What if we held an election for "Dictator" for 1-4 Years?

[cui bono]

What if we held an election for "Dictator" for 1-4 Years? (to be predetermined before election)

The candidates would have to make a list of everything they would do. They would have to adhere to that list without deviation. Keep all promises, do nothing that was not promised. The government as a whole would have to do whatever it can to implement the list. I don't know what we do with congress.

SCOTUS remains untouched unless a new appointee is needed.

Campaigns would be limited to only discussing what is on each candidate's list.

Then whoever the people vote for has a mandate to take the country where the people want it to go. After the dictator term is up we go back to our current form of govt. with new elections for every seat.

I just don't think we can wait for whatever it will take to turn this country around again. TPTB are so entrenched and the people are so misinformed I just don't see it happening any time soon. It seems the only way to fix it is to give someone the power to do the people's bidding without any roadblocks. I'm not saying this is the answer - I think it's pretty clear this is hypothetical - but was just pondering it and thought it would be fun to throw it out there and see what people think...

Too risky?

[Maedhros]

1. Rome did this.

It ended badly.

[Seeking Serenity]

5. I don't know, the electors of the Holy Roman Empire did something like this

and they're still going....

Oh, wait. Never mind.

[Recursion]

27. Except the Holy Roman Emperor had no actual power

It was only a powerful position because the Hapsburgs also owned Austria and lots of Italy. Being the Emperor didn't actually give him any power over the German princes.

[davidn3600]

2. You wouldnt be voting again in 4 years, I'll tell you that much.

[cui bono]

7. What if the military doesn't back the "dictator" after the term is up?

And if they are doing the work of the people you can bet TPTB would want an election. Or would they find a way to take over the "dictator"?

[wandy]

14. By the rules stated in the OP, that would not happen. Right............

The candidates would have to make a list of everything they would do. They would have to adhere to that list without deviation.

They would have to "admit" to wanting to be dictator for life and would have to be elected on those terms.
Like that would happen?
How often has history shown a ruler voluntarily giving up power.

You are most correct "You wouldnt be voting again in 4 years".
We have already gotten a little too close to that.
Forget "what would Jesus do"?
What would Romney do!

[Democracyinkind]

3. Too risky. There would only be one election.

On edit: I see that previous posters already pointed that out.

[geek tragedy]

4. Venice had that system--they chose a 'doge'

Reality is that the doge was constrained by what the elites wanted

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. It wouldn't work, for many reasons.

Most obviously, it would mean that the government would often have to wait four years before it could respond to a crisis.

[cui bono]

8. Yes, there would have to be some way to deal with these sorts of things without disrupting

the mandated "list".

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. I think it's a fatal flaw in the idea, not a problem with it that needs fixing, to be honest.

Also, who is going to arbitrate whether someone fits the list or not? There's no way you can specify every detail of four years of government policy.

An elected dictator is not an absurd idea, although it's not one I like.

An elected dictator who is not permitted to do anything not on a list, however, is, I think.

[hughee99]

9. The "do nothing that was not promised" could be a problem,

since situations arise over the course of an administration that might necessitate a "dictator" taking some action that they couldn't have possibly known about back when they were campaigning.

You can hold a candidate to the promises they make once elected, but I don't know how you'd prevent them from also doing things they didn't promise (or even discuss), and therein lies the problem.

Even the promises they did make can be tricky.

"I promise that the federal government will pay the tuition for all students that attend college, so no one will leave college saddled with a debt". Sounds good, right?

And then once in office, they keep that promise... but do this by significantly limiting the number of students that can attend college, requiring them to take specific majors for skills that the government needs, and/or requiring them to work for the government free of charge for X number of years after college.

[Yo_Mama]

20. You can't even hold a dictator to the promises the dictator made to get elected dictator.

The OP is suggesting vesting the entire power of the state in one person. Once that person has the power, real life will happen. Promises won't be kept. And how will that dictator be controlled? What would be the mechanism?

[bluestate10]

11. A Dictator is just that.

Your idea is sort of like putting a killer Pitbull next to a person's pork chop laden throat. Not a good idea. The solution is sane people need to vote in every election.

[cui bono]

16. That's why I put it in quotation marks.

Sane people voting won't fix it. The heads of the parties pretty much determine who gets to run. The corporations control candidates and elected officials with money. The media controls the message.

There is a lot broken that needs fixing and the people who can fix it refuse to do so. Even if we voted in a bunch of Dems, I don't hear them yelling about campaign finance reform. I don't hear them worrying about corporate monopolies. I don't hear them screaming for regulation. I don't hear them hollering about corporate welfare. There are a few voices that do of course, but as a whole the party is not doing that.

