[Magrus]

For myself, I'm torn between wanting things done quickly and efficiently, and wanting a manner in which to oppose decisions I feel could be harmful and bad.
Personally, so long as the manner dissallows one person holding supreme power, and things move along efficiently in the government to pass things to help the country I don't care.

However, looking at the long term, and the short term, I'm left with this thought. It might be best to vote on a goverment official who must be approved with a 2/3 vote. This official should then be allowed a position in power which would automatically give him a strong pull in a vote with the senate. Let's say, he carries 1/3 of the votes in his decisions, and the rest of the senate divvies up the remaining 2/3 of the vote.

This then allows the head person to squash a situation which has become stagnant, and still allows the senate to oppose his decrees if need be. Essentially any cause the top official, lets go with President for simplicity sake, joins in on, will win unless there is a landslide majority in the senate.

This should make it so that since the senate had to by far approve this President, they should agree on things and everything should move along fairly well. However, in the case Senate was wrong, they can still band together and fight his decisions successfully.

Opinions?