Presidental term limit

ray245 · Post by **ray245** » 2008-06-05 04:13pm

In the US and many other countries with a presidential election like the ROC for example, there is usually a two-term limit for the presidency.

While this may ensure that Presidents do not overstay their welcome, and allow for newer candidates to run for the elections, there is a downside by limiting the presidential term.

Certain policies may require a longer period of time for the people to experience the fruits of their labour, and also, a two term limit will cause situation of a lame-duck presidency, where the president is free to do what he wants without any concern about the public support.

So in your opinion, how long should a presidency last at the most and should there be a presidential term limit?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2008-06-05 04:16pm

2 seems fine to me.

Kodiak · Post by **Kodiak** » 2008-06-05 04:23pm

I personally am in favor of a 1-term 6year presidency. I can't remember the source, but someone once said that the purpose of a first term is to get elected for a second term.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2008-06-05 04:56pm

Kodiak wrote:I personally am in favor of a 1-term 6year presidency. I can't remember the source, but someone once said that the purpose of a first term is to get elected for a second term.

That's exactly my problem with the two-term limit in the United States: the president can't actually do all that much for the first four years for fear of stepping on too many toes if he wants to get reelected, and they generally do. And if the politician in question does make it to a second term, they only have two or three years to really pursue their policies before everyone decides that they're a lame duck and starts to look towards the next president. I suppose that one could argue that the system as it stands helps check the executive's power, as it invariably does, but while I consider that to be a good thing in general (as seen by the excesses of the long-unchecked, contemporary executive), there are times when the election cycle as it stands seems to be a bit too limiting. A longer, one-term presidency is an interesting idea, although it would certainly have its own problems (it would be all the more difficult to remove an inept or malicious executive; then again, the American electorate has not upheld a particularly good example on that front of late).

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-06-05 06:07pm

Kodiak wrote:I personally am in favor of a 1-term 6year presidency. I can't remember the source, but someone once said that the purpose of a first term is to get elected for a second term.

That's what Mexico has. The problem is, once you get in there's no pressure to make people happy.

Ariphaos · Post by **Ariphaos** » 2008-06-05 07:59pm

I'd prefer 'no consecutive terms' and that would go for senators too >_>

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2008-06-05 08:03pm

I like the idea of one six year term for both Presidents and Senators.

montypython · Post by **montypython** » 2008-06-05 11:24pm

Kodiak wrote:I personally am in favor of a 1-term 6year presidency. I can't remember the source, but someone once said that the purpose of a first term is to get elected for a second term.

The Confederate States also made this setup for their presidency instead of 4 year terms in their constitution.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2008-06-06 01:18am

No Consecutive Terms makes more sense.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2008-06-06 02:53am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:No Consecutive Terms makes more sense.

Why? 4 years is nowhere near enough to develop from scratch carry out a policy.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2008-06-06 03:05am

fgalkin wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:No Consecutive Terms makes more sense.
Why? 4 years is nowhere near enough to develop from scratch carry out a policy.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Then make the terms longer.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2008-06-06 05:00am

Destructionator XIII wrote:If he's doing a good job, why shouldn't he be allowed to continue doing that job? I've never been convinced by the arguments for a term limit at all.

I don't really get it either. If I had a totally awesome head of state who excelled in their job and got stuff done when it was supposed to be done, and didn't walk all over the populace, I wouldn't want to have some arbitrary limit to how long he could be in office. I would want him in office for as long as he did his job to an acceptable (or better) standard.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-06-06 05:13am

Ford Prefect wrote:
Destructionator XIII wrote:If he's doing a good job, why shouldn't he be allowed to continue doing that job? I've never been convinced by the arguments for a term limit at all.
I don't really get it either. If I had a totally awesome head of state who excelled in their job and got stuff done when it was supposed to be done, and didn't walk all over the populace, I wouldn't want to have some arbitrary limit to how long he could be in office. I would want him in office for as long as he did his job to an acceptable (or better) standard.

