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?

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps, but he has still held / attended rallies in support of various Republican candidates.

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.

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.

It would require a constitutional amendment, which would be dead on arrival. Not going to happen.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

ISTM that the underlying purpose of the campaigning is not vote mustering, but instead fund raising. Maybe time to rethink Citizens United?

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.

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.

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.