Should Presidential Elections Be Held Every Two Years?

Question

Should Presidential Elections Be Held Every Two Years?
It seems to me that four years is a very long time to wait to undo 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 party takes over! It also makes the system MORE democratic, as politicians 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!It will speed up reforms.

Answer 1

That's a very good point that we should maybe think about. I think it would help to eliminate personal political agendas. That's what ammendments are for, to change the Constitution.

Answer 2

Truthfully, although I agree this is a long time to wait to clean up a bad choice, I can't stand the idea of a rolling presidential campaign.

We elected governors every two year when I lived in Vermont, but it's a small state, and had very serious limits on spending, so the election season was really very short.

Maybe we should do that thing they do in Parliamentary systems and call for no-confidence votes. That vote automatically triggers a new election. It also cuts down on the less serious partisan stuff. Elections are expensive.

Answer 3

No. If you had a two year term the President would only be active for one year probably. The reason they are only active for half the term is the second half they are running for re-election or they are a lame duck (can't be re-elected again).

At present they are term limited to two terms. Do you want to change that also? Your idea would mean you could only keep a good president for four years, half of which they would be ineffective.

My question to you would be why do we let Senators have a 6 year term and the President only four?

How about Representatives get two year terms, Senators, get four years, and the President gets six years?

Answer 4

If I were to change the constitution, I'd go with every six years, with a vote of confidence at the end of four. That way, a good president could work on policy unfettered by electioneering, and a bad president could be voted out.

Answer 5

relies upon. If i like the president, no. If i don't, definite. for example, I which we could had elections each and every couple of months whilst Clinton became president. Oh properly. nonetheless, in a greater extreme vein, no, we could desire to consistently not. As yet another poster stated, campaigning takes up lots time that greater beneficial than a 12 months could be wasted. Then too, like quite a few interest, it takes a whilst to income the ropes so in case you paintings, a 12 months to income the ropes and a 12 months to marketing campaign, the guy or lady does not spend rather some time being president.

Answer 6

It's what the Constitution says. I totally disagree with your idea. If anything, the term should be lengthened to five or six years. Democrats have been running for the next Presidency for all of this year and will be doing it for all of next year. Think of the time and money wasted.
If you don't like a President, who is to say he should be removed? There may be dozens of people who disagree with you.

Answer 7

Two years is just too short given the length, expense and complexity of a presidential campaign. It also gives other countries a sense that they don't have to deal with our leader because he or she may be gone soon. I think we should just make better choices, and perhaps even more important, find a way to get better people to run in the first place.

Answer 8

No, too much frequent change isn't that good. 4 years seems like a reasonable amount to establish a stable government, then change when it gets stagnant.

Answer 9

some people try to go an extra term which is very unfair just like Franklin Roosevelt and many people hated him for starting so many wars

Answer 10

No because it can take up to three years to get a law passed.