Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-29-2019, 11:32 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,973

Single-Term Presidency for the purpose of ending constant campaigning


I think that this country would be better served if the President spent more time doing the job she/he was elected to do and less time using taxpayer time and money trying to get reelected. A single six, seven or even eight year term should be enough in my opinion.
Pros?
Cons?
Other ideas to accomplish this goal?
  #2  
Old 08-29-2019, 11:46 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 23,120
The biggest Con would be that a single term president would be able to operate with fewer checks on their power for a longer time, with little ability to remove them from office. Six, seven, or eight years is a very long time to elect the most powerful person on the planet. 2 years is too little to accomplish anything; but 4 seems like a good amount of time before asking the voters opinion.
  #3  
Old 08-29-2019, 12:17 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,321
Virginia bans a sitting governor from running for re-election, but allows that person to run again after at least one term has passed.

Mexico limits a president to a single six-year term, I believe.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #4  
Old 08-29-2019, 12:30 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016
Along the lines of "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session", I wish I could convince presidents to spend more time campaigning and less time "doing the job". If you really want to go the other way though, even if the president were banned from running for re-election, I suspect he'd still devote significant time to propping up the campaigns of his would-be successor, senators, and representatives of his respective party, to preserve their "legacy" and prevent it from being undone by the next Congress & President.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-29-2019 at 12:31 PM.
  #5  
Old 08-29-2019, 12:37 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Along the lines of "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session", I wish I could convince presidents to spend more time campaigning and less time "doing the job". If you really want to go the other way though, even if the president were banned from running for re-election, I suspect he'd still devote significant time to propping up the campaigns of his would-be successor, senators, and representatives of his respective party, to preserve their "legacy" and prevent it from being undone by the next Congress & President.
I think that in the current situation you might be wrong, because the current Campaigner-In-Chief doesn't really give a shit about the welfare of any other politician out there.
  #6  
Old 08-29-2019, 12:40 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I think that in the current situation you might be wrong, because the current Campaigner-In-Chief doesn't really give a shit about the welfare of any other politician out there.
Perhaps, but he has still held / attended rallies in support of various Republican candidates.
  #7  
Old 08-29-2019, 12:45 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Perhaps, but he usually turns it into yet another opportunity to talk about himself and/or his many enemies. In other words, he ends up campaigning for himself.
  #8  
Old 08-29-2019, 12:55 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016
Eh, he usually tosses in a line or two about what a great guy / gal so-and-so is too and how everyone should vote for them. Not sure what you expected, I think it's pretty typical for currently-serving presidents to not spend a whole lot of time talking about candidates for House / Senate seats and their platform in great detail.
  #9  
Old 08-29-2019, 01:13 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,193
It would require a constitutional amendment, which would be dead on arrival. Not going to happen.
  #10  
Old 08-29-2019, 01:16 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,391
Looking at Trump, it no doubt seems like a splendid idea. Looking at a POTUS whose policies and party you support, not so much.
  #11  
Old 08-29-2019, 01:23 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
Looking at Trump, it no doubt seems like a splendid idea. Looking at a POTUS whose policies and party you support, not so much.
No-I would support the idea no matter who was Prez. I think too much time is spent campaigning while on the job.
  #12  
Old 08-29-2019, 01:25 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
It would require a constitutional amendment, which would be dead on arrival. Not going to happen.
I realize that it would take a constitutional amendment...but it wouldn't be the first time when it comes to presidential term limits, would it?
  #13  
Old 08-29-2019, 01:28 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Along the lines of "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session", I wish I could convince presidents to spend more time campaigning and less time "doing the job".
I think a lot of the problems in modern politics derive from campaigning. The need to campaign means candidates need money. And the need for money leaves politicians dependent on special interests.

