# Single-Term Presidency for the purpose of ending constant campaigning **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 29, 2019, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-term-presidency-for-the-purpose-of-ending-constant-campaigning/839419 "2019-08-29T15:32:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2019, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-term-presidency-for-the-purpose-of-ending-constant-campaigning/839419/41 "2019-08-31T02:24:11Z")
> [@icon](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2019, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-term-presidency-for-the-purpose-of-ending-constant-campaigning/839419/42 "2019-08-31T21:39:32Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2019, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-term-presidency-for-the-purpose-of-ending-constant-campaigning/839419/43 "2019-08-31T21:59:01Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2019, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-term-presidency-for-the-purpose-of-ending-constant-campaigning/839419/44 "2019-08-31T23:13:37Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > 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.) > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > 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: > [@Acsenray](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2019, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-term-presidency-for-the-purpose-of-ending-constant-campaigning/839419/45 "2019-09-01T00:56:31Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Taesahnim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/taesahnim/32/84_2.png) [@Taesahnim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taesahnim)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2019, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-term-presidency-for-the-purpose-of-ending-constant-campaigning/839419/46 "2019-09-01T19:35:17Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2019, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-term-presidency-for-the-purpose-of-ending-constant-campaigning/839419/47 "2019-09-01T20:20:38Z")
> [@Taesahnim](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Brayne\_Ded](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Brayne\_Ded](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brayne_Ded)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2019, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-term-presidency-for-the-purpose-of-ending-constant-campaigning/839419/48 "2019-09-02T17:09:41Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2019, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-term-presidency-for-the-purpose-of-ending-constant-campaigning/839419/49 "2019-09-04T16:47:34Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2019, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-term-presidency-for-the-purpose-of-ending-constant-campaigning/839419/50 "2019-09-05T17:18:18Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-term-presidency-for-the-purpose-of-ending-constant-campaigning/839419/51 "2019-09-06T01:30:24Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > 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? Messrs Boehner and McConnell did their part to ensure that, even if he hadn’t attended any fundraisers at all… ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2019, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-term-presidency-for-the-purpose-of-ending-constant-campaigning/839419/52 "2019-09-06T02:36:30Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > > [@aruvqan](#): > > > > 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. A) ARE there other ways? B) I’d REALLY like to see how you coded the parts of **aruvqan** ’s post that have strikeover applied… C) Are you familiar with the reasons that tax return disclosure became an expected thing? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/single-term-presidency-for-the-purpose-of-ending-constant-campaigning/839419.md?page=2)