Two terms tweaked

[Masquerouge]

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.

The French president used to get a 7-year term. That got changed in 2002.
People thought 7 years was too long, especially when the guy was reelected.

 

[Irish Caesar]

What is it now?

 

[LucyDuke]

The danger I see in this system is that politicians will always be campaigning.

Politicians are always campaigning under the system we have in place now. Congressmen, with no term limits, do almost nothing but campaign, and everything they do is with campaign in mind.

Anybody ever watch Cops? That show has convinced me that anyone who wants power should not be given it. People who seek power are all too frequently seeking to abuse it. (I realize that this isn't universal, I don't need stories about good cops and good senators, it's the exceptions that are the problems.)

 

[Irish Caesar]

Politicians are always campaigning under the system we have in place now. Congressmen, with no term limits, do almost nothing but campaign, and everything they do is with campaign in mind.

True, but Congressman are supposed to be in a state of constant campaigning, it's what gives the American system the illusion of democracy.

 

[Quintillus]

The two-term limit provides an effective way to check whether any one person is attempting to accumulate excessive power. A sufficiently popular president could attempt to persuade, and possibly even succeed, at getting Congress to allow him powers technically denied by the Constitution. He could tweak his usage of existing powers to make them more powerful. FDR increased his power in the latter way, and it could be argued he used the former. He was undoubtably more powerful in 1945 than Herbert Hoover was in 1933. Could a more megalomanical president attempt to secure de facto dictatorship in this way? Yes. The two-term limit signs as a last warning-bell: if a president has been increasing his power and then attempts to run for a third term, as it is now, it is a serious sign that he is disregarding limits on power.

Plus, the two-term limit makes presidents safer. Even if you hate the president, you know at least he'll be out of there someday. Before the 22nd Amendment, there was the possibility of someone being president for life. If such an outcome looked likely, it could drive the most radical opponents to violence.

 

[bhsup]

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.

Just FYI, but did you know that in America they are actually allowed to serve up to 10 years? They can have 2 4-year terms in their own right and up to 2 years of another term if they succeed someone as President via the 25th amendment. For example, Johnson would have been entitled to two entire terms on his own, plus the remainder of Kennedy's term which he completed, but he chose not to run for the 2nd term.

 

[GenMarshall]

I dont agree with the idea. Two terms, eight years is enough. Especialy if the population has to put up with a lousy president for eight years!

 

[El_Machinae]

You know Bozo, I think the idea has some really good points. It motivates the party/president to arrange the country so that in 4 years time, people think he was doing a good job. He's also motivated to change the country such that his efforts synergise with whomever might succeed him, instead of doing what he wants and letting someone else pick up the pieces.

Of course, there seem to be pros and cons, and I cannot fully judge those. But it also seems to recommend a bit more long-term thinking.

 

[Mirc]

Just FYI, but did you know that in America they are actually allowed to serve up to 10 years? They can have 2 4-year terms in their own right and up to 2 years of another term if they succeed someone as President via the 25th amendment. For example, Johnson would have been entitled to two entire terms on his own, plus the remainder of Kennedy's term which he completed, but he chose not to run for the 2nd term.

I didn't know this. But here it's not allowed.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

But Bozo, the fault for that lies with the American people if we elect the wrong person multiple times. We are responsible for whom we put into office. The term limit amendment, and any term limit law, is in my mind just a cop-out to relieve us of our responsibility to keep a close eye on our elected officials.

Agreed with VRWCA throughout this thread but mainly because of the reason above.

I also don't know how it can be a 'true' democracy if the electorate is told that they can't vote for someone they consider to have done a good job.

We don't have limited terms here but what he have in it's stead is a media and general populace which makes a politician's life hell the whole time they are in office. Anyone who lasts a long time has my respect.

That said, there are many who would have prefered just 8 years of Maggie or Tony

Yeah, because we surely want our President beholden to the whims of the average moron American. Good call.

Aren't they already?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

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.

Why would they be campaigning if they arent up for reelection. They have no possibility of being reelected for at least four years, and will only have a chance if they proposed and implemented effective policies in the first term.

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.

I dunno, I see it very differently. I think much more would get done, not less.

There should be a poll option for "that's a great idea."

Hey thanks, I dont hear that very often

But I wouldn't stop at presidents though.

I kind of go back and forth on that when it comes to the lower echelons of government, you know, the people who actually run everything. I think a certain amount of institutional memory and expertise is important at that level of government.

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.

I understand the point that VRW is making, and Im not trying to make myself look like a radical by merely stating the obvious. People often overlook the obvious though.

The two-term limit provides an effective way to check whether any one person is attempting to accumulate excessive power. A sufficiently popular president could attempt to persuade, and possibly even succeed, at getting Congress to allow him powers technically denied by the Constitution. He could tweak his usage of existing powers to make them more powerful. FDR increased his power in the latter way, and it could be argued he used the former. He was undoubtably more powerful in 1945 than Herbert Hoover was in 1933. Could a more megalomanical president attempt to secure de facto dictatorship in this way? Yes. The two-term limit signs as a last warning-bell: if a president has been increasing his power and then attempts to run for a third term, as it is now, it is a serious sign that he is disregarding limits on power.

Plus, the two-term limit makes presidents safer. Even if you hate the president, you know at least he'll be out of there someday. Before the 22nd Amendment, there was the possibility of someone being president for life. If such an outcome looked likely, it could drive the most radical opponents to violence.

