Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Forget GOP vs. Dems for a second. But for the sake of building a better Democratic system, does a four-year term make any sense? Especially, since the midterm elections happen at the two-year mark. It seems our system promotes way too much time campaigning, does not allow the President in-charge enough time to implement and push through meaningful reforms, and most importantly forces the government in charge to think and act short-term, not long-term, which is essential for the good of the country. For instance, a President is biased to spend or implement policies that would temporarily lower employment or raise GDP to build a trend leading up to an election as opposed to pursuing sustainable policies. Not to say this will be eliminated but it will be tempered and may yield significant benefits to soceity. We all know human nature drives us and Politicians have to manage the polls to get re-elected. It seems like our system is working against us and not for us and I think we should seriously consider six-year terms. What do you guys think?
Maybe a 6 year term, if the person was limited to only one term in office.
Hell, I'd almost be in favor of a 10-year term to avoid having to expose myself to the nauseating political ads. Hell, make that 20 year... why stop there, lets make it a Monarchy and do away with the entire process.
It won't really matter. Obama will just elect himself supreme dictator over the U.S.S of A and it will all be over. Say goodbye to the country you know, and if you don't like it, go rot in some FEMA camp. Praise dear leader!
No wonder he grants special permission to kill "him".... He doesn't give a fig about ANYONE but himself. If left up to him, he might even burn that document. He might as well, he ignores everything on it.
Clearly, the optimal system would be 7 years for Presidents, 5 years for Senators, 3 years for Representatives, and Governors serving 50-month terms with precisely one gubernatorial election happening on the 1st of each and every month in perpetuity.
I wonder where you get some of those ideas you post about. Do you have any idea who determines the terms for governors? It seems that you don't understand that the United States government is based on what the Constitution says and that states all have their own constitutions to run their governments by.
How in hell do you think the federal government has anything to do with governors terms in office?
You all realize a few things right? That the terms were originally set up for a reason, with the House being shortest as it is supposed to represent the "common" man. The Senate, being deliberative, is at 6 to encourage the triumph of reason divorced from the passions of the time while the President's term is long enough to accomplish initiatives but not so long as to entrench the person.
There would also have to be how many Constitutional Amendments?
Why you all want to get terms like the single 6 year one in Mexico is baffling. I'll keep it the way it is.
I've also enjoyed all the people and their "clearly" arguments.
Finally someone tells all these people why the Founders established the terms they did. Also, you explained that they don't know about amendments to change terms of office. I don't think that many of them have managed to read many parts of the Constitution and I also think that many of those who lean a bit left seem to think that if we changed the term for President it would apply to Obama and it sure wouldn't. They want to see him there for life and that takes at least one amendment, too.
Excellent summary of my fifth-grade Civics text - thanks for the memories!
I wonder about the 5th grade and don't see many people posting here who really know what is going on as far as terms of office are concerned when they are determined by the Constitution of the US. Yes, I know that many people want to do away with this Constitution to help I Won take over easier but it isn't going to happen.
Forget GOP vs. Dems for a second. But for the sake of building a better Democratic system, does a four-year term make any sense? Especially, since the midterm elections happen at the two-year mark. It seems our system promotes way too much time campaigning, does not allow the President in-charge enough time to implement and push through meaningful reforms, and most importantly forces the government in charge to think and act short-term, not long-term, which is essential for the good of the country. For instance, a President is biased to spend or implement policies that would temporarily lower employment or raise GDP to build a trend leading up to an election as opposed to pursuing sustainable policies. Not to say this will be eliminated but it will be tempered and may yield significant benefits to soceity. We all know human nature drives us and Politicians have to manage the polls to get re-elected. It seems like our system is working against us and not for us and I think we should seriously consider six-year terms. What do you guys think?
You're welcome, just thought I'd remind folks before all you guys in the Wild Hair Up Your Ass crowd got really moving.
Looks like you're one of the "the US needs a Prime Minister" crowd.
You smacked him right on the nose with that one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
