Presidential Terms Should Be 6 Yrs and Nonconsecutive

Great Debates
1

Lately I’ve been thinking that I’d like to see U.S. presidents have 6-year terms of office but not be allowed to serve two consecutive terms. This would, I think, provide ample time for a new president to “settle in” and be able to effect some real changes (if they wanted to), and it would also keep presidents focused for their entire term of office instead of being distracted by a campaign for the last year or two. On the flip side, however, we could be stuck with a bad president for 6 years instead of 4.

That said, I know very little about politics, so it’s hard for me to think this through very far. I’m wondering what some of the ramifications might be of such a change, and whether the cons would outweigh the pros. What are some of the other cons? Is this an inherently bad idea (notwithstanding the likelihood of it ever happening)?

2

I’d say it’s unlikely because Congress (if such an amendment were proposed) would think of the potential negatives: “we could be stuck with a guy from the other party for six years instead of four, and a President would get six years instead of eight.” I think re-election after six years out of office is unlikely.

That said, it’s an interesting idea. I’ve posted a few times about my theory that, in today’s news climate, people will get tired of any President after about six years. This would eliminate two years of a Presidency people are tired of and perhaps allow the President to be more effective.

3

I still like the “try it before you buy it,” even though that didn’t seem to matter for GW.

I guess at least it would keep a president from using his whole first term as a campaign for his second term.

On the other hand, it would give a president absolutely no motivation to represent the people or honor campaign promises. Again, not that that seemed to matter for GW.

4

Well, that’s the system in Mexico. And it doesn’t seem to have helped matters there very much, as far as I can tell.

In Colombia, the two major parties used to have to alternate presidencies–I think it was in their constitution. But then, that’s one of the few countires I know of where the president actually made a public statement about the possible outcome of a popular soap opera plot, supposedly in order to improve the moral stature of its citizenry.

5

I’ll go you better: 5 years, only one term.

6

You know, a few years ago I read an article which said that most of the living ex-presidents favored the idea of switching to a single six-year term. The jist of the article was that the president’s entire first term is one long re-election campain. Every single decision is made with an eye towards how popular it will be. It’s not until they’re a lame duck that they can say “Fuck the opinion polls, I’ll make this decision based solely on what I think will be best for the country.” So there might be something to the idea. Still, as the OP mentioned, if the president turns out to be a bad one you have to wait two years longer to kick him out. I’m not sure it would turn out any better.

7

My worry is that Presidents will make decisions without considering the wishes of Americans. Thus a term limit of any kind is a bad idea. People that aren’t responsible for their actions tend to act irresponsibly. Running an entire first term as a campaign to get reëlected strikes me as a good thing. The problem for me is that the second term isn’t the same. Then leaders would have no choice but to attempt to shape public opinion, that is- lead, instead of adopting a strategy of waiting until they are beyond electoral retribution before getting on with what they really think should be done.

A better system would be a president elected to 2 year terms with no limit. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about the “offyear” shenanigans where they wait until the presidental election is years off before springing crap like the S&L bailout on the public.

8

I don’t think that’s a good thing. Trying to get re-elected doesn’t guarantee that a President will do anything that’s right or necessary. It means he’ll do whatever he thinks is popular. And it doesn’t even have to be popular with all of America, just segments of the population that his campaign handlers deem significant.

I think that would leave them unable to get anything done. Representatives have to spend almost all of their time campaigning, and they represent fairly small populations. How is a President supposed to appeal to that many people in two years? It would really weaken the executive, although many would regard that as a good thing. It doesn’t make sense for a Senator’s term to be three times as long as the President’s.

9

Put me down for 6-7 years with no possibility of re-election. Why ‘no re-election’? Just look at how many people still want Bill Clinton back. And the French system is 7 years with re-election and look how well that works.

The problem I have with 4 year terms is that it takes a considerable time for changes to take effect, and as others have said, in his first term, a sitting President has to consider re-election, and thus may not have the ability to take hard but necessary measures.

But the biggest suggestion I have is that the whole process be much shorter: it takes you guys the best part of a year! All those primaries and stuff. I think the U.K. system of having a variable but limited term (though of government) is preferable for the simple reason that it keeps everyone on their toes.

10

I like things as is. With the current situation, would you want another three years of Bush or another five years of Bush? I rest my case.

11

Thanks for all of the responses so far … good stuff. :slight_smile: When I reply to folks in this thread I’m going to argue for a 6-year term with no re-election, but I haven’t firmly made up my mind about it: I’m just trying to work through the pros and cons of such a proposition. If I’m going to have an opinion, I want to be able to “argue it out” (for lack of a better term).

As Marley23 said, don’t presidents have little motivation to “behave” as it is? That seems like a candidate problem, not a problem that can be corrected by the kind of presidential term. Maybe having a single 6-year term would encourage Americans to elect the candidate who we feel is the most honourable?

But Mexican presidents designate their own successors at the end of each term (cite) … that, and other significant differences between a Mexican presidency and an American presidency that have nothing to do with term length or limits, makes the two hardly comparable. Don’t you think?

Interesting … howcome? Do you think 6 years is just too long? To me, 5 years doesn’t seem much longer than 4 years, and I worry about a president’s ability to effect any kind of significant change in such a (relatively) short amount of time.

