Isn't it weird that immense personal ambition is the first requirement to be President of America?

Don't abolish the college, renew it!  

The way presidents are elected, does it bother you?  Who is it out there voting, and why?  I vote, but I'm an independent and by the time I vote in the general election things are pretty much decided (I'm a mostly conservative in a blue blue state).

The interplay between opinion and media punditry bothers me.  Voting for someone because of 'gut-feeling' or because 'he/she's one of us' bothers me.  That significant investment in simple tv ads that don't say much and don't usually really represent what that candidate will do as president have such an impact on voters bothers me.  There are many other things that bother me and probably bother you.

Someone told me once that the 'gut-feeling' was a good representation of a voter's reaction to the 'leadership qualities' of a candidate.  I thought charisma was not supposed to be the main reason for choosing a leader.

Granted, charisma, general agreement on issues with candidates are good reasons for choosing someone.  I still feel like something is lost in the hype that is presidential politics (and it's seen in lower levels, where it can often get worse).

I don't feel that the popular method of electing a president is an effective way of choosing a good leader of our country and government.  It's not necessarily that I don't trust people, it's just that it's really hard to coordinate the opinions of masses of people to be consistent and competent.  Interestingly, it is a lot easier to manipulate the opinions of masses of people.  

A good comparison: Have you ever had trouble organizing a family dinner?  An outing with some friends? 

You might trust all these people, you might be willing to sacrifice some of your desires to meet their needs, they might also all feel the same way.  The reason why it's sometimes difficult for people to coordinate is because certain elements are necessary for this coordination to be effective. 

 A forum with rules and procedure is pretty much what's needed.  

TV ads, party machines, mass-media hype, rumor, drawn-out primary seasons, the necessity for extreme political ambition as a primary qualifier for any given candidate, lack of information concerning policy, lack of knowledge/trust/ability to judge a candidate's experience, and so forth make choosing a good president - naturally on compromise - very difficult using the popular method. 

I asked someone once if they trust their local congressman.  They said that they do.  I asked if they trusted that person's opinion about who should be president.  They said that they would.  So, why don't we appoint such a person as an elector to go counsel and vote at the electoral college on who will be president; as the constitution dictates.

We pick people we trust to go meet and work out who they think would be the best leader, and then he/she is invited to fill the post.  Isn't that nice?  The person is asked to be president like George Washington was.  

Isn't it weird (I shall mention again) that immense personal ambition is the first requirement to be president of America?

Such a purely electoral system might be plagued with corruption and inside deals.  So, why not tack a referendum onto it? 

Proposal:

1) No primaries, no nothing: just one voting day, a federal/national holiday.

2) No candidates on ballot, just electors (there may be substantial, "I'll pick this guy" sort of stuff/party involvement, but what counts is what the ballot says)

3) Electors debate and select a candidate.

4) Candidate notified and may accept/refuse offer of presidency

5) Popular referundum ratifies choice (2/3 majority? simple majority?).

6) President sworn in, or if not ratified college holds new vote etc.

There are plenty of complications: what if the college can't or more significantly, won't pick a candidate who can receive popular approval?  What if party machines are so well tuned that ignorant voters go in and pick the guy that they were told to pick and 'smart' voters are shut out.  It would be odd for our presidential ballots to say 'yes/no'.

On the other hand, there is a balance of powers.  Inasmuch as we can't let authoritarianism rule the day, neither can populism - or more specifically - hype.  

It's one thing for the people to not have a say in government.  It's another when the cacophony of opinions based on little substantive information stumbles its way onto a decision, and that decision has such a monolithic effect on national policy.  

I like my proposal. It's balanced, organized, is based on the popular will, but distills that popular will through a slightly more civilized process.

What do you think?