Do you think we should let presidents stay in as long as they can be re-elected.. but have elections every 2 years? or maybe a 10 year cap with that cycle? or keep it as it is? ... just looking for thoughts :)
2007-02-23 07:26:51 · 13 answers · asked by pip 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Perhaps France has the right idea, one of the few they have these days; their president has one six year term. We might want to consider that.
2007-02-23 07:30:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the way we have it now is probably the best way. Two-year terms are way too short. The President would begin the next campaign as soon as he/she took office. Look at how much speculation there is about who will be running in 2008 right now. If the President was elected in 2006 to a two-year term, he would have only been in office for about a month before the next campaign began. This is far too short.
One six-year term might not be a bad idea either. It removes the re-election motivation, the President won't do things just to get re-elected.
2007-02-23 16:11:53 · answer #2 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
About right. (2) 4 year terms without the chance of being president again. We really haven't had a president that's been able to make it work for longer than that. Roosevelt is the only one to have ever been re-elected to 4 terms. Strangely enough he was the New Deal democrat.
2007-02-23 15:35:09 · answer #3 · answered by Amy V 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it's about right, two years are way to short, and eight or ten is a little too long. If it were just two years a president would barely have time to begin running things before having to be faced with reelection again, as you notice we are talking about 2008 election a couple days after 06, basically he would not have a record. One six year term would be better, but two four years are just fine with me.
2007-02-23 15:32:41 · answer #4 · answered by asmith1022_2006 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The way it is now works very well but adding the possibility of a third 4 year term is intriguing since the age of a candidate could become a campaign issue.
2007-02-23 16:25:03 · answer #5 · answered by jcsalenik 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the current terms and term limits work fine. Although it's possible to screw up short term and move in an extreme direction, the system has self correcting features that tend to move it towards the center in the long term.
2007-02-23 23:47:45 · answer #6 · answered by Charlie S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One term. 6 years Retire.
2007-02-23 15:33:24 · answer #7 · answered by Boston Mark 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thought about it alot, pip. I think they should be able to run as long as they want. Like in Reagans case, soon as he got things going good, he had to give it over to someone else. In Clintons case, America had enough and seeing him gone was a sigh of relief. Clinton was awarded for the good Reagan set in force and anyone willing to look can see it.
2007-02-23 15:36:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Keep as is--- problem is with a 2 yr term, you're back to campaigning for relection right after you get in office.
2 terms is about enough we can stand any one president.
2007-02-23 15:31:59 · answer #9 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Every 2 years is WAAAAY too soon. We all need some kind of break from all of those political commercials....
2007-02-23 15:32:07 · answer #10 · answered by mamasquirrel 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