The 2008 is still two years away and the presidential election is already in gear. This means that the next president will be running for re-election from the first day he (or she) is in office.
My suggestion: Limit the president to a single six year term. This way he (or she) would be able to advocate policies without having to worry about their impact on his (or her) political standing and viability.
2006-12-19 22:57:15 · 8 answers · asked by Timothy B 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
My view has always been this. One could hold the office as many times as they wanted, but never back to back.That way, they would focus on doing a great job during their term, then after that term is over, they would have four years to campaign for their next one, but they wouldn't stand a chance if they did not do a great job on their previous term. I think this system would be better then the one you mention, only because then they would have to do the best possible job they can if they are going to get re-elected the next time they are eligible to run.
Long Live Jambi
2006-12-19 23:05:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It took a Constitutional amendment to limit the President to two four-year terms. It should not have been done in the first place. People should have the right to choose who they want for President and for how long.
Members of the US House have to run every two years. So they are essentially campaigning for their entire careers.
Our current President does not worry about his political standing and viability. President Clinton obviously did. Those characteristics depend on the man not on the system.
2006-12-20 07:05:04 · answer #2 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Might be a good idea. Now, the president is focused on re-election, and only feels free to advocate his hor her program fully after re-election. But by then people are wondering how soon before the re-elected president is a "lame duck."
Then again, maybe we should get rid of the two-term limit altogether. It wasn't there to start with. If people want to re-elect someone, they should be able to.
2006-12-20 07:03:17 · answer #3 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The problem with that is that we would be stuck with a bad president for a full six years. Under the current system we can get rid of a bad president in four. Of course we don't always do that.
2006-12-20 07:04:30 · answer #4 · answered by Northstar 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No way. It's like that in the Philippines and when you get stuck with a bad president, then you are in trouble. Vice versa when you have a good president (improved the economy) and you can't even extend the term.
2006-12-20 07:05:56 · answer #5 · answered by romvsinparadise 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The French use seven years. Works for them.
2006-12-20 07:19:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely excellent answer regerugged.
2006-12-20 07:06:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes.
2006-12-20 07:03:54 · answer #8 · answered by Zee 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