What if the US switched the single 6-year term system?

[So the Heroes Fall]

Like Philip supports and Mexico uses. Let's assume for simplicity's sake the Amendment establishing it is passed before 2000 so Bush becomes the first President under the new system. His term ends in 2006. Who would be the candidates and what would the map look like? I think it would be even worse for the GOP than the current map.

[Padfoot]

In 2006 Hillary Clinton beats John McCain in a landslide:



Clinton 375 EV, 55% PV
McCain 163 EV, 45% PV

[Χahar]

McCain wouldn't get the nomination.

[paul718]

Larry Sabato advocates something like this.  The President serves for 5 years, then decides whether he wants to pursue an extension.  If no, then the term ends at 6 years and a new presidential election is held with new candidates.  If yes, then the nation votes on an extension referendum.  Should the nation vote to grant the extension, the President serves another 3 years, making one total 8-year term.  If the nation votes against granting the extension, the President serves only 6 years, and a new presidential lection is held. 

The policy behind it is to give the administration time to work before entering re-election mode. 

[InsaneTrollLogic]

...or maybe just move to a one-term 10 year system, in which the President can be recalled.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Larry Sabato advocates something like this.  The President serves for 5 years, then decides whether he wants to pursue an extension.  If no, then the term ends at 6 years and a new presidential election is held with new candidates.  If yes, then the nation votes on an extension referendum.  Should the nation vote to grant the extension, the President serves another 3 years, making one total 8-year term.  If the nation votes against granting the extension, the President serves only 6 years, and a new presidential lection is held. 

The policy behind it is to give the administration time to work before entering re-election mode. 

Hmmm, I wonder how that would've worked with Bush. There is no way he would've gotten an extension.

[Padfoot]

...or maybe just move to a one-term 10 year system, in which the President can be recalled.

I would definitely favor some form of presidential recall.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Recalls would never work on that wide of a level. If you want to be able to toss out unpopular governments ahead of schedule than you want a parliamentary system.

[Χahar]

Recalls would never work on that wide of a level. If you want to be able to toss out unpopular governments ahead of schedule than you want a parliamentary system.

If we had one, the government would've fallen long ago. Several scandals and such.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You could try to go back and predict the winners.
I'm just being lazy in these:

1789 Washington
1794 Adams
1800 Jefferson
1806 Madison
1812 Monroe
1818 Adams
1824 Jackson
1830 Van Buren
1836 Harrison
1842 Polk
1848 Taylor
1854 Buchanan
1860 Lincoln
1866 Grant
1872 Hayes
1878 Arthur
1884 Cleveland
1890 Harrison
1896 McKinley
1902 Roosevelt
1908 Taft
1914 Wilson
1920 Harding
1926 Hoover
1932 Roosevelt
1938 Garner
1944 Truman
1950 Eisenhower
1956 Nixon
1962 Kennedy
1968 Humphrey
1974 Carter
1980 Reagan
1986 Bush
1992 Clinton
1998 Bush
2004 Kerry

[Four49]

You could try to go back and predict the winners.
I'm just being lazy in these:

1789 Washington
1794 Adams
1800 Jefferson
1806 Madison
1812 Monroe
1818 Adams
1824 Jackson
1830 Van Buren
1836 Harrison
1842 Polk
1848 Taylor
1854 Buchanan
1860 Lincoln
1866 Grant
1872 Hayes
1878 Arthur
1884 Cleveland
1890 Harrison
1896 McKinley
1902 Roosevelt
1908 Taft
1914 Wilson
1920 Harding
1926 Hoover
1932 Roosevelt
1938 Garner
1944 Truman
1950 Eisenhower
1956 Nixon
1962 Kennedy
1968 Humphrey
1974 Carter
1980 Reagan
1986 Bush
1992 Clinton
1998 Bush
2004 Kerry

So if Kerry in 2004, Dem or Rep in 2010?  Who?  I say Kerry ends the war, but the economy still tanks and he gets the blame.  2010 - Jindal is Obama and Hillary is McCain.

Anyway, I like this idea with giving the President the option of an extension, but longer.  I'd say four, equalling a possible 10 year stint.

[angus]

Like Philip supports and Mexico uses. Let's assume for simplicity's sake the Amendment establishing it is passed before 2000 so Bush becomes the first President under the new system. His term ends in 2006. Who would be the candidates and what would the map look like? I think it would be even worse for the GOP than the current map.

The nice thing about it would be that they wouldn't spend the first term running for re-election.  Also, since the term would be lengthened by a factor of 50%, I think the legislative agenda could be more comprehensive.  You should take it back to Carter, and assume his term ends in '82 instead of '80, and that there's no chance he could run again.  My guess is that The Carter Doctrine wouldn't have evolved, and therefore The Bush Doctrine would not have been possible.  On the down side, the double-digit inflation which gave rise to the rightward shift in national politics throughout the '80s would likely not have been ameliorated any sooner than it was, and the additional two years of malaise might have meant an even more radical legislative agenda than that which was pursued throughout the '80s.

