Do you think we should have one six year term instead of two four year terms four our president's?

Question

it seems with the the current setup, during the first term the president often worries about campaigning and getting re-elected. would the six year term which is what our senators serve be more effective.

Answer 1

Yes and a one term for Congress too .

Answer 2

It seems that having term limits is in itself a flawed idea. People should be able to vote for and be represented by the best person for the job. 2 four year terms, or 1 six year term eventually creates a leader who is detached from his electorate. If a person can't be reelected, then what is the motivation to appease the governed. I believe these situations create leaders who simply impose there own agendas instead of truly representing the masses.

If the president is truly the best person for the job and everyone in the country wants to reelect this person and have him continue to guide the nation then why on earth should there be a law against it. That seems to restrict the idea of true democracy. I believe there should be no term limits. People should simply be more aware and more active in government.

Answer 3

A second 4 year term is not automatic. Shouldn't your question then be about extending the term to 6 years from 4 and limited each elected candidate to 1 term?

Answer 4

I think the two-term four-year system we currently use is better. With a six year term and no voter accountability because there IS no reelection, the president would be able to do almost whatever he wanted.

Answer 5

I once taught social studies and from my learning perspective, I feel that there should only be one term of four years afforded to any leader in today's world. We seemed to have learned from the FDR years that one man cannot be all things to all people - even after his illness, the people devoted themselves to the charisma of one man rather than the policies he was espousing for our country. Things today are too fast and too quickly changing to lock into a dynastic rulership that extends to six or eight years - if there had been no second term, would we still be in Iraq today? Afghanistan? potentially in North Korea? hard to say but if a change in leadership came every four years, would we be in different straits than we are now?

Answer 6

Nope, it would leave them in office for too long. The president's role is very specifically defined. He is to be the head of the DEPARTMENT that enforces the law. This is constitutional. In practice, Americans and Presidents alike have allowed the position to take on a much more inflated role than it should have.

What needs to happen is a return to the original definitions of each office of government.

Answer 7

NO! 6 years is too much to test a new president... if we made a big mistake.. at least we can get him out in 4 now!

and... they NEED to be worried about re-election.. that is what makes them keep SOME of their promises... if they get a second term.. then they can do some of the things that they BELIEVE need to be done.

the present system provides a decent balance.

Answer 8

It seems like the last election decided it was a 8 year term for us.

Answer 9

Good, bad, or indifferent...a President is only going to be around for eight years...not so Congress. I'd be all over your recommendation if it was applied to Congress. They stay in forever and that is the source of most political corruption. I say term limits for Congress...not the President.

Answer 10

It would be much better and much more practical but it will probably never happen. Ok, it will happen about the same time we get rid of that antiquated fossil called the electoral college and go to direct elections like the rest of the world.