>> indiana law professor current david trippi argues for a two presidency as a way to enforce limits on presidential power. he writes about his proposal in the book, "two presidents are better than one" and disgusted at the university of pennsylvania law school. this is an hour. >> thank you for having me. i'm grateful for the opportunity to share my ideas about political dysfunction and how we fix it. i began thinking about two representatives had served in the indiana house of representatives and i was there for three turns. and like most candidates do not or started running, i pledge to the end. i was going to work with my colleagues across the aisle and support good ideas, whether they are democratic or republican. i tried very hard to do that.

but i did find quickly it's very difficult to remain above the partisan brad. i came to the conclusion we don't get partisan conflict in washington or indiana is because we elect people who are inclined to be partisan. there's not a selection bias here. our political system drives elected officials. so i'm very madisonian about this, but i think about how the structures direct behavior. what is it about our political system that feels partisan conflict? that's when i came to the idea that i discussed in my book the partisan conflict at the national level is driven largely by the fact week about the executive power to one person rather than executive parity among local officeholders.

one is both political dysfunction are planted with the founding fathers chose to visit the president or the executive branch and the best way to address political dysfunction has to change to a two-person, to party president the which the two presidents are truly deep and come from different parts. ordinarily that would be democratic republic and, but third-party candidate would be eligible and more likely we would get third-party candidates because it's easier. before i make my argument about why a single president is back in two presidents are good, which we mean by a two-person bipartisan presidency? photo look like? the two presidents would have to be equal partners. some if the bill passed congress, both have to sign before it would become law. they have to agree an executive order, supreme court nominees,

decisions as commanders in chief of the military. he should have their own vice president for succession, but all other appointment, whether the executive range would be single joint appointees. with that, decisions of the field much more quickly. instead of a democratic nominating democratic, you'd have a bipartisan nominees that would be incentives of the confirmation that position should be filled much more quickly. in all likelihood, they divide a primary responsibility. one might direct health care company of education, when they focus on relationships appear in countries asian countries. but when it comes time to make decisions, they have to do agree, i'll decisions have to be shared decisions.

instead of having a republican president championing the republican party are democratic president pressing the policies of the democratic party, where we have presidential partners advocating policies that represent the views of the full range of voters. so how do we trace? little dysfunction make entries to the single. isn't congress the problem? or senators and representatives can't have bills to balance their budget. they can't do anything about global warming work on violence and even back on march 1st and they were faced with the sequester but the march across-the-board budget cuts, and i couldn't even get them on a sensible budget reduction plan. if we focus on congress, were focused on the symptoms rather

than causes of the problem. the problem with congress is the problem i want to suggest come in the founding fathers decision to place a single executive at top the executive branch come a single president. mice having a single president a problem? i'll talk about what the framers thought, but with happiness modern president exercise exceptional power. are the sausage are called because the president will their immense power in behalf of only one party come to field a high level of conflict is in washington. because they exercise their immense power on behalf of one perspective, they make too many decisions that are detrimental to the national interest. let me talk about how it got to this and why it causes problems. the founding fathers of course worried about different branches

becoming too powerful, but they didn't protect against the imperial presidency because they didn't anticipate the essential role the executive branch and plan our government. the framers worried about the legislative ranch. so when they wrote the constitution, that was the concern, so they took steps to divide the legislative power between the house and senate and give the president of the challenge someone. but they misjudged things. my wife says i shouldn't criticize the framers, but they did get this wrong because over the past 75 years, congress has transferred much of the executive branch peer presidents have their own power craft. so with the creation of the administrative state, all these agencies like the environmental

protection agency, housing and urban development and so on. so that's a huge growth of the american state and departments and agencies, presidents can consider considerable unanticipated domestic policymaking power. the president controls all the regulations energy exploration, k-12 education, health care, consumer protection down the line. all these different concerns, rulemaking is overseen by the president. it's not only the rulemaking. presidents have other policymaking tools so they can see national policy to their signing statements and grant waivers from statutory obligations. it's easy to find examples. president obama -- under president upon this direction without congress' participation we have a doubling of fuel