More campaigning would just mean more dependence on special interests.
  #14  
Old 08-29-2019, 01:31 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I realize that it would take a constitutional amendment...but it wouldn't be the first time when it comes to presidential term limits, would it?
That was in a completely different political landscape. I just don't see the sort of consensus forming to make this...or really any other...amendment happen. I could be wrong. Hell, I honestly believed Hillary was going to be POTUS. I once believed my country was "too good" to elect Donald fucking Trump. Yeah...I don't think that anymore. These days, a killer asteroid from space seems....not unjust, anyway.
  #15  
Old 08-29-2019, 02:31 PM
BrotherCadfael is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 10,339
The classic rejoinder to longer single-term proposals: "Four years isn't long enough for a good President, six years is too long for a bad one."
  #16  
Old 08-29-2019, 02:38 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
The classic rejoinder to longer single-term proposals: "Four years isn't long enough for a good President, six years is too long for a bad one."
Four years would be long enough to be a good President...if the time was actually spent being the President. Instead, the first four years is spent campaigning for the purpose of being there a second four years.
  #17  
Old 08-29-2019, 02:48 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
No-I would support the idea no matter who was Prez. I think too much time is spent campaigning while on the job.
ISTM that the underlying purpose of the campaigning is not vote mustering, but instead fund raising. Maybe time to rethink Citizens United?
  #18  
Old 08-29-2019, 04:12 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,204
The exact same logic can be applied to any elected office - why should legislators, governors, etc spend time campaigning for re-election? But if we make every office single-term, that has serious consequences:

- It means all our politicians will be inexperienced. Which means they will rely more heavily on non-elected entities. Bureaucrats, aides, think tanks, lobbyists, etc. will gain even more power than they have now.

- If politicians aren't worried about re-election, they have no incentive to listen to their electorate. Voters' voices will have much less influence.

A much better way to make politicians waste less time with re-election campaigns & fundraising is publicly funded elections. Most of the campaigns are for fundraising. If political donations are outlawed (or severely limited), politicians won't have any reason to spend most of their time doing fund-raisers.
  #19  
Old 08-29-2019, 04:16 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
A much better way to make politicians waste less time with re-election campaigns & fundraising is publicly funded elections. Most of the campaigns are for fundraising. If political donations are outlawed (or severely limited), politicians won't have any reason to spend most of their time doing fund-raisers.
The trouble is when the incumbent is unofficially campaigning at every public meet-up. Money doesn't have to be raised when you get to see the public on the public's dime.

Added: And I am rejecting the idea that we necessarily have to have the same rules for every level of office.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 08-29-2019 at 04:18 PM.
  #20  
Old 08-29-2019, 04:29 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,185
Seriously, I never saw Obama spending much of his first term campaigning for reelection. Nor either Bush, nor Clinton nor Reagan. Only the present occupant has spent much time campaigning as far as I can see. What will happen post-Trump is hard to say, but if he loses I expect his successors will take that as an omen and spend their time working.
  #21  
Old 08-29-2019, 04:36 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
The trouble is when the incumbent is unofficially campaigning at every public meet-up. Money doesn't have to be raised when you get to see the public on the public's dime.
Why do you think it's desirable for politicians to spend time meeting the public?

And I really don't think public events are for soliciting votes. People who take the time to go to a town hall or political rally already know whom they are voting for.

Quote:
Added: And I am rejecting the idea that we necessarily have to have the same rules for every level of office.
What's unique about the office of the President that justifies a different rule?

Last edited by scr4; 08-29-2019 at 04:38 PM.
  #22  
Old 08-29-2019, 04:40 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
What's unique about the office of the President that justifies a different rule?
There are already a crapload of different rules for the office of the President-I am just proposing one more.
  #23  
Old 08-29-2019, 04:49 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 23,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Instead, the first four years is spent campaigning for the purpose of being there a second four years.
I don't think this is true. Do you have a breakdown of how much time first term presidents have spent on actual campaigning? I suspect it's fairly little time.
  #24  
Old 08-29-2019, 04:57 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
There are already a crapload of different rules for the office of the President-I am just proposing one more.
And why do you think there should be different rules?
  #25  
Old 08-29-2019, 05:00 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
And why do you think there should be different rules?
There already ARE different rules. Are you actually proposing there shouldn't be? Do you have an objection to the 22nd Amendment?
  #26  
Old 08-29-2019, 05:04 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
There already ARE different rules. Are you actually proposing there shouldn't be? Do you have an objection to the 22nd Amendment?
I'm asking why there are different rules now, and why there should be more. If you can't explain and defend the different rules that exist today, you can't convince me that there should be additional different rules.

Last edited by scr4; 08-29-2019 at 05:05 PM.
  #27  
Old 08-29-2019, 05:09 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
I don't think this is true. Do you have a breakdown of how much time first term presidents have spent on actual campaigning? I suspect it's fairly little time.
It's getting to be more and more. Obama official started his re-election campaign in April 2011. Trump essentially started as soon as he got into office.

Quote:
Obama has headlined 132 re-election fundraisers for his campaign and the Democratic Party since early last year, according to tracking by ABC News and U.S. Naval Academy political scientist Brendan Doherty.

