If the US had much shorter terms, single term limits, etc.

[Blue3]

Let's say...


*Elections were held every 6 months

*All US Representatives and State Legislators and County/Municipal/etc. representatives were up every 6 months for a 6-month term, and after serving 1 term couldn't run again for that office for 20 years

*A third of US Senators were up every 6 months for an 18-month term, and after serving 1 term couldn't run again for that office for 20 years

*The US President (and all governors) were up every 12 months for a 12-month term, and after serving 1 term couldn't run again for that office for 20 years

*There would be only Publiccampaign funding, no private donations or SuperPACs allowed (as well as universal and constantly-updating automatic voter registration)

*Non-military employees of the government would only serve for 3 years max, and not allowed to be a non-military employee of any government position again for 20 years

*The national culture changes so most people begin to think that everyone should serve the government in some way, as an elected official or civil servant, at least once in their lifetime




Would the US overall be better or worse off? What are the pro's and con's of switching to this versus keeping the same system?

[Gary J]

The proposals would mean that the US and state governments would have next to no institutional memory. Competent officeholders would not have time to really learn what to do. In practice it would mean that the only people who would know what was going on would be the lobbyists, who would probably draft all substantial legislation.

[Blue3]

The proposals would mean that the US and state governments would have next to no institutional memory. Competent officeholders would not have time to really learn what to do. In practice it would mean that the only people who would know what was going on would be the lobbyists, who would probably draft all substantial legislation.

Yet under this scenario, the lobbyists would have no power.

[Mehmentum]

We'd have much less corrupt, but much less competent government.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I suspect America would rapidly dissolve into civil war. Being in a campaign cycle every 2 years is bad enough as it is.

[Blue3]

We'd have much less corrupt, but much less competent government.

How would the "much less competent" show itself?

With such short terms, any obvious mistakes would soon be fixed (if not in that very term).

Separation of powers, checks & balances, would still work. We elect a new President every 4-8 years. I'm sure there are 3-7 other people in the country in that same time who would also make competent presidents. Same idea with the other offices.

Also, most presidents are most productive in their first year. This keeps that up with much quicker rebirth/renewal. If the people don't like the President's first 6 months, they can react through Congress. If they think Congress has been too obstructive of the President in the first 6 months, they can react through Congress.

I suspect America would rapidly dissolve into civil war. Being in a campaign cycle every 2 years is bad enough as it is.

But this would make elections more "normal" and less hyped, especially with only public funding and no SuperPACs.

[Lincoln Republican]

Terrible idea as far as legislators go.

Not much would get done.

It would make more sense for U.S. House of Representatives to have two year terms, same as now, and to be limited to six terms.

U.S. Senators should still have six year terms, same as now, and be limited to two terms.

[LabourJersey]

If this was the case, the country would be literally run from the Pentagon.

If you don't let anyone in government aside from military people work for more than three years, the military will have the most institutional power, and thus political power.