efficiency for cars that take effect three now and 2025. obama decided to expand and offshore drilling for oil and gas and granted lots of waivers for the no child left behind that she was most of the central provisions are found by this. think about stem cell funding. president bush decided they wouldn't be federal funding for stem cell research. president obama decided they would be. all these decisions are made by the president. this is just on the domestic side. on the foreign policy side, presidents play a far larger role in determination of u.s. policy in congress say the first mauler role in the framers in tended. the recent illustration is president obama would be involved in interviewing olivia was his decision even though

congress is supposed to decide what to send troops to battle lovers these, but obama, truman, clinton, many presidents decide on their own without waiting for congress. presidents reach agreements about anticipation and unilaterally decide about terminating treaties or change from recognizing taiwan as a government to mainland china with president carter who unilaterally terminated by pat the taiwan. presidents decide about restrictions to travel abroad when we were prevented from cuba, that was a presidential decision. they also revise their immigration be. people brought his children by their parents. president obama implemented his own dream act and waive deportation and son not work

permits to young immigrant. now, presidential power has increased. congress has transferred power to act on their own so there's a shift of power. the other piece of the puzzle is the vast expansion and the founders lived in europe and not the united states can become a great world power. presidential power has increased both because the u.s. has increased radically in the power the u.s. government has hessman shifted. so we no longer have coequal branches of government. we now have a politically dominant executive branch. many scholars say congress needs to assert itself and do this checking and balancing power.

we wouldn't have a piece like watergate and abu ghraib another presidential authorities. the problem is congress is proving capable for various reasons other scholars are worried about this. congress can act decisively or efficiently. they've made sense to have a powerful congress released a coequal congress 200 years ago. in the modern americans at the global economy and fast-moving technology, we need a strong impact. i don't think we need to settle that whether we should have a powerful executive or not, it's not critical to my argument even if the executive branch is not accumulated too much power, it's a mass to much power one person. thus the problem.

because when one person exercises this enormous power of the modern u.s. presidency, we shouldn't be surprised in the breaks down. all of us though, we'll want to have a voice in our government, but only half the public has been meaningful input. currently we had a democratic president who represents democratic voters in 2001 to 2008 we had a republican president. so it's no wonder when you have one president from one party at the party out of power spends all his time trying to retain the oval office and not enough time trying to interest the countries need. democrats and republicans fight tooth and nail every four years for the white house. hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars once the election is over, a new cycle

begins. candidates are traveling to new hampshire and iowa will happens if congress is the president mindset behind the initiative to bolster the president and make sure it can retain the white house and the losing party tries to block presidential initiative so it can weaken the white house, because the president the end when it back over the next election. when health care reform is being debated, jim demint from south carolina told his colleagues, we need to vote against obamacare and break the obama administration. for senator mcconnell, senate majority leader announcing in 2010 that his highest priority as senate majority leader was making barack obama a one term president. ephrata coalition presidency

were restarting it would elect a partner, it would entertain as much political it and pitch. with a status is they still share with the other party. said that it would be much for your to judge legislative proposals. it's not surprising when you have winner take all elections for presidencies to the level of an imperial president be, we shouldn't be surprised with high levels of partisan conflict. indeed, the increase in partisan conflict if you go back to the 50s and 60s, it was much more working across party lines. it residences the 45th is gradually. the presidential power has increased and it's not surprising. we now have people elected with

a small majority or even a minority of the popular vote, substantial numbers of voters feel their interests and concerns are not elected. if we had a two-person presidency nearly all other presidents or maybe much marco debow emerging from the executive branch. it would no longer be this massive voters who are receptive to a the of obstruction. aren't there other causes of partisan conflicts? i don't want to suggest the imperial presidency is the only cause. there's other factors of law, but even so the argument for bipartisan is strong. if elected officials have strong and gives for a highly partisan fashion, would it counter incentives to act in a section. it would not only address the