President George W. Bush attended 86 fundraisers for his re-election campaign, the Republican Party or both groups during his first term. Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush appeared at a total of 70 and 24, respectively.
  #28  
Old 08-29-2019, 05:16 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,700
The usual argument against a 6-year long single-term presidency is: "It's too short for a good president and too long for a bad one."

You see some of this syndrome in South Korea, in which presidents do single-term for 5 years. Such presidents are often lame ducks almost as soon as they arrive in office.
  #29  
Old 08-29-2019, 05:17 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I think that this country would be better served if the President spent more time doing the job she/he was elected to do and less time using taxpayer time and money trying to get reelected. A single six, seven or even eight year term should be enough in my opinion.
Pros?
Cons?
Other ideas to accomplish this goal?
Six years sounds about right if this is the way to go.

As for other ways, the president* has to spend only campaign money when campaigning, right? So, limit campaign spending. I see from the last election that 2.4 billion was spent by both campaigns, so approximately 1.2 billion for Clinton and Trump each. Pass a law saying a presidential candidate may spend, oh, 1/4 of that, or some suitable number. Presumably, they will start campaigning later, because you don't want to spend all that money before October rolls around. This has the added benefit reducing the importance of money in campaigns...


*And other elected officials.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 08-29-2019 at 05:20 PM.
  #30  
Old 08-29-2019, 05:21 PM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,487
I think a better solution would be, once you get elected, you can no longer solicit or campaign for yourself. You would need to hire an outside party to do that for you.
  #31  
Old 08-29-2019, 05:22 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
... I see from the last election that 2.4 billion was spent by both campaigns, so approximately 1.2 billion for Clinton and Trump each. ...
I don't think that's quite right:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16
  #32  
Old 08-29-2019, 05:22 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Six years sounds about right if this is the way to go.

As for other ways, the president* has to spend only campaign money when campaigning, right? So, limit campaign spending. I see from the last election that 2.4 billion was spent by both campaigns, so approximately 1.2 billion for Clinton and Trump each. Pass a law saying a presidential candidate may spend, oh, 1/4 of that, or some suitable number. Presumably, they will start campaigning later, because you don't want to spend all that money before October rolls around. This has the added benefit reducing the importance of money in campaigns...


*And other elected officials.
See post #19. How do propose limiting public appearances?
  #33  
Old 08-29-2019, 05:24 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Four years would be long enough to be a good President...if the time was actually spent being the President. Instead, the first four years is spent campaigning for the purpose of being there a second four years.
I once read that Polk campaigned on 4 things, and pledged that if he got them all accomplished in four years he wouldn't run again. He did, and so he didn't.
  #34  
Old 08-29-2019, 05:31 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
See post #19. How do propose limiting public appearances?
Good question, and that went through my head, almost sub-consciously, as I typed my response, and I did not address it. Yes, that would be a problem. Let's see. You reduce funds, which prevents the president from travelling all over the country starting in, say, September. Public appearances still happen, but they would be reduced country-wide. The president could speak in DC, but that isn't the same, in Trump's case, in say Kentucky or whatever state he is most popular. He would still save campaign money for summer and early fall months.
  #35  
Old 08-29-2019, 08:16 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,752
Excuse me if I missed it, but the political reality is that any politician who is not running for re-election, with a presumed good chance of winning, is immediately stripped of most power and influence. It's been pointed out often that presidents since the 22nd Amendment get very little done in their second terms.

You're either a player or you're not. A term-bound politician is not.
  #36  
Old 08-29-2019, 08:54 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 23,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
It's getting to be more and more. Obama official started his re-election campaign in April 2011. Trump essentially started as soon as he got into office.
Yes, the campaign goes on for a long time, and the leader of the party is expected to campaign for congresscritters because they can't advance their legislative agenda without support in congress. And 132 campaign fundraisers is a lot, but again, was he unable to perform his presidential duties as a result?

