I made a post in the "Unelected President" thread that you may have missed. As you remember, I responded to your "Governors Electoral College" with some spitballing about changing the Presidential nominating process. But then I had a better idea: why not just limit eligibility to be elected President (and Vice-president) to current or former governors?
All the reasons you gave that make governors as a class suited to choose a President, also make them suited to be President. In particular, wining a statewide election as a state's chief executive, is a really good way to filter out the "kooks" (even though many non-Governors could make and have made good Presidents) as well as celebrity wannabees who have never been tested in any public office. Ditto for Vice-Presidents who could succeed into the Presidency. (I would not worry about other officials who might succeed to be President if both the Prez and VP were eliminated; that has never happened in American history).
This change is a simple Constitutional amendment which requires no change to the Electoral College (and therefore popular vote for Electors) nor to the way parties nominate candidates (flawed though it might be). As you point out, very few kooks become governors. And performance as a governor provides a good track record for evaluating a candidate for President. The major issue with governors is their lack of foreign policy experience. But in practice, that has not hampered governors like Reagan, Clinton or GW Bush who became President.
In short, the problems of a radically democratic process of nominating and electing Presidents, can be countered by limiting who can be elected President, to proven elected politicians holding executive office.
Did not miss it! I have been trying to type up a sort of general "response post" to the entire (wonderful) comment thread, including this argument. Haven't been able to make it happen yet.
The link to Part II of Lamont's "The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law" essay in your May 28, 2024 Worthy Reads post is broken; it points to Part I as well. (Feel free to delete this when fixed.)
James,
I made a post in the "Unelected President" thread that you may have missed. As you remember, I responded to your "Governors Electoral College" with some spitballing about changing the Presidential nominating process. But then I had a better idea: why not just limit eligibility to be elected President (and Vice-president) to current or former governors?
All the reasons you gave that make governors as a class suited to choose a President, also make them suited to be President. In particular, wining a statewide election as a state's chief executive, is a really good way to filter out the "kooks" (even though many non-Governors could make and have made good Presidents) as well as celebrity wannabees who have never been tested in any public office. Ditto for Vice-Presidents who could succeed into the Presidency. (I would not worry about other officials who might succeed to be President if both the Prez and VP were eliminated; that has never happened in American history).
This change is a simple Constitutional amendment which requires no change to the Electoral College (and therefore popular vote for Electors) nor to the way parties nominate candidates (flawed though it might be). As you point out, very few kooks become governors. And performance as a governor provides a good track record for evaluating a candidate for President. The major issue with governors is their lack of foreign policy experience. But in practice, that has not hampered governors like Reagan, Clinton or GW Bush who became President.
In short, the problems of a radically democratic process of nominating and electing Presidents, can be countered by limiting who can be elected President, to proven elected politicians holding executive office.
Did not miss it! I have been trying to type up a sort of general "response post" to the entire (wonderful) comment thread, including this argument. Haven't been able to make it happen yet.
The link to Part II of Lamont's "The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law" essay in your May 28, 2024 Worthy Reads post is broken; it points to Part I as well. (Feel free to delete this when fixed.)
Oh, you're quite right! Thank you very much!