Should U.S. Presidential term limits be abolished?

[BugsBunny]

I'd say No, since I think that eight years is enough for anyone to be President. I think that the U.S. should have new leaders every several years, as to give other capable individuals the opportunity to run and manage the country.

[Californian Tony]

I'd be fine with a 3-term limit. I'm not fully comfortable about abolishing it outright, because presidents-for-lifetime are rarely a good thing.

[© Tweed the Younger]

one-term limit for everything

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

Yes, because none of the other elected offices are term-limited.

[Cincinnatus]

Yes, because none of the other elected offices are term-limited.

I don't think any of those other elected offices yield as much power as the sole man we call president either. 

[realisticidealist]

Yes, all term limits should be abolished.

[greenforest32]

Yes, all term limits should be abolished.

[Marokai]

I wouldn't mind consecutive term limits, but hard limits on the terms a person can serve shouldn't exist, for sure.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

We don't want Gods for our officials, but we do not want the Palins and Millers of the world turning American Statecraft into a karaoke amatuer hour. How did that work for the Roman Republic? Anyways, perhaps there should be a 30 year lifetime limit (I am not too pleased with the prospect of having a 115 year CJ Roberts on the bench in the year 2070...even conservatives will get life extension treatments) on everything but the presidency, which should have a 20 year lifetime limit.

[Free Palestine]

The problem I have with no term limits -- or even a limit of two terms -- is that the president is majorly concerned with getting reelected.

But I also dislike the idea of generally barring people from being able to further run for office.

But I also dislike all the power and prestige that gets concentrated in the presidency.

I like the idea of a collective head of state, like in Switzerland.  Or perhaps even no head of state, dissolving the United States into something similar in structure to the European Union.  But if we're going to keep the presidency as it is...perhaps one term.  Maybe shorten the length of the term to two years.

[angus]

one-term limit for everything

I think a one-term limit for President, with a longer term (5 or 6 years) would be beneficial.  As it is, they spend maybe 2 years being president and 2 years being candidate. 

I don't support the imposition of term limits for members of congress.

[Mr. Taft Republican]

Either we should abolish limits to keep good people or we should make it 1 term for 6 years. But I think we should absolutely have term limits on congress.

[Nichlemn]

I think the problem of "President for life" is a symptom of bad institutions, so I don't think it's a serious worry for a country like the US. However, a term limit of three or four terms may be worth it to stop this remote risk while rarely being a serious impediment on Presidents who legitimately want to run for re-election. 

Ironically, term limits may be worst in places where actual "Presidents for life" reign. This paper gives an explanation: if the President is no better than a bandit trying to plunder as much as he can, then it's better he stays for the long run - that means he has some incentive to enact policies that promote growth (so he can skim more off the top later). A series of short-term "bandits" will just try to plunder as much as they can in the limited time they have.

[Chareth Cutestory]

Oh GOD no. Our voting track record is already terrible as it is, no need to allow the same douches to swindle us into lifetime terms.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Of course. People VOTE for these people remember? If the country wants to do something stupid, let them.

[Californian Tony]

If the country wants to do something stupid, let them.

Like Germany in 1933 ?

[Rooney]

No, I say let us make it a one-term job. If a man's thirst for power is not quenched after four years at the helm than they are too power hungry and should not be trusted with power for another moment.

[Simfan34]

Yes.

[CathKhan]

Hmmm... it would be interesting to have some FDR-like figure in my time. On the other hand, it would also be boring because I could be watching elections for twenty years and see the same winner which would suck. IMO, we're beyond the point where we need it because politics is so contentious today that the only way someone could possibly skate to a third term is on the backs of a divisive three-way race. I doubt we'll have people as beloved by the people as FDR, Eisenhower, or Reagan who, even if they didn't do it, are the most likely people to have gotten away with a third or fourth term. As well, we're long past the eras of parties controlling the White House for more than two terms. The days of the Era of Good Feelings (1801-1825), the Lincoln era (1861-1885), the McKinley-Roosevelt era (1897-1913), and the FDR-Truman era (1933-1953) are well over. The closest we've had to that recently is the Reagan-Bush era and Gore's near victory over Bush. I think that might've been the last time in a while for a party to have a third-term run that is anything close to easy. If Obama wins re-election, IMO, we're destined to have a Republican win in 2016 and, call me a pessimist, but I don't think that guy (or gal?) is going to "shine". I could see politics going to the 1836-1860 era where Presidents are lucky to have one term, let alone two, and the country rotates leadership often.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Reagan wasn't popular in 87-88

[patrick1]

Reagan wasn't popular in 87-88

Iran Contra hurt, however, IIRC his approval bottom out in mid 40's and slowly bounced back.  His age was becoming a problem but I think a damp sponge could have beaten Dukakis and Reagan would have won. 

[Foucaulf]

I'm posting to oppose claims that abolishing term limits would increase power. It's similar to Nichlemn's argument: if a ruler is limited by time, he will try to pass his agenda as quickly as possible. I assume the inverse holds.

Any modern politician who can rule for long periods of time must balance trust among his peers. I imagine a modern three-term president would be horribly staid, his only purpose to appoint increasingly out-of-touch technocrats to the cabinet.

[Nym90]

If the country wants to do something stupid, let them.

Like Germany in 1933 ?

FDR shouldn't have been allowed to run in 1940?

I support abolishing the term limit, though also changing the way elections are financed so as to ensure incumbents do not have an undue advantage.

I would also support removing the age requirements, though if anything a maximum age would make more sense than a minimum age (say 80).

[Californian Tony]

If the country wants to do something stupid, let them.

Like Germany in 1933 ?

FDR shouldn't have been allowed to run in 1940?

I stated my position on this issue at the beginning of this thread, if you want to know.

[Helenae]

Keep the term limits and add them to both the house and senate.