Over the last few days, there have been a lot of political arguments about either major candidate, the election results and the electoral college, but I have yet to see anyone address what I believe is the real problem: over concentration of power. There would not be near as much panic over presidential elections if it wasn't a problem that that particular position wasn't almost completely above the law. Why does one person get to be the "most powerful in the world"?

Personally, I think a good place to start would be to do away with the executive order and the presidential veto. I don't believe that what's essentially a representative of the country to the rest of the world should be able to just sign his name and have his way, nor do I believe he should be able to over rule something that's been passed by both the house of representatives and the senate. He's the face of the nation, not a monarch.

What would you do to lessen the power of the president and more evenly distribute it? Or if you're opposed to the idea, explain your point of view.

I actually think decreasing the power of the president would ultimately go against the people. I say that mainly because of the way things are set up in the US compared to most other democracies. To use my own country as an example, here in Sweden the prime minister forms and leads the government but doesn't actually have any real individual power. He works in stead mainly on implementing decisions made in the publicly elected parliament. He or she is also picked by the governing party themselves, sometimes without a direct voting process, being more of symbol for the country than anything. One votes more based on the several different parties ideology as a whole. Therefore it makes sense that the prime minister should hold a representative function.

In the US the only two parties that really hold any chance of winning because of the way the system is set up is the Republican Party and Democrat Party. What keeps it from strictly becoming just an election between these two parties agendas is that anyone can run in the primary of the two parties. Thus because of the power the president have, they are to some extent able to change the direction of the two parties to reflect the changes in the voter base. With that in mind decreasing the power the president  would ultimately decrease the power of the people because that would place more power in the hands of the two party establishments which are harder to influence. Ultimately only further decreasing the actual input people have in the political process when intending to do the opposite. So I feel before talking about decreasing the power of the president one would first need to remodel the entire election system, in particular dealing with the electoral college to not favor these two parties.

Aside from this, there is an additional problem in that people don't really participate in the Senate and House of Representatives elections to the same extent as the Presidential election. So the decisions passed by the earlier are in theory less reflective of the opinion of the people. Which I would say leads onto this whole other point about how the political system is made overly complicated. It needs to be changed to an overall proportional voting system not just because it would be more democratic in terms of better reflecting the views of the people, but also to make it easier for people not well versed/interested in politics to fully grasp and get involved in the election process.

Executive Orders and Presidential Vetoes can be a good thing when administered with care. For example if Congress pushes a bill through and the President knows it will do no good or is just a smokescreen,he can defeat it and it is done for the time being. I know what you mean,though. That kind of power can be used for the wrong reasons such as Obama Care. (For the record,I like the idea of a national,affordable health care system. Just not the way Obama Care is set up or forcing people to get it or be fined.) Think of a battlefield commander,sometimes he must force his troops to obey when it is needed,but he should hear them out and weigh the situation carefully. Maybe there needs to be a small committee or a multiple point checklist and if it does not address the majority of either one,the bill is defeated.

m0ssb3rg935 : Giving the president the option to veto should be kept. Although not used much, It has helped Barack Obama when he had to use it.

I'm not a very big fan of executive orders, but I think the ability of the president to veto laws should be kept. It was there to be a check on the legislative branch so that it doesn't have too much power, and Congress can overturn the veto with a 2/3rds majority vote.

And if the president had that much power then I think that which party has control of the house/senate wouldn't matter as much as it does because the president could just do whatever it wants without having to go through Congress. Not saying that presidents haven't passed laws or something else without Congress approval (executive orders I'm looking at you), but from what I've seen having the house and senate behind you is important to causing change as a president.

Regardless the president does have quite a bit of power everything considered, even if I think some people are freaking out a little too much about the election results.

The president is what keeps this country in tack and from falling apart and is very important so his vetoing powers should be kept (Like I said below)