Should Presidential Elections Be Held Every Two Years?

Question

It seems to me that four years is a very long time to wait for bad choice of a President. Most Presidents are active during the first two years anyway, and most people know by then what initiatives would come to fruition and which ones won't. Unlike parliamentary democracies where there can be a vote of no-confidence, the bar is set so high for impeachment in the US that's it's almost impossible to meet it in today's environment.

Please DON'T respond by saying, that's what the Constitution says. I am looking for a different answer.

I am disagreeing with most of you. We have Congressional elections every two years, and MORE things get done when a different part takes over! It makes the system MORE democratic, as politicians will respond to people’s wishes. And it could actually REDUCE the amount of electioneering, because Presidents will know that they have to achieve something within one year before they start their new campaigns. They start their re-election campaigns two years in advance because they have nothing better to do!

Answer 1

No. Goodness, they're spending two years campaigning for that office now and spending millions of wasteful dollars to do it. I can't imagine living through presidential campaigns that never end.

Answer 2

Depends. If I like the president, no. If I don't, yes. For example, I which we'd had elections every couple of months when Clinton was president. Oh well.

Still, in a more serious vein, no, we shouldn't. As another poster pointed out, campaigning takes up so much time that more than a year would be wasted. Then too, like any job, it takes a while to learn the ropes so if you figure, a year to learn the ropes and a year to campaign, the guy or girl wouldn't spend a whole lot of time being president.

Answer 3

I don't think that it should change. It takes time to have some programs take effect. Two years isn't long enough.

There would also be no stability to our government. We'd constantly be lurching back and forth from liberal to conservative leaders. No congress would have any incentive to work with the president from the opposing party, knowing that they can just wait him out. You would upset the balance of powers as defined in the Constitution.

Finally, do you want to see political ads all the time? The president would spend half his time campaigning for the next election. That's essentially what the members of the House of Representatives do now.

Answer 4

No.

If you think John Kerry flip flops, give the American people the ability to change presidents every two years and there will be a flip flop so often all they will be doing is moving furniture in and out of the White House.

Midterms can be used to keep Presidents in check if people would all vote firmly either FOR the President's party or AGAINST it. But as it is, there is never a super majority by either party and the President can veto everything and stop Congress from being his proper check.

(We really lost control when the Income Tax Amendment got passed. That allows them to take whatever money they want and spend it for whatever they want and we can not do a darn thing about it.)

Answer 5

fairly, in spite of the fact that I agree that's a protracted time to attend to freshen up a foul selection, i won't be able to stand the assumption of a rolling presidential marketing campaign. We elected governors each and every 2 12 months once I lived in Vermont, in spite of the fact that that's a small state, and had very extreme limits on spending, so the election season became rather very short. perhaps we could desire to consistently do this ingredient they do in Parliamentary structures and demand no-self assurance votes. That vote straight away triggers a sparkling election. It additionally cuts down on the fewer extreme partisan stuff. Elections are high priced.

Answer 6

Presidential candidates spend about two years campaigning anyway, whether for the first term or reelection.

Four years is just enough time to focus on the job and get things done. I'd say keep it at four year terms.

Answer 7

Nothing would ever get done. By the time they got in office, It would be time to start gearing up the campaign for the next election and nothing would get done. But then again, would that really be a bad thing?☺

Answer 8

Heck no! Nothing would get done but electioneering!

I completely disagree with you about "the bar is set so high for impeachment." It's high for a reason. The media does not run this country.

Answer 9

The Constitution calls for Presidential terms of four years,that ends the argument as far as I'm concerned.Look for a different answer all you want,it doesn't matter to me. The Constitution is not some rag to be thrown away on a whim as most "liberals" today want. It has worked for 200+ years,and if left alone can easily do fine for another 200+

Jack

Answer 10

So they'll spend all of their time in office running for the next term?

That's the biggest problem with the House of Representatives.

Why would I want the presidency to be the same?