So we need a way to get the people's work done.

[idendoit]

12. I don't think dictator means what you think it does.

[cui bono]

17. I don't think you saw the quotation marks.

[idendoit]

22. Meaning what?

[Fumesucker]

13. Already happens when Republicans get elected

Or close enough for most practical purposes anyway.

[wandy]

15. Oh, bad idea for more than the obvious reasons..............

The candidates would have to make a list of everything they would do. They would have to adhere to that list without deviation. Keep all promises, do nothing that was not promised.

Even over the short span of a year, things change.
For a government to function it must remain somewhat fluid and have the ability to respond to changes in the external environment.
One of the problems we face at the moment is that Teapublican obstructionism follows a predetermined path.
Obstruction.

Think of the opportunists we have lost.

[Token Republican]

18. It worked for the man from austria

The enabling act made Hitler Germany's dictator on an emergency basis. His emergency powers could be extended until the emergency was over. The acts were renewed twice, once in 1937 and again in 1941.

The act itself was very short. Read up at the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

[Yo_Mama]

19. As others have noted, history has proved this approach

does not work well. Are you going to suspend the Constitution? We would never get a representative form of government back.

Being a dictator doesn't make you more efficient, you know. It just gives you the tools to remain in power.

If you think corporations have too much power now, just wait until they have to deal with just one man or woman.

Our real problem is that we are evolving an Imperial Presidency NOW, not that we need one. Congress is happy to sit back and shift all the responsibility - we need to get people in Congress who will deal with the issues, not try and find a president who's a superhero. Comic books do not have anything to do with real life.

[NuclearDem]

21. That worked with Cincinattus, and only for the span of a year.

And the world was much smaller.

[joshcryer]

23. Cronyism becomes 100x more intensified.

Because once you're the one in charge you have to decide on who to get things done with, and rather than having to compromise, or work with people, you wind up choosing whoever will do things "as quickly" or "as efficiently" as possible. Once the inner circle is built it becomes a disaster. Mismanagement, whole nine yards. You lose transparency, numbers get fuzzed, resources just flat up disappear.

In effect, if you think shit isn't getting done now, it'll be far worse and far more costly than doing it the "let's talk it over" kind of way. The Teabaggers are louses, but they won't be around forever, and American demographics are trending in one direction. We'll get stuff done, don't doubt that.

[cui bono]

24. I wish I had your optimism. n/t

[joshcryer]

25. Gay marriage, marijuana, health care.

Stuff that no one could've predicted was even possible in 2000.

[cui bono]

26. Agreed. But the meat of the matter is still business as usual.

Those things don't change the status of the 1%. Don't change campaign finance. Corporate welfare. TPTB don't mind giving us things that don't change their profits and control.

[joshcryer]

29. Best solution is banning lobbyists from drafting legislation.

Require a person-to-person sit down between legislators and lobbyists and they must draft the general idea of the legislation right there.

Then of course you can send it to the paralegals and pages to get the actual written words down so that they're concise.

Then you compare the two, if the to be voted legislation are considered the same by the legislators, the lobbyists and a third party, then it is considered the proposed legislation.

There, now it doesn't matter if you try to buy candidates, they actually have to do their job. Their conscious is going to get to them. They'll be involved in the process. Civilians then would elect people on their character as opposed to their pronouncements.

This would make pork difficult to get passed, but for pork you'd have a day of "Financial Assistance to the States," throughout the year the drafted legislation and pork projects would be guaranteed to pass, because on that day everyone wants to get their states projects going or whatever and benefit whatever local community thing is wanted (yes there are bridges to nowhere sometimes but they are minimal).

[Puzzledtraveller]

33. Ding ding!

You win!, You said it right there. What is worse is were are now conditioned to accept these bones thrown at us as real progress and as a bonus keep us distracted fighting against one another instead of fighting them.

[Recursion]

28. "The government as a whole would have to do whatever it can to implement the list"

What does that mean?

[cui bono]

31. That congress, govt agencies etc. cannot block things as long as it is what the people voted for.

Remove any obstructionism that may be present.

During this administration the main reason given for progressive policy not being implemented and only centrist at best policies getting passed is that we have an obstructionist oppositional party. So just threw that in to not have that as an issue.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

30. Why even have the dictator?

Just publish the 'lists' and have referendums. Then if congresspeople fail to implement them they are swiftly recalled, and if any congresspeople try to profit or undermine the items, then they are given life in jail.

[ananda]

32. What if ??

.