This debate used to be fairly common, but haven’t seen it pop up recently.
Some have said that it would be better for American Presidents to really get the job done if they knew they had only one six year term, with no possibility of re-election. This would mean they could spend more time just doing what they promised and not have to worry about re-election and having to spend a lot of time walking on eggshells their first term.
Others claim it would mean one six year term Presidents would make foolish mistakes and just go off the deep end, figuring they had nothing to lose anyway.
Would there be any other advantages in making all Presidential terms a one-time, six year term with no possibility of being re-elected?
I cannot understand how anyone with an ounce of common sense can believe that any one person can “rule” a county, let alone a country.
A Monarch cum President with absolute power, elected or not, is definitely not the most sensible way of governing a country.
I favour the majority European approach.
To have a President with no power or purpose other than to attend funerals of political figures in other countries. This ‘Head of State’ function is constitutionally required in the vast majority of European countries (France and Russia excepted, to their detriment).
I think terms should remain the same, but they should allow three, if the people want to elect for a third term. If a guy’s on a roll, he should be able to continue. But not forever.
The President of the United States doesn’t have anything near absolute power. The Federal Government shares powers between three branches of government. If you’re unfamiliar with the concept of separation of powers you might want to read through the following link.
How about this: two four-year terms, and a third term that’s only two years.
Why that? Because a President in his second term is a lame duck almost from the get-go. He gets a bit of a boost during the first year of his new term, riding the wave of having been re-elected, but it’s generally downhill from there. Having the option of running again might help with that. And having that potential third term being only two years would shorten the genuine lame-duck term.
Besides, ten years is really about as long as anyone should be President. If you haven’t accomplished what you intended to by then, you’re probably not going to.
For what it’s worth, that was what the Confederate Constitution had. Jefferson Davis’ term of office would have finished in 1867 - if things had worked out.
Has any state experimented with a gubernatorial term longer than 4 years? I know 2-year terms used to be common (only Vermont & New Hampshire have them now) and a few states had 3 terms.
I like the way the ancient Pagan kings did it. You get one term of seven years, and then you are ritually killed for the good of the tribe. I think we should all adopt this, whichever country we live in. Who is with me?