All true, except that 8 years is long enough for an unscrupulous administration to possibly circumvent or annul the Constitution and end democracy as we know it. With the lessons learned about how gullible and easily manipulated the American people are when under attack (9/11), a much smarter group of people than the current crew could easily pull it off.

You know Bozo, I think the idea has some really good points. It motivates the party/president to arrange the country so that in 4 years time, people think he was doing a good job. He's also motivated to change the country such that his efforts synergise with whomever might succeed him, instead of doing what he wants and letting someone else pick up the pieces.

Of course, there seem to be pros and cons, and I cannot fully judge those. But it also seems to recommend a bit more long-term thinking.

Thank you sir, agreement from my online medical consultant is good news

Agreed with VRWCA throughout this thread but mainly because of the reason above.

I also don't know how it can be a 'true' democracy if the electorate is told that they can't vote for someone they consider to have done a good job.

Prince, democracy doesnt mean the people can do whatever they want, there are just as many checks and balances on the power of the people as there are on the power of the government, as it should be.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Prince, democracy doesnt mean the people can do whatever they want, there are just as many checks and balances on the power of the people as there are on the power of the government, as it should be.

I understand that there has to be some level of continuity and that a Government shouldn't change with the whim of it's people. If we did that here, the Government would be in one week and out the next.

In the US you have a written constitution protecting you from a President who attempts to fuse the branches of power, something which we do not. I would argue that in those circumstances there is even less of an argument for allowing a popular president to remain in power.

Why should you, as a people, be forced to make do with what you percieve to be 'second best'?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I understand that there has to be some level of continuity and that a Government shouldn't change with the whim of it's people. If we did that here, the Government would be in one week and out the next.

In the US you have a written constitution protecting you from a President who attempts to fuse the branches of power, something which we do not. I would argue that in those circumstances there is even less of an argument for allowing a popular president to remain in power.

Why should you, as a people, be forced to make do with what you percieve to be 'second best'?

As I think LucyDuke said earlier in the thread, no one man (and presumably, woman) is indispensable. No one person has all the answers. Thinking like that often ends democracy. Electing someone else for the next term would be like going to another doctor for a second opinion.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

As I think LucyDuke said earlier in the thread, no one man (and presumably, woman) is indispensable. No one person has all the answers. Thinking like that often ends democracy. Electing someone else for the next term would be like going to another doctor for a second opinion.

Maybe true, we have less people to pick from than you

 

[bhsup]

Bozo, you're partially right. No one person is indispensable to the point that a nation cannot go on without them. However, there are from time to time great men and women who come along that truly shine. Why indeed should we not be allowed to let them serve for the betterment of our nation for as long as the citizenry wants them?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Maybe true, we have less people to pick from than you

Yeah but cheer up. Your pool may be smaller, but at least your candidates posses the power of speech.

Bozo, you're partially right. No one person is indispensable to the point that a nation cannot go on without them. However, there are from time to time great men and women who come along that truly shine. Why indeed should we not be allowed to let them serve for the betterment of our nation for as long as the citizenry wants them?

Great question, and I think Ive got an equally great answer: Because if the people could keep voting in whoever they wanted, Bill Clinton would still be President, and you and most other Republicans by now would be in straightjackets and frothing at the mouth, shouting "Billary!" See what Im saying? Would you, a Republican want to create a situation where youre stuck with an Obama, or a Billary, for like 30 years?

 

[bhsup]

Yes, I would. I explained that earlier. I'm not going to let partisan benefits influence what I feel would be the best course for the nation. While I don't think Bill could have won in 2000 against Bush, I'd still rather abolish the amendment and have taken the risk. He was our President, twice, by the will of the American people, and if they had wanted him a third time, it would have driven me crazy, but the people would have spoken. So be it.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Ok VRW thats certainly a principled stand. We couldnt be more far apart though. I think that the last thing that would be best for the course of the nation, would be to let the American people keep electing the same guy over and over and over again until he drops dead. Thats exactly what goes on in the countries we traditionally have lectured to about the virtues of American style democracy.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Ok VRW thats certainly a principled stand. We couldnt be more far apart though. I think that the last thing that would be best for the course of the nation, would be to let the American people keep electing the same guy over and over and over again until he drops dead. Thats exactly what goes on in the countries we traditionally have lectured to about the virtues of American style democracy.

I think there is a difference between the American elections and the ones of which you speak though. You say that it's not a good thing for same President to sit for more than 2 terms but surely it is if that's what the people want? If want a new President, they should go out and vote for one.

Besides, by limiting people to 2 terms you have people leave thinking they've done a great job because they've never had the ego-bashing which only forced resignation, a coup, or electoral defeat can instil.

We never let our Prime Ministers get off so easily. There are two jobs which always begin well and end poorly in Britian, Prime Minister and football coach.

 

[LucyDuke]

Bozo, you're partially right. No one person is indispensable to the point that a nation cannot go on without them. However, there are from time to time great men and women who come along that truly shine. Why indeed should we not be allowed to let them serve for the betterment of our nation for as long as the citizenry wants them?

I've got to speak up on this one. I agree that it would be nice if we could have an amazing leader that honestly and faithfully carries out his duties, and if we could re-elect that person forever. If the people support him, what's the problem? The problem, as I see it, is that the people sometimes (!) make poor decisions. The people can be fooled. We can't trust the people to pull a bad leader out, so the only way to absolutely guarantee that the system doesn't get fubar is to impose a mandatory limit.

The unfortunate exclusion of an excellent leader is a small price to pay for the enforced exclusion of dangerous leaders that manage to keep themselves popular.