Can somebody from the same party as the incumbent run against the incumbent to get the party nomination for president in the next election? That would seem to be a good check to go along with extra terms in office.
In the parlimentary system, the prime minister can have as many terms as they want, but since the prime minister is really just the leader of the party in power, not only is leadership determined by the general population’s vote, but the party itself can also change the leadership if they are not happy with the prime minister.
That’s a big “if.” I was just responding to the topic of term limits, but, you’re right, there are a lot of parts of our electoral system that could be fixed, and changing so that the best way to run for reelection is to be a good president, that would be ideal.
I think the Amendment was created to take power away from the executive branch. FDR was way too powerful as far as congress was concerned. Checks and Balances at work here folks. The president can persuade public opinion much better than congress. Bush or FDR could becoming so powerful that even a congress with a opposing party majority would not be able to stop him.
I think it is the same ideology at work here for the term limits of the presidency.
I know people love to believe Democracy works, but the people are not always right. The founding fathers even put checks and balances (not the most ideal system though) between the educated and not educated people. Electoral college is one of these measures. Back then education was associated with the rich property owners, so that is why only white men who owned property could vote at first.
Right now the one of the things that stands in the way of people making uninformed decisions is the sacred 22nd amendment.
Imagine all the network channels turn into Fox News, then the only thing that will really stop Bush is the 22nd amendment.
The only part of the US election system that I’d like to see in the UK is the term limit idea. I would like to see it introduced for MPs here as well, to give more opportunity to new blood, instead of the same old codgers time after time.
Dear Tony has said that he’ll step down after his third term - but I’d much rather that he didn’t get one at all. Unfortunately I think the Labour Party will be elected again for sure, despite the massive opposition to the Iraq war, simply because the Tories are such lame ducks and the Lib/Dems just aren’t big enough yet.
I think the amendment should be repealed. I think if a president is doing a good job and the elcetorate likes him, that they should have the right to keep electing him or her as many times as they want. I also think that the presidency, like any other job, is a job that needs to be grown into and that experience can only be a good thing.
Traditionally it is, yes. Many people feel this tradition belittles women. You will notice that some, including myself, will politely use plural pronouns to refer to known individuals. You, of course, are free to speak however you wish. In this case I didn’t feel the need to use plural pronouns because I worded the sentence in a way that avoided marginalizing women by referencing their traditional marginalization.
I would prefer a better system even if it weren’t perfect… because it would be a better system. If Ed McMahon showed up at your door with a check for $200K would you refuse it because you wanted to win the big $10M prize? Of course not.
Yes it would be a big “if”. So is repealing the presidential term limit.
This is the first time I’ve heard this interpretation. What makes you think so?
And this is yet another case of “different problem, same answer”. If the problem is that the president has too much power, then remove some of the power and there is no need to deny the will of the people.
But this is true whether we have a term limit or not. Yes, a bad, but popular, president could be forced out by a term limit… only to be replaced by someone even worse.
While it is true that the vast majority of property owners of the day were white the racialization of citizenship was not yet complete in the 1780s. Blacks and Indians who met the property and other ( residency, religous ) qualifications could vote. In some places, at least. And, since I am being oh so sensitive to the ladies, lets not forget that New Jersey women who met the other qualifications had been accidentally enfranchised by the state constitution of 1776. This mistake was corrected when the state moved to white manhood suffrage in 1807.
I say this to point out that the common assumption that things weren’t so great here in some ways at first but slowly got better is a misconception. The myth of steady progress in American rights is just that. Sometimes we took a step back. It’s happened before and it can happen again, particularly if we aren’t watching out for it.
Why do you think the Electoral College was a “check and balance” between educated and uneducated people? That’s a new one on me.
As I have pointed out, this is not so. It merely prevents them from making the same uninformed ( or informed ) decision more than twice. Then we are free to move on to other uninformed decisions.
And what is so sacred about the 22nd?
Many of us feel the mainstream media is becoming disturbingly Foxlike. But that won’t prevent people from using alternative sources of information. Like this one.
Britain has her own electoral problems that could be fixed but ignoring that, if the old codgers have earned the ( relative ) confidence of their constituents, then why would you want to change the system to oust them? Do you believe your preference for new blood is more important than their ( relative ) trust in the representatives they have now?
So, in order to prevent excessive consolidation of power in the Executive Branch, we need to reduce the power of that branch. This is reasonable unless that reduction makes the EB too weak to properly do the job, or too weak to check the power of the other branches.
A term limit allows the EB to be strong in day to day terms and still prevents them from getting so strong as to endanger our liberty.
The interpretation is a popular one among my college professors, textbooks and historians. Plus I think it has more merit than anything else I herd.
If a president becomes too powerful, congress won’t be able to check his power. To keep his power in line, something must be done before he gains momentum.
But at least congress will have the power to keep the new bad president in line.
Electors (I think that is what they are called) still have the power to change their vote when they cast their ballot at the end of December. So if enough republican electors had a change of heart and believed the people made a mistake when they voted for Bush 43, they could have voted for Kerry in December. Doing so, they would have checked the masses of uninformed people, since electors are supposed to be informed.