presidency back your, but also provide an effective counterbalance at any cost. there's another problem with having a one-person imperial presidency. innovates decision-making harmful to the country. here's another area where the frame rate things have changed in the in a way they didn't anticipate because a substantial increase in presidential power changed the nature. over the framers thought congress would be a policymaking branch and the president would be the executor. the executive branch. it beat implementor policy, not so much a shaper of policy. the president now has become a major shaper, perhaps the primary creator of policy for our country. that's not a good idea because when we have policies been made, we want to be named by multiple

people with different perspectives. robust debate. so the framers are right if you want an executive president is in executor policy coming as the one the person and correctly deserve political bodies that congress is the supreme court. the whole purpose of democracy is the medal count with one another so as not to depend upon the understanding of unmanned. when it comes to making policy there is much truth that two heads are better than one. if you look at studies by economists, psychologists and other research your decision-making works better than unilateral decision-making. it's not hard to find unilateral decision-making. george w. bush is the decision to take us into iraq. single decision-makers will make

decisions. two presidents from different parties bring the problem-solving approaches that make for better decision-makers. two presidents of different perspectives would make market choices and fewer bad choices. i understand several presidents of course still locked in isolation. they consult members of the cabinet and staff to enjoy many benefits of group decision-making. nevertheless, there is a big difference between their decision after consulting with those inclined to reinforce inclination as opposed to sharing decision-making with a partner who's inclined to challenge their inclination. an example of use to illustrate his imagine the supreme court with nine justices and decision-making authority and perspectives. if you have one justice, scalia

or ginsburg who had eight to experience law clerks, could be a very different supreme court. and it's not only the two presidents would give us better leadership a nice time for deliberation, but even in times of crisis. don't bring in a single person? i don't think that's right. part of the problem is what could happen. one is single decision-makers often act in authoritarian and unconstitutional ways. during world war ii we had japanese americans. after 9/11 terrorists and having a single making those decisions of congress, courts are supposed to check abuses of power. to. have not stepped up when

so having a two-person bipartisan presidency could give us the internal check on the executive branch we need one other checks are not effect you. we also have to sacrifice rapid decision-making. presidents always consult trusted advisors before making decisions and consider israel, a country that has had to respond to major threats to national security and they always convened the cabinet, then their full cabinet before they decide on their response. some deliberation is good, even in the faith of the next acted events, international events. an example i like to use as the 2008 presidential campaign in georgia and russia got into the little war. john mccain immediately

condemns russia. barack obama waits a few days to find out more information and he did so wisely because it turned out both georgia and russia were at fault. sometimes acting quickly and decisively makes that decision. why wouldn't two presidents bring a person can't look in the white house? border met romney and barack obama really cooperate? alexander hambleton talks about multiple executives with dissension and rivalry. i'll think that will happen. there's a very good reason to think they'll develop a cooperative relationship. they would entitle the senate to have a relationship. elected officials are highly partisan, but they are partisan for a purpose. the reason why typical power-sharing setting, each

person are different people feel that by maneuvering they can establish a dominant position. but in the coalition presidency i propose no amount of maneuvering, backstabbing or doing whatever could be to a dominant position no matter what with the 50/50 relationship with the current term after reelection. what's the incentive to engage in conflict? more than that, a very important incentive to cooperate because when president at the top of the political ladder at that point the primary concern is how are they going to go down to history? george w. bush's decision to invade iraq will suppose saddam hussein. their number of of reasons for

his decision. one of the accounts was an important one, which he was influenced by the potential for introducing democratic governance to the middle east. we could set up a democratic government in iraq, a model for other countries. george w. bush's legacy would be transforming a major region of the world even though he said we should be engaged in nationbuilding. when he thought about his legacy is going to do that. the first year the obama administration talks about the decision, should we do health care quite obama's advisers say no, do not do health care. the president wants you to focus the economy. that's where you need to put your efforts. and what essentially persuaded obama is to do health care now

was his legacy. the goal that eluded presidents for a century. well, two members of the coalition presidency spent their turn maki and wouldn't be able to have the achievement, established the record to have an important legacy. that's what i think it would work out as not only my thoroughly educated guess i hope, but we have other support. switzerland i like to use as an example. does the work anywhere else? switzerland executive branch has several department heads there is no first among equals. they rotate the president the

