, which pro could not get past to show benefit to introducing such confusion into our electoral system (nor could he really articulate his proposal satisfactory).
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
It’s obvious. Mall made nearly zero impacts or benefits on the trial segments while con posted many flaws with limited power and radical change
It's like a test drive for the oval office. Each candidate has a test drive.
The length of the trial can be up to the government or the votes.
interesting, what does this mean exactly? (how long is this probation period?)