We all assume that Democracy is the best way to choose the President, that our elected officials should be chosen by the people. America was founded on the premise of electing those who control society and in comparison to kings, communism, and other dictatorships it looks like a good idea. But is it really?

Ignoring for the moment that we only have a simulated democracy here in America and that outsiders have to overcome partys rigging the elections. I’d like to ask and attempt to answer, is there a better way? Is there something we haven’t tried? And I have a suggestion.

First, before I make the suggestion let’s assume that we have no Constitution in the way and we can start off with a clean slate and do something completely different. And although you will be able to find lots of flaws in this new idea, I’d like you to keep an open mind and think about how this might actually work. Or at least give me points for thinking outside the box.

My idea – Hire a president rather than elect one.

My premise is based on the question, what is the best way to get a good president? Is the general population the best body for selecting who will lead the country? Or should a group of experts whose job it is to find and hire an executive highly qualified to do the job a better way than voting? So – here’s my outrageous proposal to scrap our election system.

Suppose we start with a group of the nation top 100 (could be any number) of Human Resources professionals who work for big organizations and whose job it is to hire tens of thousands of people for a wide variety of positions. And these 100 people would work out some process of processing resumes, interviewing job candidates, and then coming to a consensus on who will be hired as president.

So – you might ask, how do we select the 100 HR professionals?

First, you have to be in a position of having hired at least 10,000 people to qualify. Then we have some sort of national contest that creates a competition where contestants with the best skills eventually win the competition. So there no selection process to corrupt. You just have to be the winners.

Sounds crazy? It’s not as crazy as you think. Most city governments use this method. Although the Mayor and the City Council are elected, they don’t actually run the cities. The cities are run by the City Manager who is hired by the city. The City Manager is more like the President.

The difference with my system is in who does the hiring. Rather than being hired by elected officials who might have an agenda in my system those who hire are selected by winning a contest and in theory, would be better qualified to do the hiring.

I don’t have answers to other details like term of office and getting rid of the president but I’ll throw out some raw ideas.

Every few years the hiring is reviewed and the HR team can renew the president or replace him/her with someone else. A contest is held every 2 years to get a new set of HR people. The President might have to be confirmed by Congress who are still elected. The Congress can vote “no confidence” at any time to force the hiring of a new President.

The point is – wouldn’t this be better than what we have now? I’d like to see some responses that build on this idea and ask yourself if any of the 24 people who ran this year would be on the list of candidates the HR people might choose. My answer – none of them.

Discuss …



  1. NewFormatSux says:

    Sounds like you are describing the electoral college.

  2. NewFormatSux says:

    Let’s see. HR is the group that insists on diversity hiring and every other PC buzzword.

  3. I'm not smart enough to make my own desicions, someone better do it for me says:

    Perhaps we should first ask the question, “Do we really need a government?” Analize all the “but who would do …?” and see if there are other options.

    Second question, if you just can’t see a world without rulers over you, “What role should these rulers fullfill?”

    Third question, “How do you make sure that the rulers don’t abuse their power of authority?”

    I think the question of “How do we select …?” is one of the last questions to ask after sorting out all the really important stuff. Perhaps the real answer is that government doesn’t work. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum, people have complaints about the government a mile long; local, state and federal.

    Laugh at the emperor who has no clothes, then just ingnore him. Go live your life, be a good person, take resposibility for yourself, don’t worry about what others are doing, save your money.

  4. Geoworker says:

    Another name for what you propose is politburo. Throughout history, human kind has been dependent on a centralized authority to make decisions for them. But once in a great while, a group of people wish to make decisions for themselves…thus the Constitution.

    You know and we know….you don’t like Trump and this possibly makes you unhappy. And unhappiness leads to wrong conclusions. Well, join the club I guess but the other choice actually parallels what you propose but in a different, sort of obscure sort of way. Most for the most part, Trump represents the unhappiness in America regarding who’s been charge and what they (Republicans and Democrats) have done. We need a change, yes, but we must keep decision making with the people. Or what is freedom for…….?