msn account others there's now five to represent 80% of the vote during the national elections. the important thing is the seven people of different parties of the political spec to work cooperatively. you might say switzerland. in fact, switzerland has its own history of political conflict. it is civil war in the 19th century between catholics and protestants. not as bloody as ours, but there is a war. french, german, italian and that's why they drafted our constitution to try to overcome the political conflict that they had experienced. my view is because they have their power-sharing across

different decide, political and other come and they have been able to have a society that doesn't have political conflict we experience. francis also shown the shared decision taking to work well. this is not as institutionalized , but when presidents and prime ministers come from different parties, nor let the president is the dominant political figure. far più bill now the prime minister, but when the president and prime minister have the cohabitation government. for much of the time between 1886 and 2002 at cohabitation governments. the first was sharad, right, mitch on the last and they work together reasonably well and the governments are quite popular.

they are well above above letter publicly at cohabitation. in all parliamentary systems, tend to have coalition governments, people from different parties working together. i know other countries differ in many ways in the united states, but i don't think there's any reason elected officials and other countries are left as part of the partisan conflict than our officials are. i'm also not claiming to share power cures all political will. bosnia has its reapers executive has not been able to overcome the powers. their problems go far deeper than the nature of the executive ranch. to be centralized, serbia, too much power and so on. as political scientist have

observed, the coalition executives offer the best possibility for resolving conflict deeply divided society. one other source from an argument and that's game theory. elements of relationships that encourage cooperation is supposed to conflict. the kinds of relationships are the element that would be part of the coalition presidency i propose. one is people have an ongoing relationship much more likely to cooperate in a one-shot relationship. at a much better relationship with the guy who who services my car than people would regard by a car.

the servicemen knows i'm coming back, jessica chapman treats me well. so having an ongoing relationship, having regular and frequent interactions with your partners also encourages collaboration. most importantly, coalition presidency have symmetrical relationship with the amount of power. as i've indicated that's exactly half the executive power and no maneuvering could change that symmetry. neither could gain the upper hand in that tells you when you have that situation where they have little to gain by instruction, must again by collaboration, we should expect them to collaborate. it's out of self-interest. i don't assume they're going to do this for the good of the

country. the desire for the legacy. people with strong philosophical differences would work cooperatively, could eric cantor, nancy pelosi really work together? i think they would. part of this i draw my own experience as state representative and watching them there and also the national level because public officials to exhibit quite a bit of flexibility to achieve their political goals. matt romney pushes for individual name day for health care. presidential mandates propose individual mandates. arlen specter mostly as a republican wins the democratic party and its voting record shifts to the left. evan bayh positioning himself for a run for the president the other liberal voting record. they have the most conservative

voting record of any democratic senator, even ben nelson from nebraska or on academic tears. president bush pushing executive power. the obama administration changes its tune and takes position partially criticized when he was outside the executive branch. so i think the desire to leave a legacy, and that's what drives president and a lot of their statements and posturing much more as a true commitment to the ideology they can't compromise. i conclude i saying the two-person presidency may seem radical for us. but this function is gotten to the point radical reform is needed. the alternative to a two-person

presidency with greater partisan conflict and even more decision. i look forward to your questions. hot mark [applause] >> will pass on the microphone. i'd like to start out with one question first. it seems to me an assumption you are making that having presidents from both parties will be able to be going back to congress to lead their party along in congress. i am wondering how likely you view that is being in light of the fact that even speakers of the house, sometimes majority leaders in the senate have a hard time bringing along their own them or us in the room chambers. how woke up this representative of their party in the white house actually end the gridlock that it is within congress'

south. >> why wouldn't partisan conflict moved to cios of capitol hill. i'm not so worried about that. a couple reasons why i think you start to see more cooperation in congress. let me say, i am not against competition and disagreement. i still want republican members of congress and democratic members of congress. what i'm trying to avoid is the extent to which partisan conflict overtakes legitimate disagreement. so there's two reasons -- at least a couple reasons why will refuse the excessive level of partisan conflict. one is now your going to have romney and obama fashioned their health care reform for