If presidents aren't doing presidential things 24/7 then taking time out for campaigning isn't really a problem. What would the president be doing otherwise?
  #37  
Old 08-29-2019, 09:29 PM
nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 5,834
allegedly Washington Jefferson and their ilk originally planned on pretty much having a president for 20 years or life (which since they tacked the age requirement at the mid-30s-40s was the same thing)

But some balked at having an "elected king" and they dickered around until they compromised ... Washington then said a pres shouldn't need more than 2 terms but until FDR they didn't put it in writing

Last edited by nightshadea; 08-29-2019 at 09:29 PM.
  #38  
Old 08-29-2019, 10:44 PM
icon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Yes, the campaign goes on for a long time, and the leader of the party is expected to campaign for congresscritters because they can't advance their legislative agenda without support in congress. And 132 campaign fundraisers is a lot, but again, was he unable to perform his presidential duties as a result?
But shouldn't doing their duties be enough of a campaign? That is, if they are actually accomplishing something that the voters want it becomes more likely those same voters will vote to re-elect them. I think the campaigning season, or whatever, is way too long and should be shortened so that things get done and then you have a few months to tell everyone what you did and what you will do, instead of getting elected by promising to do things, and then immediately start promising things that you will do if you get re-elected.

//i\\
  #39  
Old 08-30-2019, 07:16 PM
zamboniracer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Above the Uecker seats.
Posts: 4,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I once read that Polk campaigned on 4 things, and pledged that if he got them all accomplished in four years he wouldn't run again. He did, and so he didn't.
Then he died shortly after leaving office too boot.
  #40  
Old 08-30-2019, 09:21 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 23,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by icon View Post
But shouldn't doing their duties be enough of a campaign?
It appears that it isn't.
  #41  
Old 08-30-2019, 10:24 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by icon View Post
But shouldn't doing their duties be enough of a campaign?
I'm sorry, but this reads like something from a new visitor to Earth. What is the incumbent supposed to do while the challenger is spending every moment expostulating about what the incumbent didn't get done or did but shouldn't have or the embarrassing account in the newspaper re: the campaign manager and the trip to Bermuda? Even assuming that these statements have any semblance to the truth, nobody in modern politics can simply point to a record and keep quiet. Constituents will demand to hear the answers to these accusations.

And constituents like having their representatives come home and talk to them on a regular basis, even if the rep is running unopposed. New issues arise constantly that the incumbent should be talking about, ones that haven't been acted upon in the past. A record doesn't describe the future. The election is for the incumbent's next term, not merely a grade for the last one. Without campaigning, the future is left unsaid. That's antithetical to all intelligent voting.
  #42  
Old 08-31-2019, 05:39 PM
aruvqan is offline
Embracing the Suck
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 16,909
Why not limit the amount of money they can spend TOTAL ... limit the amount of time to 6 months prior to the primary in SEPTEMBER for the NOVEMBER election. All birth certificates and 7 years tax returns required and all business involvement of the pres, first lady, their children put immediately into blind trust for the entire term, and NO children allowed to work for the government in any capacity unless the job predates the run at presidency.
__________________
"Rammstein might not be the most sophisticated band there is, but who doesn't like the smell of napalm in the evening air"
  #43  
Old 08-31-2019, 05:59 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think a lot of the problems in modern politics derive from campaigning. The need to campaign means candidates need money. And the need for money leaves politicians dependent on special interests.

More campaigning would just mean more dependence on special interests.
And limiting the president to one term would result in more campaigning per election, not less, since I'm pretty sure that non-incumbent candidates have to spend more time and money campaigning that incumbents, especially for the part that involves winning the nomination of their own party.

The longer the president's term, the fewer elections. But increasing the president's term of office has its own dangers, as the very first response pointed out.
  #44  
Old 08-31-2019, 07:13 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by aruvqan View Post
Why not limit the amount of money they can spend TOTAL ... limit the amount of time to 6 months prior to the primary in SEPTEMBER for the NOVEMBER election. All birth certificates and 7 years tax returns required and all business involvement of the pres, first lady, their children put immediately into blind trust for the entire term, and NO children allowed to work for the government in any capacity unless the job predates the run at presidency.
All good ideas. There will be some appetite for giving them serious examination, post-Trump---though of course most people elected President will be on the side of fewer requirements, human nature being what it is.

But add these to public funding of elections---which does not solve all problems but would solve an impressive number---and you really have something. (The media will argue strenuously against public funding, of course, since they materially benefit from unlimited campaign spending.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Excuse me if I missed it, but the political reality is that any politician who is not running for re-election, with a presumed good chance of winning, is immediately stripped of most power and influence. It's been pointed out often that presidents since the 22nd Amendment get very little done in their second terms.
You're either a player or you're not. A term-bound politician is not.
Quite true. But I'm surprised no one has picked up on Acsenray's mention of the "non-consecutive terms only" Virginia system:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Virginia bans a sitting governor from running for re-election, but allows that person to run again after at least one term has passed.
...
If adopted, this would mean that a first-term President would not be a lame duck, since he or she could return to the office in four years---but the intervening four years would make full-time campaigning less urgent during that first term. And it would keep any one President from amassing an unhealthy amount of power.

