# Limiting presidency to one term **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 3, 2004, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819 "2004-11-03T19:23:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/1 "2004-11-03T19:23:29Z")
The recent election (I’m sure you noticed it, it was in a couple of papers) made me think about the two-term limitation in the 22nd amendment. I understand the point of limiting the number of terms you can serve, but why keep it at two? Lowering the limit to one would mean: \*The sitting President wouldn’t have to spend so much time campaigning, since he can’t be re-elected anyway. \*More focus on the party instead of on the person. No “person cult”, so to speak. \*No “incumbent advantage” in the elections and no fear of “disrespecting the President” during the campaigning. \*The risk of a dynasty arising would be even smaller. Admittedly, this is as close to a nonissue as you get. \*Faster changes in politics. The only negative effect I can see is that it would be more difficult for the President to follow through with his plans, but as it is today, he could be gone in four years anyway, and if this is a real problem, the term can be increased to five years. Any opinions on this? Oh, by the way, anyone who says anything negative about Bush, Kerry, Ohio (any state, in fact), the election, provisional ballots, concessions, lack of concessions or carrot stew will be summarily castrated. No, not really. But try to keep it nonpartisan, mmm’kay? ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/2 "2004-11-03T21:17:05Z")
As with many proposed changes to the constitution it all depends on whose ox is being gored. How would you look at the same proposal if someone had made it after the election in '96? In a more or less democratic society you should expect that things won’t always go your way. Remeber, our form of government is the worst possible kind… except for all the others. ---
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/3 "2004-11-03T21:58:44Z")
Long ago, a gentleman I respect (Hi Dad!!) suggested to me that one 6-year term for POTUS would be an interesting idea. I’ve come to the conclusion that I like it. One term would mean the president could concentrate on the business at hand, and not worry about keeping, or building, an image for the next election. No fear of tackling hard issued because it mighy effect his/her chance in the next election. Eliminate the temptation to use today’s business to make yourself look good. Heck I’d be willing to through in an added restiction stating that the sitting VP can’t run for President in the following election. There would have to be at least 1 intervening election. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/4 "2004-11-03T23:38:21Z")
The big issue is the “lame duck” problem. If you look at the 2nd terms of President’s since 1953 (that’s when the 2-term limit was enacted) you’ll see that Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton all had substantially less successful presidencies in their second terms. (although to be fair, most of Eisenhower’s problems were health-related) If a President isn’t going to run again, so the thinking goes, he’ll be less accountable to moderating his actions to satisfy a broad majority, particularly after the mid-term Congressional elections. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/5 "2004-11-03T23:43:47Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > \*More focus on the party instead of on the person. No “person cult”, so to speak. I, personally, would consider this a bad thing. ---
**Author:** ![CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crankyasanoldman/32/11670_2.png) [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/6 "2004-11-04T02:18:56Z")
> [@Tastes of Chocolate](#): > > Long ago, a gentleman I respect (Hi Dad!!) suggested to me that one 6-year term for POTUS would be an interesting idea. I’ve come to the conclusion that I like it. Yes, I agree. ---
**Author:** ![CaveMike](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cavemike/32/16379_2.png) [@CaveMike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaveMike)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/7 "2004-11-04T03:09:05Z")
> [@Tastes of Chocolate](#): > > Long ago, a gentleman I respect (Hi Dad!!) suggested to me that one 6-year term for POTUS would be an interesting idea. I’ve come to the conclusion that I like it. I really like this idea too. I did a little internet searching on this topic a while back and apparently it comes up for consideration periodically. I like the idea that once the president is in office, he can stay focused on the job and not the distractions of campaigning, fundraising, and the associated compromises. I suspect that a two-term president might “lose” two years of time to these distractions. It also seems like six years is enough time to learn the job and make some accomplishments. There was an episode of _The American President_ where Jimmy Carter stated (IIRC) that he had discussed the idea with the all of the other presidents - and they all agreed with a single six-year term. I have searched, but I can’t find a transcript to verify my memory. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/8 "2004-11-04T09:26:52Z")
