Presidential Terms

[skybridge]

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.

Much like George Washington intended?

[7,052,770]

I'm thinking limiting the president to one term is probably the best solution.

[Max]

I would prefer there to be no term limits whatsoever.

I strongy diagree on that. The term limit is one of the things I like best in the US political system.

Perhaps you know that in Germany, we once had a 14-years-chancellor (Adenauer) and even a 16-years-chancellor (Kohl).

I know the difference between our parliamentary democracy and the presidential democracy practized in the USA, but I tell you, every government - even the best one - becomes tired and arrogant after such a long time and starts thinking that their interests are identical with those of the country.

Stay with your term limits, it worked good since the 1950s!

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

I would prefer there to be no term limits whatsoever.

I strongy diagree on that. The term limit is one of the things I like best in the US political system.

Perhaps you know that in Germany, we once had a 14-years-chancellor (Adenauer) and even a 16-years-chancellor (Kohl).

I know the difference between our parliamentary democracy and the presidential democracy practized in the USA, but I tell you, every government - even the best one - becomes tired and arrogant after such a long time and starts thinking that their interests are identical with those of the country.

Stay with your term limits, it worked good since the 1950s!

If the people get tired of whomever they keep electing they can simply boot him out.

[MaC]

I would prefer there to be no term limits whatsoever.

I strongy diagree on that. The term limit is one of the things I like best in the US political system.

Perhaps you know that in Germany, we once had a 14-years-chancellor (Adenauer) and even a 16-years-chancellor (Kohl).

I know the difference between our parliamentary democracy and the presidential democracy practized in the USA, but I tell you, every government - even the best one - becomes tired and arrogant after such a long time and starts thinking that their interests are identical with those of the country.

Stay with your term limits, it worked good since the 1950s!

If the people get tired of whomever they keep electing they can simply boot him out.

Like FDR should have gotten booted out, but didn't.  Sometimes you just can't wait that long.

[Jake]

Much like George Washington intended?

I'm not familiar with any such plan. It'd be interesting if that was the case.

[adam]

I always said four 2 year terms would be better. Keeps the president in check.

[Reignman]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  I understand the arguments for changing the way it is now, but 6 years is way too long of a time for a term.

[jman724]

four years isn't exactly enough time to get done what needs to be done, so six would be good with term limits.  i also can't think of a single president since washington that had a successful second term, so keeping them to one term is a good idea. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

no

[Verily]

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

Elect the President on odd years.

[True Democrat]

I say either one term or no term limits.

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

Term limits are terrible, get rid of them.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Term limits are terrible, get rid of them.

I believe no term limits for the Senate and the House, but for the Presidency HELL YES! FDR only ran for a third and fourth term only because of WW2.

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

Term limits are terrible, get rid of them.

I believe no term limits for the Senate and the House, but for the Presidency HELL YES! FDR only ran for a third and fourth term only because of WW2.

Why should their be no limits for Senate or House but limits on the President? I mean, I strongly strongly dislike FDR, he was a very destructive president, but still, that being said, he should have been able to have as many terms as he could get elected for, like any other person could.

[Nym90]

No, I'd strongly oppose this. The President would always be a lame duck who doesn't have to care about what the people think of him, and it would be harder to change course if he screws up.

[ShadowRocket]

I voted no because I think that six years is too long of a term for a President to be in office and also that the President wouldn't have to care about public opinion.

On a related note, I do lean towards repealing the 22nd Amendment because I do think that people should be able to elect whoever they want for President regardless of how many term he or she has served. I don't buy into the benevolent dictator argument because most Presidents would still step down after two terms because of the scrutiny they would face. A two-term President seeking a third consecutive term in office would likely be challenged for their party's nomination from other serious contenders. There is also the historical precedent of Presidents, who are in their second term, start to decline in popularity.