That depends who decides the fella is "awesome". Now, if he's a moron but regarded as a saint by more than 50% of the population, what are you going to do? The subjectivity of the standard is the problem.

On the other hand, if length of the term is the problem, then extend the term to, as some have suggested, to 6 years.

Post by **Broomstick** » 2008-06-06 06:32am

Noble Ire wrote:
Kodiak wrote:I personally am in favor of a 1-term 6year presidency. I can't remember the source, but someone once said that the purpose of a first term is to get elected for a second term.
That's exactly my problem with the two-term limit in the United States: the president can't actually do all that much for the first four years for fear of stepping on too many toes if he wants to get reelected, and they generally do.

Yet, oddly enough, America's one and only 4-term president, Franklin Roosevelt, entered office and promptly did all sorts of controversial and occasionally unpopular things. Yet he got re-elected not once but three times.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-06-06 09:15am

Like Broomstick said, you'd only need to appeal to a certain base of voters and you're in, and that can be bad as well as good. Let's face it, there would have been sufficient momentum to keep Reagan for as long as he could stay upright because for the Republicans and many independents, he made the sun rise.

It's also not about the individual who is in the executive office, but who he appoints. Someone in office for that long can pretty much stock the Supreme Court for the next quarter-century and get all sorts of cronies entrenched in powerful positions.

But isn't Parliament, in England, run with "government as long as you're popular"? But then someone can also red-card a Prime Minister with a vote of "no confidence" the moment he screws up, too, which we don't really have in the USA. Impeachment doesn't really compare.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-06-06 09:37am

From what I gather, unlike a no-confidence vote, an Impeachment is more of a criminal trial with Congress as the jury?

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-06-06 10:20am

Yeah, impeachment is a President (or other elected official) being charged with a crime-- since some crimes are dealt with through fines, or other minor censures, Bill Clinton (for example) was able to continue his term. But I think if a President was found guilty of something requiring jail time, he'd be replaced by the Vice President...

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2008-06-06 10:26am

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:From what I gather, unlike a no-confidence vote, an Impeachment is more of a criminal trial with Congress as the jury?

Exactly.
The House of Representatives indicts ('impeaches') him, while the Senate holds the trial and votes whether or not to convict and remove him from office.
IIRC, a 2/3 majority vote is needed to convict in the Senate while a simple majority vote in the House will indict.

In a Presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presides over the Senate trial.

From my understanding of Parliamentary systems, the process and intent of impeachment is very different than a 'no-confidence' vote.

Ziggy Stardust · Post by **Ziggy Stardust** » 2008-06-06 11:27am

Destructionator XIII wrote:I've never been convinced by the arguments for a term limit at all.

Bush is a pretty good argument.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2008-06-06 12:52pm

montypython wrote:
Kodiak wrote:I personally am in favor of a 1-term 6year presidency. I can't remember the source, but someone once said that the purpose of a first term is to get elected for a second term.
The Confederate States also made this setup for their presidency instead of 4 year terms in their constitution.

There originally was not a term limit in the united states at all until after fdr sat for 3 terms and into his fourth.

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2008-06-06 12:57pm

ArmorPierce wrote:There originally was not a term limit in the united states at all until after fdr sat for 3 terms and into his fourth.

Yeah, but the two term limit was considered to be an unwritten rule ever since George Washington refused to run a third time. AFAIK, the only other president to run for a third term was Teddy, and he only did that after sitting out one term while Taft ran the country.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-06-06 01:07pm

"No term limits" really is only an option in countries where the population is well-informed, seek to educate themselves about issues, and are active voters. In other words, not America.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2008-06-06 06:41pm

Six year terms with no consecutive terms would be a very acceptable solution, IMO. So you get one, and then you have to wait six years to get another. This seems entirely reasonable, as someone can be elected at the age of 44 and then again at 56, and then again, potentially, at 68, before getting to old to serve further, so it simultaneously removes "continuous campaigning mode" and yet forces the individual to think ahead if they want to run for President against six years after their first term.