immigration reform or climate change legislation and they send their own proposal to congress. now that there is a bipartisan proposal, the members of congress currently when president obama sent this partisan proposals, remember mike earnest there's this massive disaffected voters. 47 are some of the public voted for matt romney. 47% of the public doesn't think they have a voice in the white house. their instinct is to say this proposal doesn't represent my views and so their instinct is to oppose that. so the republican members of congress recognize that and know there is a substantial massive disaffected voters who will be receptive to a policy of instruction. now if you had a bipartisan proposal coming forward, voters on both sides will say that

proposal represents my views. seven members of congress might decline to obstruct for partisan purposes are not going to find a receptive audience amongst voters. another reason why you think they would be less than claimed to be partisan, one of the things i learned as a legislator, you can build up its constituents by by passing the bill and do more for constituents to helping cut through the red tape and other hurdles in the bureaucracy. if you're a republican today and collect the executive branch, you're not going to get much help. if it's a bipartisan executive branch, they're going to respond to your call. you have a lot of incentive to have good relationships with the white house with the food and

drug administration. he won a help them. it really changes do not have an audience perceptive and members of congress having their own personal set in terms of constituents in getting reelected to have cordial relations with the executive ranch would help. >> thankthank you very much. we will open it up for questions. we will bring the microphone over to you. >> i guess my question deals with the political process of these two presidents. one of the reasons candidates like to sit close to the center is because they have a general election coming up. when you know you're elected president once you got a democratic or republican primary and six other guys are conservative or liberal, the best way to distinguish his move

further and further another's no incentive to come back to the center, which means, is there a problem he travels so much more from where you were during the primary and special interest groups invested to be so far out now need you to stay there. >> that's an interesting question. once you make this change, it is going to have all kinds of change. so now the primary, the primary voters don't have to think i need to find somebody who select: november because decisions will be mostly decided. the elections usually decide the third-party candidate. one possibility i would moderate things, but even in the absence of a third-party candidate, what's going to happen? is going to change voting patterns, too.

right now, a lot of people wait till november. we might have 60% in her. you might get 20% of the eligible voters so you drive a lot of people don't have strong affiliations with either party to pick one of the parties they are closer to. they'll change the primary voting. some evidence suggests general election voters are no more moderate. the primary voters may not be party activists, but might be more moderate. that may not have enough fact. others wonder whether in recent years has changed. you might get some moderation, but if it doesn't happen, if you

still have the desire to get the extremists because i want the person to advocate the negotiator, candidates will recognize that and start even if they are romney moderate or whatever else, you start recognizing they position themselves as a conservative liberal so they'll be gaining outside. candidates a different things. for there to people further out, they still move to the middle to get anything done. the legacy will drive the compromise and then will they be punished? i promise that i would vote or stand up for a deals and now

have to worry about a challenge. what drives a tea party so that democratic control again they don't have a voice. so it's hard to mobilize people to throw out an comment when they have a voice in the person is speaking on their behalf. people understand there's a partisan process. but we love to win all the time. we feel at least we have gotten my purse in his promise to fight hard fight that battle and they don't win all the time. at least we will feel like we gave america a shot. so that's why the challenges are not likely.

>> i think he used the expression real president v. is that right? so mayor bloomberg, governor walker, barack obama are all using executive orders to accomplish a lot of what you're talking about. my question to you is whether you think this is a response to the legislative ranch for a change in how the executive sees themselves. and how that contributes to what you're talking about. >> we see this use of executive order, so they've got high levels of partisan conflict, legislative bodies capable of making change. i think it is a combination of

congressional failure. there's no question the legislative body, as racially congress have advocated in their response abilities. but i also think as the framers warned us, people in power in presidents have. why hasn't congress? the framers didn't anticipate the collective action. 435 person house, 100 person senate in an individual legislature increase in institutional power of the congress shared with the lot of people. it's not in fact its way. anytime you increase your institution's power, you increase your own power. surmise that right in the framers were right about the presidents would push for

