Talk Elections

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.

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.

one-term limit for everything

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. 

Yes, all term limits should be abolished.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 (http://www.svt.ntnu.no/iss/Indra.de.Soysa/POL3503H05/olson.pdf) 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.

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.

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

Like Germany in 1933 ?

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.

Yes.

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.

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. 

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.

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).

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

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

Term limits are undemocratic and should be repealed.

This. Voters can decide when to retire a president.

They should be reduced to zero terms.

 They should be changed to one term. Four years is long enough. :P

Absolutely. Let voters decide when an incumbent has worn out their welcome.

Yeah, this. It'll probably only be a very successful President who exceeds two terms anyway* (unless the other party repeatedly nukes its chances... then I guess a more mediocre incumbent could keep slipping by).

* I've chosen to trust the collective judgment of the average American this time.

No.

Democrats, do you really want to be stuck with Obama if he decides to run for a third term under a scenario without limits? Ousting an incumbent through the primaries is a nearly impossible task, which is primarily why I'd be against it.

Yes.

Chances are that if president's stay around long enough, they'll get unpopular and lose their jobs.

I staunchly oppose term-limits in general, but not so much for the Presidency. Maybe the limit should be two consecutive terms and after 4 years, allow them to run again. 

I support  the total abolition of them on democratic grounds at least or the raising of them to 3.
If it has be tightened, 6 year single terms like the senate.

Yes they should as voters should have the option to remove them (and it is even easier in the US as they can be beaten in either the primaries or the General Election than it is in many parliamentary countries with no term limits such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand). It is also unlikely that any 'Presidents for Life' would happen in this situation because voter fatigue at the incumbents will enable them to be beaten (Since WWII the longest one PM has lasted in power continously in the UK is 11 years and in New Zealand 12 years)

Democracy allows the common man to make his own bed, and indeed he must lie in it. Democracy allows him to govern himself and make decisions, no matter how stupid. I am not a fan of this "maximalist" democracy, but if you want to make a valid claim to it, term limits run counter to its spirit.

However I am strongly in favor of term limits in countries with weak democratic institutions. As they mature, term limits can be abolished.

You could theoretically, but it wouldn't make much difference. The voting populace of today is too skeptical, impatient, and pessimistic to reelect a President twice.

No - the President should have a single-term limit with the duration of said term lengthened a bit. I favor stringent term limitations as a means of encouraging officials to focus on their jobs instead of restless campaigning and pandering to strategic constituencies after assuming office. It is the core responsibility of elected officials to act as trustees serving in the common interest. For at least the time being, American politics is too clientelistic for us to abolish term limits without it exacerbating corruption willingly participated in by the masses, representatives, interest groups and party elites.

Coming from a state where we have had a douchebag governor who wants to keep on running until the day he dies...No, we need term limits to keep d-bags out. I would hate that on the federal level.

Very, very true.