Not particularly this president in specific. But would a longer presidential term enable them to accomplish more without having to think about re-election after only two years in office? It seems as though presidents and other officials stray away from their actual agendas in order to appeal to a wider audience when elections come around and more or less scrap the last half of their term. But would the longer term be the answer or possibly abolishing the term limit?
2007-02-15 11:16:05 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I'll be extra clear here since people are being too close minded to answer effectively. I am not asking our current president, George W. Bush, and do not care of any opinion for or against the president. I am asking a general question about the length of the presidential term.
2007-02-15 11:33:08 · update #1
One six year term would probably be better. No re-election worries and administrations seem to lose steam after about six years too.
2007-02-15 11:33:45 · answer #1 · answered by bradcymru 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think so. If the policies of the president were in the best interest of the people he wouldn't be too worried about re-election because the voters would favour his policies.
Longer terms could result in longer spells of BAD policies however. It is a lot harder to get a president out once he is elected.
You also want to avoid a leader that begins to act like a dictator, forcing their ideas on everyone even when a large group disagree.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely
2007-02-15 11:21:56 · answer #2 · answered by David M 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Perhaps You should realize that the President is elected for 4 years not two. It is the congressmen that are elected for 2 year terms. What is necessary is term limits to be put on he congress like on the president. Too many members of congress, both in the house and senate keep getting reelected and block innovation in government. They keep paying off local organizations and ripping off the taxpayers while stuffing their pockets with payoffs from large corporations for much too long.
2007-02-15 14:16:19 · answer #3 · answered by mr conservative 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
well, the idea was that they would have to remain accountable to the voters every four years. It's not always a great idea to give the president the right to go running around willy nilly doing whatever he wants without having to be held responsible for it pretty regularly.
2007-02-15 11:19:57 · answer #4 · answered by Jessica 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
After this president Thank GOD for limited-terms and with the way our country the second there was not time limit we'd get a Prez worse than the one we have know.
2007-02-15 11:19:06 · answer #5 · answered by ~Chica~ 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They shouldn't. I actually think they should be limited to one four-year term.
2007-02-15 11:25:33 · answer #6 · answered by Big Bear 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey, it's prevented us from having someone totally entrench themselves in power that we can't get rid of them. Let's not mess with a good thing.
2007-02-15 11:20:00 · answer #7 · answered by Monc 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, not at all, there is a reason for term limits on the president, it is because they will never be able to become a dictator.
2007-02-15 11:24:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Maybe others, but not the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
2007-02-15 11:18:15 · answer #9 · answered by mrjomorisin 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
One 6 year term would be ok by me.
2007-02-15 11:19:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