Presidents of the US should only have 1 term

[Symphonic]

Hear me out. Wouldn't it be better to have a president serve one term for 6 years instead of a possible 2 terms for 8 years total? Before you say "NO!", I think that just due to the fact of a possible second term, the first 4 years hardly give enough time for the president to work on policies and laws that would better the American people because the first year is under the previous presidents budget, and the last one and a half years are spent trying to get re-elected... leaving only a year and a half to actually help the United States improve.

Having a single 6 year term could mean that instead of trying to focus on being re elected, you could actually have all your concern about the present situation and how you could improve the state of the People.

So, I am adding a poll. Would you enjoy a 6 year one term president, or the current system of a possible 2 terms?


Note: Check out this opinion piece: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinio...les/index.html

[Skroe]

This is a very old debate. As I recall, they actually debated just this while the constitution was being written.

There is a very real downside though, a pretty practical one too: there is a significant democratic value in being able to validate the head of states policy by voting for him a second time, and similarly, rejecting him if his policies after 4 years are awful. If you only have 6 year elections, it robs the democratic process of an important way of expressing its satisfaction with a set of policies. Rather instead, every 6 years it could be another roll of the dice.

There are two solutions in my view. Two six year terms wouldn't be terrible in and of itself, and frankly probably be very stabilizing in the current political climate that regards the Presidency as the "ultimate prize to be won" (rather than co-equal with Congress and the Supreme Court). But twelve years is also a very long time. But at the same time, some Presidents, like Eisenhower, Clinton or Reagan, easily could have been President another four years.

The other solution is keep four year terms but put very strong statues limiting campaigning in place, such as hard caps on how much candidates can raise and how many days total per year they can spend campaigning while holding office, and possibly even tax-payer funded elections that block private money.

And frankly, what you describe as a problem "lack of time" is preceisely the point. THe system was designed to slow any elected individual down. The country should never change on a dime.

[Pilobolus]

I sort of think our system now would be a bit better than one 6 year term. A good chunk of how much a president gets done relies on Congress working with him/her so important things may still get tossed to the side even in a 6 year scenario. Though, the idea of pushing for certain legislation that needs to be passed, regardless of the backlash from the supporting base, would be welcomed.

[Autofollow]

I sort of think our system now would be a bit better than one 6 year term. A good chunk of how much a president gets done relies on Congress working with him/her so important things may still get tossed to the side even in a 6 year scenario. Though, the idea of pushing for certain legislation that needs to be passed, regardless of the backlash from the supporting base, would be welcomed.

Sort of like the current problems with Obamacare? I'd rather not see our government constantly embroiled in litigation over legislation that a President decided to force through even though it was hotly debated and argued against just to satisfy his own agenda.

OT: I think the current 4 year term is sufficient to allow the country the time to determine whether the President deserves a 2nd term. It also gives a President something to work towards. If they never had to think about being re-elected then I don't know how motivated they would be to do the right thing. Imagine what it was like when there wasn't a limit on the number of terms... FDR was in 3 times and once he was out that's when Congress changed it. I could be a little off on the total lack of limits on term, but they did change it based on the number of terms he served.

[openair]

Clinton easily could have been President another four years.

Yea another 4 years of Clinton would have been great. Then he would have still been in office when some of the bubbles started to burst, and people might not be praising him as much today for simply being at the right place at the right time.

Longer terms between votes would definitely be a good thing. Saving tax payer money, less transitional down time, and more time for progress.

While 1 or 2 terms both have their merits and their downfalls, I think limiting it to 1 term mostly only takes choice away. Forcing 2 new candidates on voters every time, instead of the choice of old or new.

If they never had to think about being re-elected then I don't know how motivated they would be to do the right thing.

Execept, as the op says, this can work both ways. If the president isn't motivated about LOOKING good so he can get re-elected, he is motivated towards DOING the right thing to make his single term as rememberable as possible. (2+2=/=5)

[ptwonline]

The problem right now is that the election cycle is 24/7/365 and every single year. Three reasons for this:

1. So much money in politics now that the politicians' job is not to run the country, but to pay back their financial backers. Since they can't get re-elected on their political achievements, they have to get re-elected by spending money on ads to distort/lie about the actual record
2. Congressional mid-term elections, which naturally ropes in the President
3. The emergence of 24 hour news channels and their pushing of politics

None of this would change with single, 6 year terms.

[Flatspriest]

Why 6 years instead of two 5 year terms? Since the laws in place make it where you can only be President for a maximum of 10 years, That would be alot more along the lines and would be easy to set up with the elections being held in either a year ending in 0 or 5.

[Skroe]

Yea another 4 years of Clinton would have been great. Then he would have still been in office when some of the bubbles started to burst, and people might not be praising him as much today for simply being at the right place at the right time.

I wasn't making a value judgement about him as a President... just saying that if he could have had a third term, he would have. Maybe even Bush would have too, but I sense considerable more weariness on his part.

