I'm thinking of a first term with a length of 1 year (like a trial/internship), giving the people an option to get rid of a dud early on and then successive terms of 4 or 5 years, if re-elected after the first one-year term.
Would allow the nation to take risks on less reliable candidates with relative impunity.
2006-12-29 13:52:32 · 10 answers · asked by Ejsenstejn 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Presidency may not be something that we should be experimenting with. With large population voting in, the system should work in selecting a "good" candidate. Like the collective market, in theory the voting process should be perfect. As we have seen again and again, theory and reality do not match.
There would be more unintended and undesired effects by changing the terms or adding trial periods. For example, a candidate elected for a one year term may more easily make the wrong and easy choices that will come back to hurt in a very short term (a year). Knowing they may not have to deal with it gives them less reason to rethink.
While the current system has problems, it might be the best of all other choices we have. May be we should experiment such staggered terms with governors.
2006-12-29 14:04:43 · answer #1 · answered by K2 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a problem with short terms. It takes to long to get a program going and keep it working. A major problem with presidents is not the programs. They are not around long enough to see them through. We live in a society that demands satisfaction now. The fact is that some things take time. We cannot evaluate a president based upon one year. That is stupid or ignorant or both. In some cases, eight years is not long enough to see a program through. Another problem is that it takes so long to get our congress to work with the president. Yeah, a lot of laws get passed, but not a lot of work that is truly productive. There is too much fighting between the parties. In some cases, the desired end is not the benefit of the country but the benefit or detriment of a particular political party. This is clearly not the plan of the founding fathers. Take a look at FDR's presidency. We are still debating the merits of his time in office though he was there longer than any other president.
2006-12-30 03:42:46 · answer #2 · answered by Jack 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, and it should be pointed out that our 4 year term is the shortest of the major democracies (6 or 7 year terms are not unusual elsewhere).
A standard length term is simple. But more than that, a president may not be able to get done what he wants done in one year, and so a second vote would be uninformed. Also, if you thought reelection issues start early now, imagine a president doing anything other than campaigning is he had to get voter approval again in 11 months.
Also, I should point out to rdyjoe (a few comments back) that FDR didn't try to pack the Court to get himself additional terms; he did it to get more liberal justices to allow his New Deal legislation to be passed. At the time, there was no term limit, so FDR would not have needed to pack the court to run a third and fourth time (and, in fact, didn't).
2006-12-29 20:37:09 · answer #3 · answered by thenewplato 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that having a first term length of a year will give the American public enough evidence to determine whether he or she is going to do good things for the country. Look at Bush.. in 2001 no one really had any doubts of him as a leader, but look how that turned out.
2006-12-29 15:11:00 · answer #4 · answered by Lzyxoxo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'm especially useful it does not count selection in direction of the term cut back. Kennedy became killed whilst i became a toddler. Johnson comprehensive the term and became re-elected in 1964. Johnson might have run back in 1968 yet he chosen to no longer. If Johnson gained back in 1968 and served an entire term, he might have served 2 comprehensive words plus the time he stepped in for JFK. i think of I merely got here across my long lost twin.
2016-11-25 00:03:11 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look back at what happened when FDR tried to stack the Court so he could serve another term I would say No.
2006-12-29 13:54:29 · answer #6 · answered by rdyjoe 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dont think that we should have a president. So far, except for Reagan, they were pretty much morons on a power trip. I think that everyone should be their own country,
2006-12-29 16:26:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, I don't like the idea. A set number of years is the best.
2006-12-29 14:15:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2006-12-29 13:54:15 · answer #9 · answered by James M 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
LOL...
2006-12-29 13:54:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