A very interesting question came up in my government class a while ago. It was about presidential legitimacy and peaceful and orderly transfer of power from one president to the next. So I'm wondering other people's opinion on this matter. What do you think makes a president legitimate, and how does that tie into the peaceful and orderly transfer between presidencies? After careful consideration, this was my response:
The People are who give the President his legitimacy as leader. Without the support
of his people, the President is powerless and the people give the President power when
they vote for him. Such as a revolutionary government or military junta can be legitimate
because it is powered by the people. The United States of America was created by the
people who revolted against the Monarchy in England. However I must disagree that the
transfer of power is peaceful or orderly. These days the presidential elections are full of
drama, the media getting every piece of dirt on each candidate, commercials that include
bashing of one candidate or another, black versus white versus woman, the electoral
college able to go against popular vote, and for some reason Florida never gets it right
whether they’re counting votes or just trying to vote in the primaries. The race for
presidency has become a popularity contest and beauty pageant, growing more and more like the dramatic/traumatic reality TV shows to which the American people so religiously cling.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I wish. Bush is pretty powerful though he acts against the will of the people.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/jloigman
On this blog you have 2 different issues. 1st, transfer of power. I am not sure how your teacher presented the info and my understanding is: We have already elected a new president and the old president hands over the nation to the new president without causing any disputes. Another words the old president smiles as he hands the new president the keys to the white house. He doesn't dig in his heals and say "No, I don't want to go and you can't make me" he turns over his power to the newly elected power and briefs him on all presidential matters openly with out worry of having to keep national security issues out--he or she can divulge all information. I believe that is exactly how it should be.
Next, maybe you really have 3 ideas...legitimacy as leader and electing a leader are two different concepts with a similar thread. Someone has to believe in them to be elected and then have legitamcy as a leader by those same people who elected him or her with potentially gaining more legitamacy from others that did not vote for them.
While I agree with your idea on England and the transfer of power after a revolt is not based on a peaceful process, today in America transfer of power means something different then when we were a young nation trying to win our independence.
And lastly, Oh My Gosh, what can i say about the media frenzy life we all live in. I don't think I need to say anything other than it is utterly ridiculous the way everything is approached, like life or death. People pining to become elected officials have always had debates about each other in a way that presents negative ideas about the other so that they can be elected themself. The media makes us think they are reporting facts when all they are doing is reporting the "color of the facts" or "opionions of the facts" Our nation tends to go by what someone else told them as opposed to looking into the facts/opinions themself. Which means, we or I am not as educated as we or I pretend to be.
Research it yourself first then debate what your opinion is compared with what everyone else is stating.
i really think you have something here....