How often should a legislature be elected?

[TNF]

The U.S. elects the House every two years, the Senate has staggered six-year terms. The British elect the House of Commons every five years, the Canadians every four (?), and the Australians every three (?). (Correct me if I'm wrong on those numbers, guys)

How often do you think a legislature should be elected? Is two years too little time to get anything done? Is five years too long to go without an election? And as an accessory to the question, should there be fixed term elections as a general rule?

I'm partial to the idea of electing a legislature every year.

[Cranberry]

I think three to four years are optimal. Five years is too long for my taste; and I doubt you get much done in two years, let alone just one.
For us here, it'd be best to elect it every six months though of course

[Antonio the Sixth]

Three years IMO. Though four years is still acceptable.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

four or five years with ¼ or ⅕ of the seats up each year.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Three years IMO. Though four years is still acceptable.

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm partial to the idea of electing a legislature every year.

This is a terrible idea. Politicians would be in constant campaign mode, and they would never enact any policies that may not be popular by necessary.

BTW, it is every four years in Canada (well, it's supposed to be). We are still getting used to fixed election dates and have technically never had an election on said fixed date yet.

Four years is fine, I think- but I would be willing to change my mind if there are studies that show what the most optimal length would be.

Four years would work well for a country with 4 levels of government:

Year 1: National elections
Year 2: County elections
Year 3: State Elections
Year 4: Local elections 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

To an extent this depends on the purpose of the legislature; you can get away with very short terms if the executive is not responsible to it (although it is still isn't ideal because of legislative timetabling issues and voter fatigue),* but if you have a parliamentary system of government then three years is probably your absolute minimum (absent snap elections and so on, but that is an entirely different issue). This is because with permanence comes power and with transience comes weakness. The old Chartist demand for annual parliaments is a great idea... if you want the civil service in charge of absolutely everything. Conversely, of course, very long terms are a bad thing for reasons that are closely related; a government that doesn't have to face the electorate for a long time (in political terms) is even more likely to succumb to executive arrogance than average.

_{*What sort of democratic mandate does a legislature elected on a 30% poll actually have?}

[RogueBeaver]

Every 4-5 years.

[Oakvale]

Five years seems reasonable.

[SWE]

Three years but Representatives constituents should be able to recall them at any point during their term

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Three years but Representatives constituents should be able to recall them at any point during their term

I'd add recall elections to our current system, which is otherwise fine.

[TNF]

This is a terrible idea. Politicians would be in constant campaign mode, and they would never enact any policies that may not be popular by necessary.

I don't have a problem with that. Politicians should be terrified of the public at all times.

[windjammer]

5 years I guess.

[BaconBacon96]

Three years is a bit short, from my experience. Four would be good.

[Maxwell]

I say three years. A younger me would also say term limits, but I've kind of turned on that idea too.

[Hatman 🍁]

This is a terrible idea. Politicians would be in constant campaign mode, and they would never enact any policies that may not be popular by necessary.

I don't have a problem with that. Politicians should be terrified of the public at all times.

Good luck cramming your socialist agenda down the throats of the electorate if you have to face them again within 12 months.

[Marokai Backbeat]

3-4 years seems fine to me.

[IceSpear]

4 years. Midterms are just a ridiculous reactionary event against the party the people just elected for not bringing about utopia in 20 months. And yes, I'll still be saying this even if a Republican wins in 2016 and 2018 is a Dem wave.

[Phony Moderate]

Australia and New Zealand both function pretty well.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Since Congressional campaigns now last ~1 year, a 3 year term seems best, provided we expand the presidential term to 6 years. A one year term would ensure that almost nothing gets done, since politicians would spend practically their entire term campaigning rather that writing and voting on legislation.

[© tweed]

most important is right of recall

[Kushahontas]

Two years is too short, five years is laughably British. I like Australia's three year terms.

[Starpaul20]

Either 3 or 4 years.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

3 or 4 years.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I think four years is fine, two is definitely too short.