Adding ostracism to American democracy

  Having now transitioned from Greek philosophy to the fundamentals of Western civilization, I've begun thinking about the ancient Athenian concept of ostracism and whether or not that should be applied to American politics and the Constitution.

  The Athenian democracy (open to all adult male citizens) had an unusual feature which never made it into the American constitution (nor that of
any other European country): ostracism, an institution which made sure that no one person got powerful enough to threaten the democratic institutions themselves.  

  Every so often, the Athenians could call for a vote.  People were allowed to nominate people whom they (the voters) believed were acquiring too much power.  If
enough votes were cast, the person who received the most votes was sentenced to either death
(which is what did in Socrates) or exile from Athens for 10 years.  Regardless of what happens, the powerful figure would be neutralized, at least temporarily.

  Could ostracism benefit America and democracies in general?  Clearly, the Founding Fathers -- with their great knowledge of the classics -- must have known about it.  Why did they not adopt it?

  Suppose ostracism existed today.  Clearly, Bush would be a prime candidate for ostracism.  With a popularity index in the twenties, he could easily be kicked out -- think of it as impeachment by the populace instead of the Senate.  Fortunately for American democracy, we have a vice president.  This would put Cheney in as president.  Whether or not he deserves ostracism is a separate issue.  According to the current constitution, Bush is entitled to his office until 2009.  

  The constitution only permits impeachment of presidents who have committed crimes or other violations of the constitution.  Being an ineffective leader, however, does not qualify.  Granted, Bush is probably doing everything he can.  However, everything is so global nowadays that no political leader can maintain control over his domain without external interference.

  If the US adopted ostracism, how would it take effect?  What would it look like?  

  Here is how I imagine it working.  A special election is held once a year.  Assuming a quorum (certain percentage of the voters) cast their ballots -- something which would be useful to encourage in any case as voter turnout is quite low in the US -- ostracism proceedings would begin.

  Here, however, is where American ostracism would probably differ from its Athenian counterpart.  There are so many people in the US that the number of candidates for ostracism would be extremely high (most of whom would likely not be deserving of it).  This could result in the "winning" candidate having only 10% of the vote or something like that.  10% is certainly not enough to warrant ostracism, especially if the No. 2 man has 8%!

  What I envision happening is this.  The top three candidates for ostracism (watch out for two-party system parity here!) head to a second election a year later, where they would try to justify their actions to the people and use their authority to try to clean up their act.   In effect, these three candidates have been put on probation.

  In the runoff election, voters may vote for one of the three people or none.  This is the actual ostracism vote, and the voters must be aware that they should not vote for anyone unless they really mean it.  Random votes cast will give every candidate 25%.  

  If a quorum is reached in the runoff and any candidate reaches 50%, the candidate is ostracized.  He is given a month to pack up and is kicked out of office.  He loses his citizenship and passport and is banished from the country for 10 years.  He may apply for citizenship after 10 years, but he may no longer hold public office.  If he reaches 33%, he is automatically enrolled in the runoff for the next year.

  Although this is an interesting idea, consider what would happen with Bush.   Bush is clearly unpopular, so he would make it to the runoff (along with maybe Cheney and some other people).  That's fairly straightforward.  The question becomes: does he merit ostracism?  What would his replacement do?  Is it wise to change your army's commander in chief during a war?  Bush, as it turns out, would know he's got Cheney to rely on -- but wouldn't people kick HIM the year afterwards?

  Granted, I know nothing about politics.  But it's an interesting idea...