Presidential Terms

[MAS117]

I would.

[Dave from Michigan]

undecided but lean towards 4 year terms

[Jake]

I'd rather we elect a dictator for life backed up with a powerful Congress who appoints the Judiciary and has veto powers over the dictator with a 3/5ths majority.

[© Tweed the Younger]

No.  A real terrible president could get too much done.  I prefer 4 year terms.

[Speed of Sound]

No.  A real terrible president could get too much done.  I prefer 4 year terms.

[A18]

It's an excellent idea, and one I would strongly support. Unfortunately, it'll probably never happen.

Accidently voted no... my only problem with this is that a single class of senators would always be elected with the president.

[nini2287]

No.  A real terrible president could get too much done.  I prefer 4 year terms.

I agree.  I would actually be open to having one four year term followed by a two-year term if the President is re-elected.

[jimrtex]

Accidently voted no... my only problem with this is that a single class of senators would always be elected with the president.

I voted No because of that.

How about if there was a lottery each year determining whether the presidential and senatorial terms were contracted or lengthened.  So let's say that a President took office in 2005.  Initially, the term would be projected to end in 2011.   In 2006 a drawing would be held, which could reduce the term to 2010, 2011, or 2012.

This process would be repeated each year.   If there was a year left, it would be impossible to contract the term.  You wouldn't know for sure whether the election would be held until the start of the year.

It could be called Powerball.

[frenger]

Yes and that president should be limited to one term.

[MasterJedi]

No

I'd just prefer letting us have a President run for three, possibly four terms and then be done, not two the way it is now.

[KEmperor]

I have no problems with the current system.

[Platypus]

i would support the change, as would Clinton, Bush Sn., Carter and Ford; from what i've heard.

[MaC]

the current system for the president is good.  The people elect him in, and in his first term he has to kowtow to the press, the people and everything else because he could loose the next election.  Upon being re-elected he has no liability to people because there's no chance of being re-elected.  That's only 4 years.  The other system would be that he could do what he wants for 6.  I'll take the current system.

However, I do feel senators and representatives should be limited somehow.  The reason why this rule wouldn't apply to them is because nomatter what they do, they have a huge incumbency rate anyways.  We need to make sure their power is limited.

[Jim Valvano]

However, I do feel senators and representatives should be limited somehow.  The reason why this rule wouldn't apply to them is because nomatter what they do, they have a huge incumbency rate anyways.  We need to make sure their power is limited.

What your basically saying is that we should enact restrictions because people are stupid. Being a libertarian, isn't that kind of like saying that there should be drug restrictions because people are stupid? I'll admit that the way voters keep putting people like Jim Moran back in office is rediculous, but term limits are still nevertheless a very basic restiction on the peoples freedom to choose their elected officials

[A18]

That's like saying the first amendment is a very basic restriction on the people's freedom to make laws through their elected officials.

[zorkpolitics]

I prefer a 4 yr term so we get  a chance to throw the bums out sooner than waiting 6 yrs

I also prefer to outsource the election to the College of Cardinals: Cheaper, faster, and I don't see how it would be any worse than the present system and might be much better.

[??????????]

I would prefer there to be no term limits whatsoever.

[dazzleman]

The single six-year term was a pet proposal of Jimmy Carter's when he was in office.  He said that if there were one thing he could do simply with the stroke of a pen, that would be it.

Of course, one of his opponents said, "the best argument against a six-year term is sitting in the White House right now (meaning 1980)."  That about sums it up.  There's no reason to change the constitution on that.

[frenger]

I do, especially becuase it makes all presidents lame ducks, but gives them time to work out their agenda.

[kashifsakhan]

I would.

no....a bad president could get too much done in 6 years...and a good president should be good enough to get re-elected after his first term.

[TB]

Yes and that president should be limited to one term.

That's interesting. That would mean that the presidents wouldn't have an election hanging over their heads, which would give them more freedom and power. That might be good sometimes, but the problem would be that a nutjob could damage the country badly, so all in all I think the two four year terms are the best for everyone.

[Kevinstat]

Accidently voted no... my only problem with this is that a single class of senators would always be elected with the president.

I actually think Senatorial terms should be reduced to four years.  Either that or the number of Senators per state is increased to three or for there to be a four-year gap between Senatorial elections nationwide with the exception of necessary special elections.  I think that, except when necessary due to vacancies that occur in the middle of a term, whenever the citizens of one state get to elect a U.S. Senator, the citizens of each state shall have the same oppertunity.  The prevailing national (as well as regional and local) political issues can change between one biennial election and the next, and I think that (again, except for when special elections are necessary, and even then some states like Maine only have special elections in November of even-numbered years where a Senate seat would be up for election every time under my proposal anyway) whenever some eligible voters get to vote for a Senator from their state with the issues of the day in mind, everyone should.

I don't see anything wrong with there being "Gubernatorial election class" (although I know several states do not elect Governors two years before and after each Presidential election, and in New Hampshire and Vermont each Senator is already elected and reelected in the same year as the Governor and would continue to be) and "Presidential election class" Senators.  Nor would I have any problem with there being "Presidential election class," "first mid-term election class" and "second mid-term election class" Senators (there would be two Congressional elections between each pair of consecutive Presidential elections if Presidents were elected to six-year terms and the election of all U.S. Representatives and some U.S. Senators in every even-numbered year were not changed) provided there were one of each from each state.

What might be best, however, if you support six-year terms for President and U.S. Senator but share my concern about states electing Senators at the same time, is for Senators to be elected, except for when necessary due to vacancies, only two years and four years after each Presidential election.  Thus each state would have a "first mid-term election class" and a "second mid-term election class" Senator, and no "Presidential election class" Senator.  In fact, with that system, except for where special elections were necessary, there would be two federal offices up for election by the voters of every state and Congressional district on every first Tuesday after the first Monday of November in even-numbered years (including in Louisiana, which now has its Senatorial and (House) Congressional "primary" elections on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and any necessary run-off Senatorial or Congressional elections later).  The period between the primary and run-off elections in Louisiana is short enough that I don't see it as unfair to other states that Louisiana voters might get to vote for a Senator or U.S. Representative when noone else gets to because no candidate wins a majority in the all-party primary.  Besides, I think it's neat that Louisiana has its unique system.  I hope they don't change it.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau

[jerusalemcar5]

No.  A real terrible president could get too much done.  I prefer 4 year terms.

I agree.  I would actually be open to having one four year term followed by a two-year term if the President is re-elected.

I would like the opposite.  I tihnk people should get a feel for the president then give him the extra time.

[Pictor Ignotus]

Yes and that president should be limited to one term.

[Nym90]

I would prefer there to be no term limits whatsoever.

Agreed.