[PAX] Presidential terms: shortened or extended?
- Thread starter Gaze
- Start date
I'm not familiar enough with the whole gamut of presidential politics to understand the ramifications of shortening terms. however, I think there should definitely be timely and effective avenues for presidents to be kicked out of office by the public should the need for it arise. 4 years is a long time when things are going rather poorly -- a lot of damage can be done in four years.
One 6 year term with no chance of being reelected. There is a current incentive to put off our long term problems to stimulate the economy in the short term in an effort to be reelected. A lot of people speculate that it is the root of our budget problems.
I'm talking about America here.
I'm talking about America here.
I think there needs to be a separate 'system' in place that manages or dictates the long term visions and goals of a nation, regardless of who is currently running it. Elected officials need to find balance between working with the immediate and short-term needs, while still striving to meet those long-term goals.
Instead of electing people to "speak on our behalf" only to do whatever it is they want to do, we have two national votes; one for local/state or provincial/national representation and secondly for long term goals. Have 'goal' or 'vision' national votes every 5 years or so, like a company stating their five year plans, so to speak. Then the officials are required to work toward those ends while dealing with day to day things. There should also be some sort of mechanism for accountability built in.
I am otherwise currently indifferent on shorter or longer terms.
Instead of electing people to "speak on our behalf" only to do whatever it is they want to do, we have two national votes; one for local/state or provincial/national representation and secondly for long term goals. Have 'goal' or 'vision' national votes every 5 years or so, like a company stating their five year plans, so to speak. Then the officials are required to work toward those ends while dealing with day to day things. There should also be some sort of mechanism for accountability built in.
I am otherwise currently indifferent on shorter or longer terms.
The problem with long term vision is that it is a long term process.
It seems we like to change direction every four years but policy changes can some times take ten or more years to actually settle in, so even though a few years may seem like a long time it becomes even longer when things are always reverted before they can actually work.
It seems we like to change direction every four years but policy changes can some times take ten or more years to actually settle in, so even though a few years may seem like a long time it becomes even longer when things are always reverted before they can actually work.
As I understand it (and I could be mistaken for sure), it seems presidents might do the same thing whether or not they could be re-elected for the sheer reason that it's easier and earns them greater public acclaim in the short run. Not to mention, if we consider how much money politicians are fed from corporations, it seems like corporations would simply find another way to twist presidential pockets in favour of what works best for the elite interests. In that sense, having a 1-term policy could be in favour to the corporate giants. A 1 term policy could be effective to thwarting certain problems, but others will continue to creep up as long as those involved give into them. Allowing someone 6 years in office is a long time to do damage, and not allowing a potentially promising and worthwhile candidate to run a second time when creeps like Romney continue to seek power is just downright troubling, imo. But then again, maybe not? Politics... completely imperfect whichever way you approach it.
So you are saying the second term works as an incentive to do what is best for the people in order to get reelected. That's a valid perspective. It's the same thing I said just a different interpretation of it.
And yes, imperfect. There are tons of ways to structure a government. The most important thing isn't structure though it's culture.
When the President is someone such as Clinton, I wish there were more than two 4 year terms allowed.
When it is Presidents such as GW Bush or Obama, I wish it were one 2 year term limit.
Isn't that why we have the two houses of congress? Why the founders of the US set it up that way?
It was never intended for the President to have as much power as they do now.
By the same token I don't think the founders had any idea how corrupt it all would become.
When it is Presidents such as GW Bush or Obama, I wish it were one 2 year term limit.
Isn't that why we have the two houses of congress? Why the founders of the US set it up that way?
It was never intended for the President to have as much power as they do now.
By the same token I don't think the founders had any idea how corrupt it all would become.
I agree, we need to separate the policy from the terms. A president can put policies in place but it may take time longer than their term limits for those policies to be work and achieve the result but our society is very impatient. We're in a mindset of expecting good and immediate results without understanding that some things take time regardless of term length to implement efficiently and effectively.
I like that France gives presidents 5 years. I think 6 would also be reasonable. If you have a strong checks and balance system in place, a don't think a longer term would be as unthinkable. Perhaps allow them 5 years and if re-elected, elect them for a shorter second term such as three years. Or elect them for 3 years for the first term, and if they're re-elected, allow them three more years to finish what they started, make changes, etc.
I've never studied politics so these are just theories and thoughts thrown out. I'm curious about the pros and cons of each option.
But Clinton actually deregulated the economy and helped to cause the crash... Bush was just wildly irresponsible and failed to realize the kind of damage such legislation could do.