This is the first time in my life (I’m 34) that I’ve come up with an idea completely on my own, only to find out that I wasn’t the first one to have it – and not only that, but it’s been around for quite some time! :smiley: I don’t mean that in an arrogant way – I don’t feel that I’m any kind of profound political thinker or anything (rather the opposite, actually), it’s just been kind of a weird feeling. I’m a sometime poet/songwriter, and an ongoing concern is that I’ll write something that turns out to be not original: as far as I know that’s never happened with my writing, but my first political idea winds up being centuries old. Go figure. :wink:

Your comment led me to do a search on the internet, and I found an old New York Times op-ed on the subject (I can’t provide a link because it’s only available if you buy it, which I did; it might only be available to people who have logins at that site, I’m not sure). It’s from June 1983 and mentions a then-new National Committee for a Single Six-Year Presidential Term: searching on that has provided another set of leads on the issue, which I haven’t yet followed up on.

True. I wonder, though, if it might somehow result in fewer objectively bad presidents? I mean, how many of those have we really had?

(Please note that I am not trying to open this thread up to Bush bashing, or anything of the sort.)

Interesting … I hadn’t considered the idea of absolutely no re-election. Do you think the odds are higher that a bad president would seek re-election (and be likely to win) than a good one? Would it be worth sacrificing a possible second good term to prevent a possible second bad one? I think I like “no possibility of re-election,” but I need to consider it a little more.

Again, I’m not pro- or anti- any particular president, but using your example: with the current situation, we wouldn’t be looking at two more years of Bush. :smiley:

12

Certainly. Looking at the U.K. - Thatcher and Blair in particular - it seems that 10 years is about the limit, as political infighting gets worse. People want to move up the ranks and if there’s a logjam at the top, that can’t happen. On the American side, consider that Ronald Reagan would almost certainly have won had he stood and can you imagine the effect of his Alzheimer’s?

13

Misnomer, your cite re Mexico is outdated: that used to be true in the days when the PRI was the only party with any power, but the current prez is from the right-wing PAN party, and the next prez is favored to be Obrador, who comes from the left-wing opposition.
Mexico has grown into a very interesting three-party system, which is definitely a good thing.
OTOH, a single six-year term is definitely a bad thing. It makes the president even stronger than he is under our system. Me, I want him weaker. 2sense’s idea is far superior, although I’d go for three years, since two years just seems too short for me.

14

Why is this?

15

The Confederate States of America (during the American Civil War, 1861-65, for our non-American Dopers) had a similar arrangement. The Confederacy only ever had one President, though (Jefferson Davis) due to its loss of the war, so it’s hard to guess how well a six-years-and-no-reelection-option would play with an American electorate.

16

Both Mexico and France have this, and in both cases, the President is a strong one. In Mexico, to the point of being, basically, a dictator for six years.
You’re talking about someone who is not up for re-election, and can’t be removed except of course if impeached, I suppose, although I don’t know whether there’s even an impeachment clause in either constitution, and even more importantly, whether it is considered a practical alternative. In Mexico, I don’t believe any president has even been threatened with any form of impeachment. The feeling you get in Mexico, living there, is that you basically don’t go against the government, for any reason. This was a long time ago, so it may have moderated somewhat more recently, but I didn’t get the feeling that an ordinary person would risk speaking out down there. Not something that someone who wanted to live a normal life would do. It had the veneer of democracy, but that’s it.
This has probably changed more recently, but I don’t know to what extent or how far into the boonies it would reach. Either way, a six-year president is ideal if you want a strong, nearly dictatorial leader, not ideal if that’s not your goal. Definitely not mine.

17

It used to. Since the last presidential election, it’s only a 5 years term.

I was in the small minority (25% or so) that voted “no” to this constitutionnal amendment mostly for the reasons mentionned by the OP.

18

Nothing guarantees a President will do anything that’s right or necessary. Such is life.

I prefer Presidents with a need to keep an eye on public opinion because I’d rather have a leader that tries to shape public opinon to get things done, that is- one who leads, rather than one who just does what he thinks is best, that is- one who dictates.

The typical Representative spends very little time campaiging, at least by Washington standards. Most of them don’t face any serious ( read: “well funded” ) competition since they have safe seats. This year with large and growing dissatisfaction with the government there are only a couple dozen House races that are somewhat competitive. Out of 435.

The President can easily appeal to the whole country because he has the bully pulpit. He is the President. No one can shape the public debate like he can. As for whether or not my proposal weakens the office, I suppose that it does but that is not why I proposed it. Instead I do so for the political effect of not having a safe haven to do unpopular things. All unpopular measures would have to be done out in the open and the political price paid. Of course, the political price would be less as well. Sure you would lose the White House but you would have a chance to rebound in 2 years rather than four.

Making decisions for all time based on current circumstances is shortsighted. As is standing behind the status quo simply because it is better than a single alternative. I should also point out that under my proposal Bush Jr would be facing reëlection this year.

I don’t believe he did say that. Nor do I understand what you mean by “a candidate problem”. I would prefer to alter the presidential term because I believe it would alter our politics in beneficial ways.

I’m not exactly sure why you think a longer term would encourage Americans to elect more honorable candidates. It seems likely to me that you are thinking that having a vote less often would make voters weigh their choice more carefully. If so I wouldn’t agree. Voting for president, for those of us lucky enough to live in a swing state so our votes actually matter, is already the most important political decision we make. I would say that people already weigh it as carefully as they have the time and interest for politics.

Just my 2sense

19

If he had started a six-year term in 2001, you’d be looking at another 10 months of Bush. You can’t tell me you wouldn’t like that. :wink:

20

That’s a false dichotomy, and the implication of a dictatorship is weak.

Presidents have to sell their idea of “what is best” to get elected. Following through on it doesn’t make them dictators. The notion that a President who doesn’t face re-election doesn’t have to worry about public opinion - which I see with some frequency on this board when Bush is the subject - is absolutely false. The President almost always needs the support of Congress. And if the public doesn’t like one of the President’s ideas, Congress will be sensitive to it even if the President doesn’t care. Look at the Dubai Ports thing.

Very true. That situation has become a bad joke.