Trump never took the tests. He paid somebody. On top of that he has dyscalculia. He can’t do economics.
Hahaahhah. I’m a programmer. Never even had a business class. Let alone econ 101. I as a programmer, not any kind of invester, saw and see the absolute destruction of trumps trariffs, and well every thing else he does.
I KNEW it was a very, very bad idea.
He’s a moron.
Ya have to be on the tipping point of stupid though. Trump dragged them down to his level of stupid.
My proposal: A constitutional amendment requiring bills to only address a single subject.
California’s State constitution has this requirement, with nicely succinct language.
No more “big beautiful” omnibus bills. And no more burying stuff as riders, or other gimmicks, to ruin legislation.
Also, I think the FBI, CIA, and IRS should be required by law to conduct a background check on each candidate for president (who passes some polling threshold) during the election, which is to be published for review by the American people. It wouldn’t change the qualifications for President, but it would mean that everyone is publicly vetted.
Hmm, interesting.
I’d like to see the Presidency altogether be a committee of three, one elected every two years. Elected directly rather than by an electoral college, since we’d clearly be amending multiple provisions in Article II of the Constitution for it to happen. 
That would make every federal election a presidential election. Simultaneously, voters would pay more attention every two years than now when we have “off years” where “only” the House and a third of the Senate is up and each presidential election would be less high-stakes, winner-take-all than now.
I would have most presidential decisions require a simple majority (that is, two), but any use of military force other than defense against invasion or rebellion within the borders of the United States would require unanimity.
A simple majority doesn’t avoid one party having control but should avoid being subject to the whims, eccentricities, hobbyhorses, etc. of one person.
The Presidents should still be impeachable.
I have no great preference whether the members of my triumvirate Presidency would be eligible for two 4-year terms as now or one 6-year term like a Senator. I’m also not overly attached to whether each President gets his or her own Vice-President elected at the same time (as now) or we have no VPs and a special election is held when a Presidency becomes vacant between elections, except that the former assures that there’s always three Presidents.
If one is elected every two years, four-year terms won’t work. There would have to be six-year terms to make sure there’s always three members.
A triumvirate presidency where one of the three positions is a two-year term is an interesting idea though. Every two years, there are two positions to fill. A person can only serve 6 years total (one of each type of term).
I wonder if the two-year term could act as a sort of “release valve” where voters could take a limited risk on a less known quantity while the two four-year terms provide stability.
The presidency of Switzerland is a seven-member council with a revolving chairman, which is the closest real-world comparison to this idea that I can think of.
Every two years there would be one position to fill, baring death, resignation or 25th.
(maybe I have misread that proposal. No matter)
Which would put the US into near continual election mode.
note to self: buy a diversified range of US media stocks
You should be seeking better governance, not more frequent changes in the government.
If you have near inevitably a triumvirate composed of a MAGA, a leftie loonie and a centralist, what are you expecting to get done? The current 4/8 years swing left/right will become a 2-year swing of ideology. Even if you lucked out and got three of the same ilk, two will probably hate each other’s guts and actively seek to negate each other’s record and legacy.
Interesting idea, yes. But an application that would be a real hoot to watch in action from outside, rather than to being inside tent and subject to its machinations.
Politicians used to compromise, it’s what they were famous for (or infamous to some). U.S. history has more than one compromise with a name on it. Actual compromise, where each side gets something and gives up something. Big things got built (e.g. the Interstates), big programs were adopted (e.g. Social Security and Medicare), and none of them were perfect because they were the result of compromise, but they were done at all because they were the result of compromise, and flaws could be corrected with a future compromise.
I believe a triumvirate Presidency would force a certain amount of cooperation and compromise back into the system. One of the points is to avoid big swings, not eliminating them but dampening them to a significant degree. Not by making the three Presidents agree but by delinking issues from each other instead of what we have now, which approaches having two comprehensive lists of diametrically opposed positions where one “has to” pick either list A or list B.
In your scenario, it’s possible we’d have have one or two 2-year periods where some Presidents cling to their ideology, but I believe we’d settle into a system where the three Presidents realign issue by issue on controversial policy issues. In other words, the centrist and the MAGA would vote together on one proposal, the leftist and the centrist would vote together on another, and possibly (though not probably) the MAGA and the leftist would agree on a few.
I think the Constitution has been subverted and irrevocably wrecked. It may be time to take a stiff drink and convene a Convention of the States. Rewrite the whole thing. Westminster government, here we come.