[ptwonline]

I wasn't making a value judgement about him as a President... just saying that if he could have had a third term, he would have. Maybe even Bush would have too, but I sense considerable more weariness on his part.

Clinton likely would have lost running for a third term. So many negatives built up for him (like it does for any President) that it would have just weighed him down. He could barely even do anything for much of his second term in office. He needed a few years away for people to get better perspective and appreciation of his time in office.

Bush running for a third term could have had Obama winning virtually every single Electoral College vote except in the deepest red of red states.

[Caiada]

This is a very old debate. As I recall, they actually debated just this while the constitution was being written.

There is a very real downside though, a pretty practical one too: there is a significant democratic value in being able to validate the head of states policy by voting for him a second time, and similarly, rejecting him if his policies after 4 years are awful. If you only have 6 year elections, it robs the democratic process of an important way of expressing its satisfaction with a set of policies. Rather instead, every 6 years it could be another roll of the dice.

There are two solutions in my view. Two six year terms wouldn't be terrible in and of itself, and frankly probably be very stabilizing in the current political climate that regards the Presidency as the "ultimate prize to be won" (rather than co-equal with Congress and the Supreme Court). But twelve years is also a very long time. But at the same time, some Presidents, like Eisenhower, Clinton or Reagan, easily could have been President another four years.

The other solution is keep four year terms but put very strong statues limiting campaigning in place, such as hard caps on how much candidates can raise and how many days total per year they can spend campaigning while holding office, and possibly even tax-payer funded elections that block private money.

And frankly, what you describe as a problem "lack of time" is preceisely the point. THe system was designed to slow any elected individual down. The country should never change on a dime.

Yep. People especially always forget that last part. The longer the term, the more relative power the President has.

I much prefer the current system. I don't see any reason to change it. Campaigning limits all the way though, especially for funding. The current system for that is a horrible mess right now.

[bergmann620]

The system I would propose is a bit different, both in term, limit, and timing of election.

First, I would allow 1 term. Second, it would be for 8 (7 effective) years. Third, the first and last year of each term would be spent transitioning from the previous leader, while he is still office, and transitioning to the next one as you prepare to leave. Lastly, at any single time between years 2 and 4, Congress can petition for a vote of confidence, to occur 3 months after the call. This would require a super-majority in both houses, and would require a 60% no-confidence vote by the populace to determine 'no confidence.'

If such a vote takes place, and the sitting president fails the vote, the next national election would take place in 18 months.

[Foosha]

The system I would propose is a bit different, both in term, limit, and timing of election.

First, I would allow 1 term. Second, it would be for 8 (7 effective) years. Third, the first and last year of each term would be spent transitioning from the previous leader, while he is still office, and transitioning to the next one as you prepare to leave. Lastly, at any single time between years 2 and 4, Congress can petition for a vote of confidence, to occur 3 months after the call. This would require a super-majority in both houses, and would require a 60% no-confidence vote by the populace to determine 'no confidence.'

If such a vote takes place, and the sitting president fails the vote, the next national election would take place in 18 months.

Oh great, give more of those lifetime politicians more to decide about. The President shouldn't barter congress for their approval, heck, a couple cases a beer and a hooker for them could keep him in office for the full term. The President needs to worry about the nation, not some wrinkly fuck for reelection.

[bergmann620]

Oh great, give more of those lifetime politicians more to decide about. The President shouldn't barter congress for their approval, heck, a couple cases a beer and a hooker for them could keep him in office for the full term. The President needs to worry about the nation, not some wrinkly fuck for reelection.

I would also be slapping term limits on both houses of Congress. That is much more important than any presidential changes

[Skroe]

I would also be slapping term limits on both houses of Congress. That is much more important than any presidential changes

The house? Yes. This would solve a significant problem of house members becoming local power brokers and running largely unopposed provided the win the first few elections.

The Senate? Absolutely not. The problem with the Senate is C-SPAN. I know that sounds hilarious, but the quickest way to fixing the Senate is to throw all cameras out and close the doors. Don't even televise comittee hearings. The Senate was designed as a place where Senators could forge relationships over many years, foster trust, and most importantly of all, create the kind of backroom deals that are necessary for the functioning of any government. You should WANT a Senate with Senators in power for 18 or 24 years who know each other and have kids who go to school together. You don't want that for the house, the "People's Chamber", though. When Camera were first put in the Senate chambers, Senators stop talking to each other and started talking to their electoral base and the audience at home.

[Badpaladin]

I think a 1 year term would get a whole lot of nothing done. Most of that year would be the current administration trying to pass what they want, fighting Congress and opposition until barely anything gets passed. Neither "side" would see much of what they want implemented.

[Promethax]

The real question is why members of the senate and the house get no term restrictions.

[asher1611]

Two 4 year terms is a good balance between what the US House faces (every 2 years) and what presidents used to get (unlimited terms, see Franklin Roosevelt).