greater power. they were wrong about congress. so it's a combination of the natural see how president to increase power and the willingness of congress. the courts have not intervene. president carter's decision terminate in the supreme court said it is a political question on other procedural grounds, but they would reach the narrative. and this gets back to what i said earlier. i am not so sure even the failure of congress to work effectively maybe does next son to give executive branch more power. even if it's correct to give it to one person from one party and one perspective, that's where it breaks down. if it's true we rely, then you

should have more people saying we should preserve the policymaking power for one party always. especially when it walked in for four years. in the parliamentary system, you have a chance to change the government if they had done the wrong path. profoundly unrepresentative. one vote among day in the majority that wins one vote one day controls for years, thousands of decisions. as justice breyer and whiteside the redistricting case when you have a minority that is persistently shut out of the political process, that is not fair. that violates our concept of equal protection.

[inaudible] the president is not the sovereign. the citizens are. a question to you is ready to get these ideas from because it's totally different from my perception of reality if we have an imperial congress and presidency since 1913. >> yeah, the failure of our government to respond to the voters -- yeah, to the citizens. there's no question that is been a serious problem, sort of the washington mentality, the elected officials seem to be captured by the beltway lobbyists and other interest groups and it is a big problem, but it's a bigger problem with the president than with congress because the president, because so much power is shifted from the executive office that

congress is not mr.'s aunt said that this should be, but it's not as dangerous because it doesn't feel as much authority. but you're right, our government as a whole isn't as responsive as it should be and that's why at least if you allow people on both sides of the political aisle to have representation of the white house, the look of us are more representative government than we have today. >> high, even with the system, it seems to me the legislative idea so going to polarize political parties. my question is, why would this new proposal create more political gridlock if now there is a partisan proposal from the legislators sent to the white house, at least one or the other

is going to refuse to sign that particular legislation. >> here in front of the legislature a top about what happened when their bipartisan and in fact, one of the realities of the current system is that the president drives the agenda. the model was supposed to be the legislative proposal driven more by the congress, but that's really flipped and i don't think that would change so much. i still think initiatives would be driven but to the extent congress tries to drive the agenda. they know they're going to have a democratic and republican or libertarian, whatever. two people will represent a broad range of voters. partisan proposals are going to fare very well. they understandably want to get something passed, we've got to pass something that will satisfy

people on both sides of the aisle. again, it would be futile to send out proposals. one thing i do say when i talk about bipartisan white house and the senate heard he has a filibuster against a minority of choice that would leave the house with the one branch of our political government and all you need is a fair majority and you don't have to worry -- there's no filibuster. you might have to worry that your tea party. john donner, but you don't have to worry about democrats so much. one of the questions is would it be a good idea to give the minority more of a voice and have a filibuster while the house. filibusters have a bad representation. having served as a minority or,

sitting there watching and you're a spectator and filibusters have an important role in making sure minority has a voice. >> one of the incentives are identified, the import set forth by partisan proposal as an incentive to be this legacy. i guess my concern is there such thing as a bipartisan legacy item and if we think about the things in the news today, immigration, republicans wouldn't see that as a legacy item. for them it's a political necessity. it doesn't have to appeal to a greater population. republicans are man-made which means any attempt to curb it would not be a legacy item. universal health care for republicans is an opportunity to buy health care if they don't want it.

so given just how polarized parties are, are receiving so much that there could be a legacy item that's nonpartisan? >> could they really find a common ground for a legacy or is the republican view of the legacy so different from the democratic legacy that she would end up -- there really is sufficient common ground because republicans did campaign on universal health care. the difference was, should we rely on the market. mccain's idea we should have a voucher, give them the means to buy insurance and let them go out and buy it on the private market. but mccain's proposal would have been in some ways morally universal proposed role. it would've reached everybody, whereas we end up with 23 million americans once obama carries fully implemented.

