US President limited to one 6 year term

[paladin]

If the US President was limited to being elected to a single 6 year term, would this have any affect on partisan politics when the president is dealing with the opposite party?

[KlavoHunter]

Perhaps instead of sitting with a thumb up their ass for their first term, "Saving up political capital" so they can be re-elected to THEN maybe do some of the things they really wanted to do, we'd get Presidents who are seriously expected to do what they campaigned on.

Whether that in itself is a good thing or not is an entirely different discussion....

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'd prefer that it be one six-year term with the possibility of being elected for a second one after a gap of at least one term. Someone could run, get elected, serve from ages 54 to 60 and then wait out someone else's term and try again at 66, for instance. It would leave a viable prospect of your having to run again so you can't be utterly stupid corrupt and contemptuous of the electorate, but eliminate campaigning in office. A similar restriction should be applied to all government offices, period.

[His Divine Shadow]

6 years still seem a bit short, 8 years or 10 years, so they actually get some work done. Ofcourse this can be for better or worse...

[JME2]

6 years would seem like a nice compromise.

[Mr Bean]

I've purposed before elsewhere that US citizens be limited to twenty years in Federal service. IE you may spend 50 years a a state legislator or state governor but once at the Federal level you have exactly twenty years however you would like as a Senator, Representative or President.

I'd not object to the Presidential term being set to six years as well, it sounds like a better idea and has much less of a constant feeling of a lame duck status most Presidents get currently.

[Cecelia5578]

I've purposed before elsewhere that US citizens be limited to twenty years in Federal service. IE you may spend 50 years a a state legislator or state governor but once at the Federal level you have exactly twenty years however you would like as a Senator, Representative or President.

I'd not object to the Presidential term being set to six years as well, it sounds like a better idea and has much less of a constant feeling of a lame duck status most Presidents get currently.

Yeah, thanks to...Bill Clinton, I think?-presidents are always stuck in a perpetual campaign mode. There's only a very small window where they can possibly get stuff done, after they get elected but before midterms, and if the midterms are disasterous for the party in the White House, obviously nothing can get done afterwards. Honestly, I'd change elections to the House for every three years instead. The way things are now, the midterms (and the campaigning leading up to them) simply suck too much life out of a president's term of office.

[TheHammer]

I've purposed before elsewhere that US citizens be limited to twenty years in Federal service. IE you may spend 50 years a a state legislator or state governor but once at the Federal level you have exactly twenty years however you would like as a Senator, Representative or President.

I'd not object to the Presidential term being set to six years as well, it sounds like a better idea and has much less of a constant feeling of a lame duck status most Presidents get currently.

A similar idea I've had was for a two term limit in each house of congress, and then the presidency. Would perhaps inspire some good if the goal is to get things done rather than to perpetually get yourself re-elected.

Another bonus of a 6 year term is it might make the opposition party more prone to co-operation. At four years it seems they think they can just "wait it out". But if you're looking at six years, that's a lot of time to simply stone wall.

[Gil Hamilton]

I've purposed before elsewhere that US citizens be limited to twenty years in Federal service. IE you may spend 50 years a a state legislator or state governor but once at the Federal level you have exactly twenty years however you would like as a Senator, Representative or President.

I'd not object to the Presidential term being set to six years as well, it sounds like a better idea and has much less of a constant feeling of a lame duck status most Presidents get currently.

Would that apply only to politicians or to anyone? Because the military could be considered Federal Service and there are certainly workers that stay in the employ of the Federal government (like, say, the EPA) for 20 years and it seems to me that you don't want to automatically retire some people who've made it that long.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

If the US President was limited to being elected to a single 6 year term, would this have any affect on partisan politics when the president is dealing with the opposite party?

Limiting the President to a single term seems like a good way to ensure that the office of President of the United States becomes fully bought and paid for by wealthy white businessmen. It would become an office held by interchangeable suits whose chief qualification for the office was that they got corporate interests to buy them more votes than the other guy. Mind you, it's pretty much that way now, but I feel that limiting the President to a single term would only make it worse.

As others have said, a better reform would be to make the terms of House members longer. As it is, the House never makes the mental switch out of "campaign mode." An even better reform would be to ban all non-public campaign financing and drastically reduce the length of campaign season. Hold all the primaries in July, and the general elections in November; and limit the campaign for each to 90 days.

[Edi]

As others have said, a better reform would be to make the terms of House members longer. As it is, the House never makes the mental switch out of "campaign mode." An even better reform would be to ban all non-public campaign financing and drastically reduce the length of campaign season. Hold all the primaries in July, and the general elections in November; and limit the campaign for each to 90 days.

This would do the trick. It would also remove a lot of the corruption in one swoop.

Unfortunately, that would probably run headlong into the First Amendment, because it could be argued that limiting the campaigning would be a limitation on speech.

[Mr Bean]

I've purposed before elsewhere that US citizens be limited to twenty years in Federal service. IE you may spend 50 years a a state legislator or state governor but once at the Federal level you have exactly twenty years however you would like as a Senator, Representative or President.

I'd not object to the Presidential term being set to six years as well, it sounds like a better idea and has much less of a constant feeling of a lame duck status most Presidents get currently.

Would that apply only to politicians or to anyone? Because the military could be considered Federal Service and there are certainly workers that stay in the employ of the Federal government (like, say, the EPA) for 20 years and it seems to me that you don't want to automatically retire some people who've made it that long.

