Swedishguy
Deity
Get rid of this President nonsense and say hello to the Party System!
Two terms tweaked
- Thread starter Bozo Erectus
- Start date
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
No president is awesome enough to leave in place.
I like this idea in theory. The worst thing about letting a president run twice is that the end of his first term is functionally just campaigning, and this would eliminate that. The worst thing about any term limit is that he doesn't care who he pisses off in his last term (save embarrassing his party, though I'm not a fan of party politics, either).
In my ideal, he should have a one-term limit. I'm disgusted that there's no term limit for Congress. It's not a matter of "give someone else a chance", it's a matter of "okay, that's enough for you". Giving someone else a shot is incidental. Unfortunately somebody has to do it, so the best we can get is to not let anybody do it too much.
I'd prefer one 6-year term limit in which we could have a vote of confidence to kick out the President early if we choose to. The President, as well as any other elected position, should not be focusing on campaigning - they should be focusing on managing the nation.
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
I would think a better system of a tweeked two term thing is to on the first term have the minimum percentage of votes to be president as 51%. Then for a second term, the minimum percentage would be upped to 60% with a second option for voters in case their first choice doesn't get voted in. We could continue to do this with a 3rd term being 70%, 4th - 80%, 5th - 90%, 6th - 100%. This way, presidents that are seen as bad don't get a second term but presidents seen as good get how many more terms the people will allow. Obviously under this system there will be few presidents that will get a 4th term but it could be possible for one great president to get 6 terms.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
I second Bill's recommendation on the single 6-year term (minus the booting out early option). Well, actually, I was about to pull it out of the Confederate States Constitution myself...
Seriously, if the president knows he only gets one chance and has no way of getting re-elected, he will be more likely to do what is right than what is popular.
Seriously, if the president knows he only gets one chance and has no way of getting re-elected, he will be more likely to do what is right than what is popular.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
but what if it's just a charismatic idiot/vile soul?
Nylan
Characters Welcome
In reference to the OP
It would just be disruptive, as the changing of the guard all the time would be very confusing. If the people don't want 'em, they won't elect 'em twice in a row.
It would just be disruptive, as the changing of the guard all the time would be very confusing. If the people don't want 'em, they won't elect 'em twice in a row.
Swedishguy
Deity
Bozo thinks her opinion is worth more than anyone else's. That's the reason she makes silly demands.
Eukaryote
Deity
The danger I see in this system is that politicians will always be campaigning. Voters will see that and not re-elect the said position 4 years later, thus continuing the cylce.
Two things pop into mind when I see a 2nd consecutive term president which can be benificial to voters:
1) They have maintained support in the first 4 years and can now hammer home the agenda they were elected for by their base, making their supporters happy.
or
2) Congresss and the courts has caught wind of the agenda and block it in any way possible depite a veto or urging of the president, making the opposition happy.
If the above fear of mine is realized, a non-consecutive term limit would make for hasty decisions signed into law and constant lying to the voters as well as nasty internal power swabbles within the parties. Translation: nothing gets done and what gets done isn't well thought out.
Two things pop into mind when I see a 2nd consecutive term president which can be benificial to voters:
1) They have maintained support in the first 4 years and can now hammer home the agenda they were elected for by their base, making their supporters happy.
or
2) Congresss and the courts has caught wind of the agenda and block it in any way possible depite a veto or urging of the president, making the opposition happy.
If the above fear of mine is realized, a non-consecutive term limit would make for hasty decisions signed into law and constant lying to the voters as well as nasty internal power swabbles within the parties. Translation: nothing gets done and what gets done isn't well thought out.
There should be a poll option for "that's a great idea."
But I wouldn't stop at presidents though.
By the way, I just want to clarify something from Bozo's post. While there was actually no limit in place before FDR, all Presidents (well, those who actually got re-elected) followed voluntarily the tradition begun by Washington of stepping down after 2 terms. FDR was the first to go more than that.
PrincepsAmerica
Nothingness made flesh
This definitely sounds good. Concern about re-election is really a hindrance to both the legislative and executive branches.
Though to clarify it really means he will do what he thinks is right, not necessarily what is. But that is most likely better than what the American public thinks is right.
Also, Bozo, VRWC was making the simple point that the American people, right or wrong, should have that electoral power. You didn't need to give expound on what a radical you are for thinking that the public can be wrong sometimes, most people think that.
JohnRM
Don't make me destroy you
Yeah, because we surely want our President beholden to the whims of the average moron American. Good call.
Are you saying that 67% of Americans are morons?
Are you saying they aren't?
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Well, yes, that's true.
But if he's only got one shot being in the office, popularity doesn't matter; only "legacy." Interesting how negotiations and peace processes tend to happen in second terms (Clinton in Mideast, Bush XLIII in the "DPR"K, Reagan with USSR, Nixon in Vietnam, Truman in Korea) and temporarily popular wars in the first (Bush XLIII in Iraq, Bush XLI in Iraq, Kennedy-Johnson in Cuba and Vietnam, Truman in Korea).
Coincidence? I think probably not entirely.
PrincepsAmerica
Nothingness made flesh
Good points all. The only threat would be if the term were lengthened that the administration could become lazy and unresponsive to immediate problems. I think six years is about right though.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
Perhaps, but presidents leaving every four years seems a bit too often, and everybody's sick of them by the end of their second term anyway.
I suppose if we made the presidential term six years, we should also change it to only having two classes of Senators rather than three. One class would always be elected at the same time as the president. Maybe better to elect Senators only when it's not a presidential election.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
After 1989, the first president we had was Ion Iliescu. He had a 2-year term, and after that the terms changed to 4 years. Now, according to the constitution, you can't have more than 2 terms. But he said his first one was only a 2 year one, so he could participate again. So he was a president for 10 years, more than what was actually allowed by the constitution.
What does this have to do with what you asked?
Spoiler :