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of externally-imposed term limits in general.  If the people want to continue to re-elect leaders (such as with Robert Byrd, Sam Rayburn, or Franklin Roosevelt), then I think that they should be allowed.  In fact, much of the problems with extreme polarization and lack of centrists being elected from either party in various state legislatures stem from imposed term limits.  But you're not talking about term limits for legislators, just for the President.  I understand the difference, but I think that would necessarily mean that people would not have the liberty to re-elect a good leader during times of crises.  As for lousy leaders, you could count on them not being re-elected at the end of their term so long as you have a well-informed public and fair elections.  Still, lengthening the term from four to six years is still a good idea, with or without the one-term limit.  You should start a petition.

Note that the sexenio has not been particularly good for mexico, and it did not prevent the PRI from a nearly 70-year stretch of one-party rule.  I guess you could argue that the 20th century PRI was slightly less corrupt than the Porfiriato.  Still, if you were going to promote a single term-limited presidency, you can find better examples. 

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm quite confident this would happen:

Sen. George Allen (R-VA)/Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)

Allen probably wins narrowly

[Χahar]

I'm quite confident this would happen:

Sen. George Allen (R-VA)/Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)

Allen probably wins narrowly

OK...WTF?

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm quite confident this would happen:

Sen. George Allen (R-VA)/Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)

Allen probably wins narrowly

OK...WTF?

This is 2006 when the 2006 election cycle began George Allen was the conservative darling likely to break 60% and the surefire 2008 nominee.  Granted he still should have been but that is the f'ed up society we live in

[So the Heroes Fall]

I'm quite confident this would happen:

Sen. George Allen (R-VA)/Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)

Allen probably wins narrowly

OK...WTF?

This is 2006 when the 2006 election cycle began George Allen was the conservative darling likely to break 60% and the surefire 2008 nominee.  Granted he still should have been but that is the f'ed up society we live in

And he's still running in an insanely toxic environment for the GOP. McCain couldn't win, how could Allen?

[Nixon in '80]

I'm quite confident this would happen:

Sen. George Allen (R-VA)/Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)/Fmr. Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)

Allen probably wins narrowly

McCain would never, ever take the two-spot, especially on a Republican ticket.

Also, Clinton landslide.

[Nym90]

Why would it be worse for the GOP? Bush was not as unpopular in 2006 as he was in 2008.

Of course, conversely Clinton almost certainly would've been nominated instead of Obama, so if you are arguing Clinton would've been a stronger nominee (in some ways she would've, in others, not so much....it probably would've been a wash overall) then I guess I can see why you'd say it'd be worse for them.

[RosettaStoned]

You could try to go back and predict the winners.
I'm just being lazy in these:

1789 Washington
1794 Adams
1800 Jefferson
1806 Madison
1812 Monroe
1818 Adams
1824 Jackson
1830 Van Buren
1836 Harrison
1842 Polk
1848 Taylor
1854 Buchanan
1860 Lincoln
1866 Grant
1872 Hayes
1878 Arthur
1884 Cleveland
1890 Harrison
1896 McKinley
1902 Roosevelt
1908 Taft
1914 Wilson
1920 Harding
1926 Hoover
1932 Roosevelt
1938 Garner
1944 Truman
1950 Eisenhower
1956 Nixon
1962 Kennedy
1968 Humphrey
1974 Carter
1980 Reagan
1986 Bush
1992 Clinton
1998 Bush
2004 Kerry

Humphrey and Kerry! Nice!

[King]

So if Kerry in 2004, Dem or Rep in 2010?  Who?  I say Kerry ends the war, but the economy still tanks and he gets the blame.  2010 - Jindal is Obama and Hillary is McCain.

Anyway, I like this idea with giving the President the option of an extension, but longer.  I'd say four, equalling a possible 10 year stint.

How can you be sure that there is a war?  Maybe the change in Presidents over the 6 yr single term system for approx. 220 years would've completely changed the history of the world and policies of the United States.

[phk]

So if Kerry in 2004, Dem or Rep in 2010?  Who?  I say Kerry ends the war, but the economy still tanks and he gets the blame.  2010 - Jindal is Obama and Hillary is McCain.

Anyway, I like this idea with giving the President the option of an extension, but longer.  I'd say four, equalling a possible 10 year stint.

How can you be sure that there is a war?  Maybe the change in Presidents over the 6 yr single term system for approx. 220 years would've completely changed the history of the world and policies of the United States.

[King]

Just look at recent history.  Imagine how different our country would be if we eliminated President Ford (no Watergate scandal because there is no 1972 re-election campaign and Nixon serves a full term), added 2 more years of Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush and took two years off the terms of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

The changes in policy and events over those years would've completely changed America as we know it.

[Grumps]

I like it.  Most two-term Presidents have their poll numbers tank in years 7 and 8 and everyone just wants them out.