there's still 23 million americans without insurance. i think legacy means solving problems others the economy, health care, immigration, so i think what happens is both will want to solve the same kind of problems when it comes to budget the republicans want more tax cuts -- more spending cuts and democrats want more tax increases and i think you end up with some pain it's about 50/50 that would really both of them would want to be prepared at the cab. i look at my governor, mitch dan knows who came in and who is so important for him to change and shape things up and health care

he pushed the expansion of our medicaid program with a cigarette tax increase. he wanted to leave a legacy with health care and the one thing that made a republican was in had a health savings account approach. i'll the other elements expanding medicaid should include working adults who didn't have kids and funding with the cigarette tax comes out of the democratic playbook. even our new governor, mike pence who has a republican study group is a member of congress who has an ultraconservative member is now funded a much more moderate tone amongst elitist legacy. so i think we would actually see a lot of accomplishment and sufficient common ground for that to happen. >> to follow-on to that point, in addition to the question to

which they could seize, can solutions to problems the bipartisan? can we in fact address climate change adequately, appropriately through some kind of solution that's what the difference or do we really need to kind of go all in on one party's vision of the world or not. in other words, what a two-party presidency give this a lowest common denominator that might not actually be what it really takes to solve health care problems for the tech craze says the climate change or any number or other big goblins be a >> that's an interesting question. maybe one side really is right on some issues. i think as a general matter,

both sides -- there's truth on each side of the other side is too slow to record highs and his excesses on each side that they are slow to recognize their own and the other side. when you see this going back to the shared decision-making, people with different tastes tend to get better results with their own perspectives to try to solve problems. i think what we end up with is once on our current system, once they push policies to access as we have been 1600 democrats, the other side comes in pushes policies under nixon and bush. i think that is what we would avoid is the access on either side coming to solution.

there's times where one side has a monopoly that are rare enough or as alexander hamilton said about the power, the harm of losing some good policies is much smaller than the benefit of preventing that policies. i worry about the downside is. you never want to put all your eggs in one day, even a year or two ago a great place to put all your money, but now it's not so good. diversification always works better. the diversification and political philosophy. >> we have time for one more question.

>> i'm glad to see examples from europe. i was born in a country where we had to pay ministers. one from chuck buyer, czechoslovakia investment exist anymore. one way to have a compromise is to split the country. an advantage of wanted to mention. my point of view -- the european point of view is the elections in the u.s. are too often too good and it's maybe an easier solution to give sailing for the budget before the election. if you're a member of the congress would want to be reelected, you need strong statement. so this may be easier to compromise when you have four years, just two years and so my

question is, wouldn't it be easier to change the election system in the u.s.? >> yeah, two quick questions. one is when you have shared power, cancer breakdown? viscous factor is very his very important to structure the single executives can be disastrous in many countries, africa, south america and come eastern europe learned. share governing can break down, too. it is important to structure and await their incentives because if you have escape option so you can leave behind your shared will become a dominant person, you're right. people will become dominant and get all the power. that's why it's critical to structure and away. the other part about our election are horrible. too much money and too much posturing and i think actually

this would be a better solution than the alternative because of the imperial presidency, high stakes of the election, the tremendous demand for the hundreds of millions or billions with the right response when it got so much at stake. as long as he's got that much at stake, people are going to find a way to spend money. we see one reform after another, so they limit how much you contribute to a candidate and a committee. limit how much you contribute to committee to set up your own personal, you know, kameny. just run it out of your business or home. if we say you could run a command is the guy who did the book and the documentary and hillary clinton. the money will find a way. but if you have a bipartisan president needs another power is going to be shared, what are you

going to gain out of spending all that money on the election? you can change which democrat or which are public and if you know there's always a democrat or republican or third party, power is shared, you just can influence. they were going to be missing some policy that are so important to people contributing money. the incentive to spend would drop considerably in this to be a very effect is way to get campaign finance reform. >> i want to thank you all for attending today and i know we might not all be leaving comebacker unit two presidents are better than one. most of us would agree to heads are better than one and i'm sure all of us would agree the one mind we've had sharing with us ideas here today and the result of his latest book, david orentlicher is a creative one

can articulate one end is given a tremendous amount to think about in a provocative approach so about improving the political process in the united states. i hope everyone join me in thanking professor orentlicher for a two-day seminar. >> thank you all for coming, for your great questions. thank you, c-span for coming, too.