  5. NewFormatSux says:

    “America was founded on the premise of electing those who control society ”

    No, it wasn’t.

    • Mr Diesel - Go Trump Go!! Beat Hillary Like a Snare Drum says:

      +1

    • LibertyLover says:

      +1

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      Its ambiguous. Elect those who control us/run the gubment or be controlled/run by Hereditary Family Lines? Makes sense that way.

      Or, more likely, referring to the electorate who does the installing: it was originally intended to give the vote to those with a most vested interest in the outcome of elections and those most affected by gubment: the landed adult males. But our Founders were afraid of Tyranny by Monarchs, by the Gubment itself, by Majority Rule…so a Republican Form was adopted with checks and balances.

      Pros and Cons to every choice. I’m still gobsmacked by how much Fraud on its Face and CRIMINALITY goes by the name of Freedom and Politics.

      We could and should do so much better.

      VOTE ALL INCUMBENTS OUT OF OFFICE……bye bye Hillary. I might go libertarian…..just to register my extreme protest.

  6. StateOfDismayInTheUSA says:

    Or, just switch to IRV…

  7. Ya Ya Ya says:

    Something troubles me when you nonchalantly say something as outrageous as:

    First, before I make the suggestion let’s assume that we have no Constitution in the way and we can start off with a clean slate and do something completely different.

    No Constitution?

    NO LAW?!

    Who the fuck do you think you are? GOD?!!!

    I’ll admit the current system has its problems. We seem to have a bunch of complete morons (aka “citizens”) voting for one guy to become our leader. Every time we do it, somehow that position is equated as KING when IT’S NOT! Then there are those who would take the job thinking they ARE king too. So I see your pessimism.

    Currently, Obama is an excellent example. He’s one man who’s almost NEVER compromised with “the opposition” on ANYTHING! And that kind of track record PROVES his “king” mindset. (And I bet you blindly voted for him too.)

    Whatever plans or ideas you have, I can tell you right out of the box they’re DANGEROUS based on your own statement of getting rid of the Constitution. Quite frankly, we DON’T need a better way of selecting our leaders — WE NEED OUR LEADERS TO ENFORCE THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE! What we really need is a way to throw the bastard(s) OUT when they don’t do their job or pervert their oath for profit.

    No sir! We DON’T need a better hiring method particularly when the only pool of candidates will all be royalty. That kind of thinking is delusional.

  8. All Votes Matter says:

    “Actually, the United States is a mixture of … two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).”

    https://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

    Sadly, with a polarized two-party system, half the people who care (most don’t) are always pissed.

    Pet peeve: We still can’t ensure that legal citizens who want to vote, can vote only ONCE and that their votes are accurately counted and reported.

  9. Hmeyers says:

    Human resources?

    Seriously?

  10. PeterR says:

    A monarchy, but a real one, none of this “constitutional monarchy” nonsense. Think of all the $$$ saved by getting rid of national and state assemblies, etc.

  11. LibertyLover says:

    Sounds crazy? It’s not as crazy as you think. Most city governments use this method. Although the Mayor and the City Council are elected, they don’t actually run the cities. The cities are run by the City Manager who is hired by the city. The City Manager is more like the President.

    Actually, the President doesn’t run things either. He has a large 4th branch of the government running things . . . FBI, Commerce Dept, HUD, Education, etc., etc., etc.

    We see how well that city government system worked out writ large.

    We only need to go back to what the founders wanted . . . a republic.

  12. spsffan says:

    Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to loose. —

    Big Brother and the Holding Company (well, sort of )

  13. c.d.embrey says:

    No need for the 1% to buy politicians. They could just hire Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPMorgan Chase) or Lloyd Blankfein (Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs) to run the country.

    Or maybe just hire Jeb! instead of wasting all that money trying to get him nominated.

  14. Glen says:

    The real reason democracy can’t work is the absence of positive responsibility. Due to the communal nature of the system, when an elected officer makes a good decision the benefits are spread out equally across all the state. However, when an elected officer makes a bad decision, he is the only one negatively responsible – he will be thrown out of office.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 19486 access attempts in the last 7 days.