> [@Padeye](#): > > How would you look at the same proposal if someone had made it after the election in '96? In a more or less democratic society you should expect that things won’t always go your way. You’ve misunderstood me completely. I’m not making this proposal because I’m angry that Bush won. If Bush hadn’t been allowed to run for a second term, some other Republican would have been running in his place, with little discernable difference, I’d wager. In 1996 I was nineteen and knew little of Clinton and even less of American politics, so it’s hard to say what I would have thought about such a proposal then, or even if I would have thought about it at all. > [@kunilou](#): > > The big issue is the “lame duck” problem. If you look at the 2nd terms of President’s since 1953 (that’s when the 2-term limit was enacted) you’ll see that Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton all had substantially less successful presidencies in their second terms. (although to be fair, most of Eisenhower’s problems were health-related) > > If a President isn’t going to run again, so the thinking goes, he’ll be less accountable to moderating his actions to satisfy a broad majority, particularly after the mid-term Congressional elections. His party will want re-election even if he himself cannot serve, and hopefully he ran for President because he thought his party’s policies were the best for America, not to get to live in a shiny white house. I would like to see the person fixation reduced. ---
**Author:** ![Roches](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bc8723/32.png) [@Roches](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roches)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/9 "2004-11-04T10:42:08Z")
Six years is a bit too long for someone that might become very unpopular. If there was a method of removing them (a sort of confidence vote without an opposing candidate), I might agree. But this is American politics, and they’d find a way of removing everyone who became even slightly unpopular (e.g. Clinton). ---
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/10 "2004-11-04T11:13:12Z")
Just as an aside, I believe that the one 6 year term idea originated in the CSA constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Humanist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/71c47a/32.png) [@Humanist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Humanist)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/11 "2004-11-04T14:15:35Z")
Here’s what I, personally, would like for my dream world. 1. Any President may be elected for as many 4-year terms as the people support him, BUT 2. No President may serve 2 consecutive terms. This allows a President to spend his time focusing on his sworn duties (no campaigning while in office), while also discouraging unpopular decisions that hurt both the party (since they’ll have to find someone else to run for the next election, no matter what) and the President (since he may wish to run again someday). It destroys the incumbent advantage while it simultaneously allows that a popular President who reflects the people’s viewpoint may be granted another chance to serve in the highest office. It might even mean that we’d someday have two people face off who know how to be President because they’ve done it before. Just another opinion to throw out there. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/12 "2004-11-04T14:20:17Z")
Wow, **Humanist** , that’s a really good idea. I definitely wouldn’t mind seeing two former Presidents against each other in a presidential race. ---
**Author:** ![eenerms](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/cdc98d/32.png) [@eenerms](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eenerms)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/13 "2004-11-04T14:54:45Z")
IIRC, there was a push to eliminate the two term limit when Clinton was leaving office. Many wanted him to remain in office as long as he was re-elected. Doesn’t France have a 7 year term for their Pres.? ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/14 "2004-11-04T17:54:20Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > The big issue is the “lame duck” problem. If you look at the 2nd terms … > If a President isn’t going to run again, so the thinking goes, he’ll be less accountable to moderating his actions to satisfy a broad majority, particularly after the mid-term Congressional elections. By that logic every presidential term will be more like the second term than the first as there will never be a motivation to be reelected. Every president will be a lame duck. It may be a cliche but our form of government is the worst possible kind… ecept for all the others. The terms of the three branches are mixed up pretty well between two year representatives, presidents, Senators and life term SC justices. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/15 "2004-11-04T18:31:21Z")
> [@Padeye](#): > > By that logic every presidential term will be more like the second term than the first as there will never be a motivation to be reelected. Every president will be a lame duck. Which was, I believe, **kunilou** ’s point. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/limiting-presidency-to-one-term/272819/16 "2004-11-04T19:26:51Z")
> [@eenerms](#): > > Doesn’t France have a 7 year term for their Pres.? It has been shortened to 5 years in 2002. Anyway, since France is a parliamentary democracy (though a peculiar one), when the opposition wins the parliamentary elections, the president loses most of his powers , and the prime minister becomes the actual head of the executive for most ends and purposes. So, there always was a kind of “confidence vote” during his term.