Elected politicians only

At it's heart the most vital reform is a need for 100% public financed campaigns and second is pushing the primaries back into the May-June-July Time frame with August having the nomination parties then the rest of that time elections rather than the current year and two month long "campaign"

[Simon_Jester]

As others have said, a better reform would be to make the terms of House members longer. As it is, the House never makes the mental switch out of "campaign mode." An even better reform would be to ban all non-public campaign financing and drastically reduce the length of campaign season. Hold all the primaries in July, and the general elections in November; and limit the campaign for each to 90 days.

This would do the trick. It would also remove a lot of the corruption in one swoop.

Unfortunately, that would probably run headlong into the First Amendment, because it could be argued that limiting the campaigning would be a limitation on speech.

Regulating when the parties hold their primaries is not the same as regulating what they may say: "You must select your list of candidates after X but before Y, or you don't have candidates." The parties don't have constitutional rights as such, except insofar as the citizens that make them up do.

Public campaign financing, though... trickier. How do you ban private citizens spending money to make political speech without impinging on all sorts of rights?

[Enigma]

Why not have the Representatives, Senator and Presidential election done at the same time? This way they'd have to play nice with each other for the whole term and then start over again.

Then again, I'm not politically minded so I do not know if that would be good or not.

[Mr Bean]

Public campaign financing, though... trickier. How do you ban private citizens spending money to make political speech without impinging on all sorts of rights?

Simple, you can say what you like but you can't name any party or person during your speech and even then only for the six months leading up to an election. You can spend five years and six months calling Harry Reid a baby killing freedom hating Pansie but come May till election day you can't spend money doing it. And your still allowed to say whatever you like in person, but you can't use Media to say it for you.

There's an easy line to draw between going to the Public square and saying "Harry Reid is a XXX" and going to the local TV station and spending money to have THEM say "Harry Reid is XXX"

[Zaune]

This would do the trick. It would also remove a lot of the corruption in one swoop.

Unfortunately, that would probably run headlong into the First Amendment, because it could be argued that limiting the campaigning would be a limitation on speech.

Then require every TV and radio network to give every party with a minimum of X candidates Y minutes each of campaigning airtime at federal expense, much like the British do.

[Simon_Jester]

What about printing leaflets that say Harry Reid is an XXX? That's a freedom of the press issue... but you can damn sure spend money printing leaflets.

What about showing up on a talk show and saying Harry Reid is an XXX? Do we ban political commentary in broadcast media?

What about starting a viral Internet campaign saying Harry Reid is an XXX? That costs money- maintaining a website ain't free.

What about issue advocacy? Running local TV ads in favor of [insert program here] when Harry Reid supports [insert program here] can be very closely equivalent to running local TV ads saying "Support Harry Reid."

[Darth Raptor]

Can't we just have a parliamentary system with proportional representation like countries chartered after the advent of the steam engine? Then it would be right and proper that the PotUS is basically the national mascot/chief diplomat/grand marshal of the homecoming prom.

[Zaune]

What about printing leaflets that say Harry Reid is an XXX? That's a freedom of the press issue... but you can damn sure spend money printing leaflets.

What about showing up on a talk show and saying Harry Reid is an XXX? Do we ban political commentary in broadcast media?

What about starting a viral Internet campaign saying Harry Reid is an XXX? That costs money- maintaining a website ain't free.

What about issue advocacy? Running local TV ads in favor of [insert program here] when Harry Reid supports [insert program here] can be very closely equivalent to running local TV ads saying "Support Harry Reid."

Leafleting and viral campaigns certainly aren't free, but relative to peak-time airspace they're pretty damn cheap; the web-hosting company a friend of mine works at has plans starting from $50 a month, and I could get a run of over a thousand leaflets from a backstreet printing shop for about the same money.
Interviews and so forth are a trickier issue, but that could at least be mitigated by tightening up the rules on impartiality; if a candidate for re-election directly attacks their opponent's policies etc on air, the network could be required to invite him to appear in a future episode to respond to them.

[paladin]

Can't we just have a parliamentary system with proportional representation...

You would need to do a serious re-write to the Constitution for proportional representation.

[Patrick Degan]

If the US President was limited to being elected to a single 6 year term, would this have any affect on partisan politics when the president is dealing with the opposite party?

Limiting the President to a single term seems like a good way to ensure that the office of President of the United States becomes fully bought and paid for by wealthy white businessmen. It would become an office held by interchangeable suits whose chief qualification for the office was that they got corporate interests to buy them more votes than the other guy. Mind you, it's pretty much that way now, but I feel that limiting the President to a single term would only make it worse.

That would certainly be at its worst. At best, you wind up with a weak presidency; the occupant of the White House potentially becomes a lame duck in as little as two years instead of five or six, and the balance of power would permanently shift towards congress. About the only thing politically the president could do once his influence evaporates is veto bills and appeal to the bully pulpit; an opposition congress could ignore him, and a congress split between parties would wind up with a worse deadlock situation than what we've got now: especially if the House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader are fighting to be the "top" political leader of the country for the term, given that the two houses are effectively co-equal in power. It gets like that now to an extent with a president in lame-duck status but it's only for a year or two on the tail end of an eight year run. With a single six-year term, you could have a situation like this stretching for four years. Perhaps even for all six if the president is of one party but congress winds up under firm control of the other party and stays that way for a decade or so.

An even better reform would be to ban all non-public campaign financing and drastically reduce the length of campaign season. Hold all the primaries in July, and the general elections in November; and limit the campaign for each to 90 days.

I've thought along similar lines myself. Sadly that would require a lot of political change and possibly a constitutional amendment to avoid 1st Amendment challenges to any proposal along these lines to make it feasible. Mind you, I do like the basic idea.