It would retain the 'answerable to the voters' aspect of being able to serve two terms, while removing some of the obsessiveness with making sure of eight years in-a-row.
  #45  
Old 08-31-2019, 08:56 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,752
A non-consecutive set of terms would require a world with a totally different mindset than today's political environment.

The President is the most important person in the world. The ex-President is supposed to disappear and not even to comment on the new President's conduct.

You want to transform that into the ex-President being a constant presence and a critic of every single thing the President does every day?

That sounds great for cable news, but if you hate the current climate of discord you'll hate this a thousand times more because it'll be a thousand times louder and meaner.
  #46  
Old 09-01-2019, 03:35 PM
Taesahnim's Avatar
Taesahnim is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Over there. No, further.
Posts: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I think that this country would be better served if the President spent more time doing the job she/he was elected to do and less time using taxpayer time and money trying to get reelected. A single six, seven or even eight year term should be enough in my opinion.
Pros?
Cons?
Other ideas to accomplish this goal?
We need term limits on Congress. We already have term limits on the Prez. And I agree that there is somewhat of an attraction to changing the Prez to a single 5 or 6 year term, but I doubt it will happen.
  #47  
Old 09-01-2019, 04:20 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taesahnim View Post
We need term limits on Congress. We already have term limits on the Prez.
You think lobbyists should have even more power? Because that's what will happen if everyone in Congress is inexperienced.
  #48  
Old 09-02-2019, 01:09 PM
Brayne Ded is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 468

How long?


Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
The classic rejoinder to longer single-term proposals: "Four years isn't long enough for a good President, six years is too long for a bad one."
A number of countries have a five year limit. Still too long if the incumbent is a real turkey, but the USA seems to work on an eioht year stretch with about six months dead time in the middle for the campaigning. Or, t put it another way: one year to get settled into the job, two years to actually do something, and one year mainly spent campaigning
  #49  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:47 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by aruvqan View Post
Why not limit the amount of money they can spend TOTAL ... limit the amount of time to 6 months prior to the primary in SEPTEMBER for the NOVEMBER election ̶ ̶A̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶i̶r̶t̶h̶ ̶c̶e̶r̶t̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶7̶ ̶y̶e̶a̶r̶s̶ ̶t̶a̶x̶ ̶r̶e̶t̶u̶r̶n̶s̶ ̶r̶e̶q̶u̶i̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶b̶u̶s̶i̶n̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶v̶o̶l̶v̶e̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶s̶,̶ ̶f̶i̶r̶s̶t̶ ̶l̶a̶d̶y̶,̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶i̶r̶ ̶c̶h̶i̶l̶d̶r̶e̶n̶ ̶p̶u̶t̶ ̶i̶m̶m̶e̶d̶i̶a̶t̶e̶l̶y̶ ̶i̶n̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶l̶i̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶r̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶n̶t̶i̶r̶e̶ ̶t̶e̶r̶m̶,̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶N̶O̶ ̶c̶h̶i̶l̶d̶r̶e̶n̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶o̶w̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶g̶o̶v̶e̶r̶n̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶c̶a̶p̶a̶c̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶u̶n̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶j̶o̶b̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶d̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶r̶u̶n̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶s̶i̶d̶e̶n̶c̶y̶.̶
I like the general idea. I don't like the other things, primarily because of the precedent it would set, that any time a president comes along that does something you don't like, or do like for that matter, that it becomes a requirement. For example, I understand the desire of people to see Trump's tax returns. And I get the idea that if tax returns are required to be shown, and you don't want to do it, then don't run. But I don't see this as a necessity, because some things should be left private, and presumably, if some shenaningans are going on that might be revealed in tax returns, that the other ways these things are investigated should continue to be used.
  #50  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:18 PM
scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
For example, I understand the desire of people to see Trump's tax returns. And I get the idea that if tax returns are required to be shown, and you don't want to do it, then don't run. But I don't see this as a necessity, because some things should be left private, and presumably, if some shenaningans are going on that might be revealed in tax returns, that the other ways these things are investigated should continue to be used.
Releasing tax returns isn't about showing possible shenanigans. It's about showing possible conflicts of interest. The Public Financial Disclosure Report is intended to do that, but there are a lot of things missing, e.g. how changes in tax code would affect his own taxes.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017