You are going take a big gamble if you remove the 22nd amendment. We either get lucky and a good president comes alone and becomes all powerful or the people can fall in love with some sap and elect him 10 times in a row. Big risk, and judging by the last election, it is a risk I am not willing to make.
It is not sacred, just really valuable.
Mainstream means that the majority of people watch it. Until Straight dope becomes America’s number one news source I am going to stick with the 22nd amendment.
That is not my point. “The president has too much power” was a quick summary of what I thought you thought was the problem the term limit was fixing. My point is that we should be addressing the problem, whatever that may be, directly. As opposed to denying the people our choice in who will lead. From this point of view the latter course of action only makes sense if the problem is that the people get to decide who is going to lead.
We shouldn’t conflate the entire executive branch with the presidency. The president doesn’t directly control every executive function. We could strengthen the executive branch while decreasing presidential influence at the same time. And lets not lose sight of the fact that many people now feel that Mr Bush is endangering our liberty. And we might change this President Bush for his brother. How does going from one Bush to another, or one Clinton to another, keep us free? Not that I am doubting that the term limit weakens individual presidents, mind. 2nd term presidents have the “lame duck” factor. Everyone knows that they are going to be out of office after the next election. But that doesn’t mean the policies they favor will go with them.
Well, I would prefer something more specific. Preferably a source I could check myself. But I believe you that it is a popular theory. It makes less sense to me than what I have believed though. Limiting terms was originally refered to as “rotation in office”. The limits were of the nature of Reeder’s suggestion here. A man ( yes, men only ) could only serve for a specified number of terms and then had to be out of office for a while before becoming eligible again. The word “rotation” implies the circular nature of officeholding. Offices were handed around amongst a circle of the powerful men of the state.
This has been my understanding of the motivation behind the 22nd. FDR’s fellow politicians were disenchanted not because he was making the White House too powerful but rather that he was hogging the most prestigious office. I’m sure there was some of both motivations. And others besides.
This gets back to the idea that the problem might be that we the people get to pick the president. If a president is powerful because of their popularity ( Reagan comes to mind ) then I don’t see that as a problem. People may want them to be powerful enough to dictate to the Congress.
Yes, “electors” is the proper term. But your argument that they were intended by the Framers as a check upon the popular will is anachronistic. The written constitution does not dictate that electors be popularly elected, that is a tradition that has grown up over time. Electors are chosen in the manner determined by law in each state. Back then, the state governments themselves served as such a check.
Life is risk. But no one has shown that removing the term limit will lead to all-powerful and permanent presidents, good or bad.
We can hope but it doesn’t seem likely to happen. Still, it’s less important what is the number one source of news ( and no- Fox News ain’t even close to network news. It doesn’t even get as many viewers as CNN. ) but that other sources remain available. So long as we can still talk to each other, by whatever means, they will. You, of course, are free to go on believing whatever you wish about the 22nd. I’m wondering if you have any compelling reason for others, including me, to change our minds.
Throughout history you will find many ulterior motives for political action. The ideal argument is what is important here. Do you think that more than two thirds of both houses of congress and then the 41 states that ratified the amendment did so because of the circle of rotation theory?
Like you said, probably there were lots of motivations, but it is better to argue the amendment on its merits alone not the reasons behind it. We could debate both for the sake of understanding more history, but that would be a little off topic.
The fact that the people would want a president powerful enough to dictate congress would be a problem. Its solution is term limits. I have said before that the public can be wrong. Term limits are a check on the people, they should remain in place incase the people make a mistake.
It is happening in Russia right now. The current president is simply jailing his competition and just recently took over the media in Russia. Russia might of got lucky that the first few democratic presidents did not do this, but their luck ran out. Term limits would have been a big help for them.
Does this mean that the electors still can not check the people’s power? Does this mean that the founding fathers did not create the electoral college in order to have checks and balances between educated and uneducated citizens?
The reason most of the original checks and balances between educated and uneducated citizens don’t exist today is because originally the rich was seen as being educated and the poor was seen as uneducated. It was a system of checks and balances between the rich and poor and is no longer in place because of that reason. I mentioned this system to give an example in our political tradition of how the power of uneducated people was meant to be checked.
You could still argue that the founding fathers were wrong, but they definitely did not trust uneducated people.
Think about what would happen if the terms were taken away now. Would you really be comfortable based on the results of the last election? If you think democracy alone will protect you, then I believe you are mistaken. People can and will be tricked into voting for a popular president without really looking at his merits. It happened so much in our country that I am really surprised that you think it won’t happen again.
If you do believe it will happen again, can you see the consequences? All it takes is one bad president to become power enough to end democracy. We can get lucky and have five good presidents (highly unlikely) for 100 years, but all it takes is one bad popular president and democracy is finished.
Right now, the odds are that we will have a bad president. The media is not in good shape right now. The majority of the people in our country are not well informed. Yes they can go out and get informed, but that just might not happen and we have no way of knowing if it will or won’t. With the current state of the public, I think it would be suicide to remove the term limits.
On that note, I would be in favor of some form of legislation that will keep the power of uneducated citizens in check in a way that will guarantee a substantial president every time. If you can come up with one I will no doubt denounce the 22nd amendment. If you can not, then you have to make the case of how, in light of everything I mentioned, we would be better off without the 22nd amendment.