US Presidential Election Process. Thoughts?

I. It is far too drawn out, and is getting worst each election with people not officially running earlier and earlier.

And in many ways since it is really not the popular vote that elects the president, often the popular vote has little to do with it anyway.

I have to agree with Chuck on the drawn out way too far. Maybe in 2011, I will keep better track of stuff and vote for whoever I heard the least of before Christmas.

For all its problems, I would hate to abandon the electoral college. Can you imagine Florida 2000 in all 50 states?

I t would be a big improvement to do away with the popular vote for the president. It’s a waste of time and money. It has become a spectacle more attuned to a circus.

Being a political junkie I love the process. Perhaps it is too long . I would opt for rotating regional primary dates myself if the states choose to do so ;but I would not begrudge the small states their say. That is the point of them getting first crack at the primaries ;and that is the reason for the electoral college;so their influence would not be diminished . It has served us well . This system of primaries is much better than in the past where nominees were decided by party functionaries in the back rooms of smoke filled conventions

There have been very few elections close enough to say that the popular vote wan't the decisive factor. The founders wanted the states to run and control the national elections .In this case the system has worked almost exactly as the founders intended (caveat :the idiocy of Gore introducing the courts in the process may have forever opened the pandora's box that destroys a very good system) .

I think it important to realize that the electoral college is perhaps the least corruptible body in the system. It is made up of delegates of the people freely chosen by the people . When we vote we are not voting for the person we are voting for that candidates electors. They by design cannot be a representative of the government ;and they by design are not beholden to the candidate specified . Hamilton explained it this way .

Federalist No. 68

You wrote: The US presidential election process is..."somewhat confusing, and to an extent drawn out." Two points: it is a large, geographical area; and it is divided into 50 states, only 13 when the constitution was ratified, in 1788. One should appreciate that the states have certain powers, one of them being to determine the date of presidential primaries. Also, the political parties are 'independent' of the state and federal governments. I don't know the history of the New Hampshire primary, but many years ago it was the first presidential primary in which there was an election by the voters; the others were conducted by the parties behind closed doors, as well as I have understood it. Over the past 40 years, more and more states have gotten into the process with primary elections, and these elections are 'run' by the political parties and the states. The Iowa and New Hampshire presidential primaries mean very little to me and do not represent any concern about fairness that I have. The process winnows away the pretenders and wannabees; it gives the serious candidates an opportunity to exercise their leadership skills. This country is an experiment in self-government and changes are made all the time.
You wrote: "Is there any credence at all to having a single day National Primary?" I do not envision the states giving up their autonomy, but statists/hucksters such as McCain, Clinton, Feingold, and others may try to 'unify' the process under the guise of campaign finance reform. I have no problem with paying a little more for a superior product.

Skell

I believe the President should be appointed by congress and serve their wishes; in turn, the wishes of the people.

Well because I don’t like the names “House of Lords and the House of Commons.” And I do like the terms of office for Senators and Representatives. Separation of powers, in this instance means in opposition to. It is based on the premise that as soon as man enters into a state of society he loses the sense of his weakness, equality ceases, and then commences the state of war. On the other hand Rousseau’s premise is that man is naturally good and is corrupted by society. According to Rousseau, the powerful rich stole the land belonging to everyone and fooled the common people into accepting them as rulers. Rousseau’s solution was for people to enter into a social contract. They would give up all their rights, not to a king, but to “the whole community,” all the people.

I think probably the most fundamentally wise thing the founders designed into the system was the tripartite structure, combined with strict separation and delineation of powers between the branches. A strong, but strictly constrained (primarily by Congress' power of the purse) Executive Branch is vital, I think. If you think Congress is venal now, imagine what they would be like if they had ALL the power? Unfortunately, we no longer have to imagine what an Executive would be like who believed that HE had all the power.

It's easy to enumerate the flaws in the process as it presently exists. What's not so easy is to design an unambiguously better one, and convince enough of those with vested interests the present system to support it, or even to tolerate a change.

In general, I think the diversity in the way that the various states go about it is probably a good thing, and keeps the shortcomings of any one method from completely dominating the process. It does seem to keep the outcome from being too predictable, and therefore completely uninteresting. I was thrilled to see Hillary's "inevitability" strategy destroyed so completely in the very first contest. I was also thrilled that Obama didn't run away with New Hampshire. I was also happy to see Romney get his TWO (count them!) drubbings, and witness McCain's resurrection from the dead. Now we might actually have a real campaign, at least between now and "Super Tuesday".

To the extent that an analogy between Politics and Sports is appropriate, the games that are the most fun to watch are those with some big surprises in them. That was one of the problems with the old "smoke-filled room" method. It was great fun for the participants, I'm sure, but the public never saw anything but the final score. Actually, it was worse than that. They didn't even find out what the score was, just who won.

OG
What powers does the president have that are not subject to congressional approval?
I know of two: The president can issue rules, regulations, and instructions called executive orders, which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require congressional approval.
President has the power to grant a full or conditional pardon, except in a case of impeachment