Should the term of office for U.S. President be six years? This would preclude having to run again and being?

Question

more concerned with reelection than in running the country. Six years is enough to secure one's place in history, for better or for worse. President Bush would be out of office by now, and his legacy would be less tarnished than it will be in the next 21 months or so. Eight years is fine for a truly great president such as FDR, but there hasn't been too many of those lately.

Answer 1

Interesting concept. I like the thought of them not wasting taxpayer's time by campaigning while they're in office, but they would still be campaigning for their party's Congress members. And when we had someone good in there, I'd like to see them stay more than 6 years but when someone incompetent (cough..cough...Bush) then six years is an awfully long time. Granted, he'll be in there 8 but that's due to the un-informed populace who vote strictly along party lines. While we're at it, let's abolish those! You vote according to how someone stands on the issues...not how much money they raised...not what party they are...not what their heritage is...not who they're related to. Just where they stand on the issues and what their goals are for leading the country. And for heaven's sake, let's make sure the future leaders of our great country can string two sentences together without sounding like a babbling idiot.

Answer 2

Yes, a very good idea. Four years gives the president only about two and half years to actually run the country, then the next year and a half is devoted to campaigning. But really, what I think is best is two five year terms. If someone is really good, then he shouldn't be limited to six years in office. Just like Giuliani after 9/11. He couldn't be mayor again, even though 90% of NYC wanted him back. But yeah, six years is definitely better than what we have now.

Answer 3

This is the way Mexico does it. One six-year term and then you are through.

While this would eliminate the need for a costly and diversionary campaign, I believe this gives the president too long a time without accountability to the populace. Think how much the world changed from 1998-2004, just as an example. You elect the man (or woman) to do one thing, and by the fourth or fifth year, there is a whole new slate of problems, which, to be handled effectively, require a new person.

Two four-year terms is fine by me.

Answer 4

Let's use the reverse penal system approach. Elect a president to a term of 4 to 12 years. Then have the president periodically appear before a board of nonpartisan statesmen (plus me) for a hearing. This board (sort of like a parole board) would evaluate and determine whether to send the president back to the big house or send him or her into retirement.

This would also be good training for those presidents that do break the law and end up in the real "big house".

Answer 5

Call me a radical, but I reckon six years is time enough, AND I reckon that with the proviso that they could not extend their stay in office, most checks and balances should be abolished.

Yes, you'd get periods of utter fruitcakes in power, and there'd be very little that could be done about them. But everybody'd know they just had to wait it out and then a new President could actively undo all the harm done by the previous one. It's not a fully developed theory of governance yet, this elected dictatorship idea, but at the very least it'd add a certain dynamic necessity to the business of voting, wouldn't it?

Answer 6

How bout...

Three-year-terms. You can run a maximum of three terms.

Thus, if you really suck, you're out by the 3rd year. If you're OK, but America wants a change, you're out by the 6th year. And if America loves you, you can stay 9 years in office.

The only problem is that elections would be too close together. So you'd only have two years before you'd be out building your campaign, which would waste time.

Answer 7

The shape limits it to 2 words, without point out of no count if or no longer they are consecutive or no longer. So specific, a one-term President can, conceivably, come back and be elected back, yet would desire to no longer then be re-elected. A 2-term President can't be elected back.

Answer 8

One six year term works well for France. Perhaps it would work for the US. That would take a Constitutional amendment and those take time.

Answer 9

I am more in favor of Two(2*) or a Three(3*) year term myself......

Answer 10

I think they should all be on a probation period of 6 month...if they screw up ..they are out....