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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t think that’s quite right:
See post #19. How do propose limiting public appearances?
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. 
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.
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.
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?
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
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\
Then he died shortly after leaving office too boot.
It appears that it isn’t.