I think one person in charge puts too much power in that person's hands which brings forth corruption. What do you all think?

I don't think anything would ever get done.

But I do like the idea of curving corruption and power in the hands of one person, but there has to be a better solution.

I think that if the three branches of the fed. would pull their heads out of their collective ass and do what their supposed to do, things would work a lot better. Congress should be making the laws, not trying to see how much money they can make from the special interest groups. The Supreme Court should be making sure those laws are valid, not trying to rewrite them from the bench. And the POTUS needs realize that he is not the supreme leader and has to work with the system.

__________________
For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.
Thomas Jefferson

no a three would be bad a duo would be much better.

THIS COUNTRY--UNITED STATES OF AMERICA---HAS A CONSITUTION ! WHICH SPELLS OUT A BALANCE OF POWER, EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL BRANCHS. IF YOU DON'T THINK THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE BALANCE OF POWER MAYBE YOU SHOULD TRY AND CHANGE OUR CONSTITUTION (WHICH HAS MADE THE U.S. THE MOST SUCCESSFUL COUNTRY IN HISTORY) OR LEAVE !!!

Too ambiguous.....

Yeah I think there would be too few major decisions made. If there was a time of crisis none of them would be able to act without the agreement of the other 2, etc

Not to mention no foreseeable positives from having 3 leaders - 3 leaders wouldn't reduce corruption in my opinion - hell, if they were working together they could cause more of it.

If you let them pick who the three people are, it would probably end up becoming the President and two yes-men, and would effectively change nothing. If the people pick them, it would turn into an internal power struggle. Overall, I don't think it could ever really work.

The government has different branches to keep checks and balances on eachother. (Granted I think these branches were made to insure that the American government could never collapse. Not so much to keep government out of people's lives..)

The president is not like a dictator, he has to answer to other branches such as the legislative branch and congress.


Also we have vise president, secretary of state, etc. These people are inline to become president incase the president dies.


All in all the presidancy is a hierachy based order democratically elected. Congress is sometimes elected but wholly selected by other government branches much like the legislative branch.


This is why we're called a democratic-republic. Is it the best way to govern? That's debatable, but it's best to know what we're dealing with before we side with or oppose it...

i think that we basically have 3 presidents now to balance power.

the speaker of the house basically is the president of the legislative branch
the chief justice basically is the president of the judicial branch
and of course the president is the head of the executive branch
afterall, thats why we have 3 branches of government.
and ,as has been stated, there are plenty of people in each branch to lighten the load on the head.

__________________