The executive branch ultimately adopted by the Founders was not the only one considered in the Constitutional Convention of 1786. For the most part, delegates to the Convention agreed that some type of executive was needed for the government functions (Pika & Maltese, The politics of the presidency page 16). With this in mind it is not surprising that the three major plans presented at the Convention – the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan, and the Hamilton Plan – all featured some sort of executive. The Virginia Plan called for an executive who would be appointed by Congress and would serve an indeterminate number of years, but would be limited to a single term. The powers granted to this executive would be the executive powers granted to Congress under the Articles of Confederation and the ability to enforce national laws. Beyond that, the executive would be part of a review board that would review legislation passed by Congress. This council could reject the legislation with the opportunity for the Legislature to re-pass the legislation. If this plan had been adopted, the executive branch would be relatively weak, as it lacked the executive powers given to Congress by the Articles of Confederation and, instead of being able to veto legislation on its own, it would have to depend on the rest of the Confederacy. the Council agrees. While this plan would be an improvement, the executive would be subordinate to the legislature. The New Jersey Plan envisaged an executive composed of several members chosen by Congress, with a term of one term and with the possibility of being removed at any time by a simple majority of state governors (quote web). This plural executive would be able to appoint federal officials… halfway through the document… which, when passed in 1951, was the first amendment that effectively diminished democratic ideals (Karol, Debating the Presidency p. 50). This constitutional amendment eliminated the people's ability to decide whether they want to continue to have the same president after 8 years. This goes against all democratic values ​​and why? Because we fear that power will corrupt. However, this is a moot point. In studies of governors' terms of office, there is no evidence that term limits significantly impact levels of corruption (Karol, Debating the Presidency p. 54). Repealing the 22nd Amendment would not only benefit democracy, but would make presidents more accountable in their second terms and prevent a lame-duck presidency (Karol, Debating the Presidency p. 55). With these two steps we will be much closer to realizing the imagined democracy that we preach to so many other countries.