Proposal: President should be limited to one, six-year term

[Ignacio Upton]

Several other countries have this including Mexico. I think this would be a good idea for several reasons:

1. By having a one term limit, the President won't spend half of his time raising money and campaigning for re-election. He will be able to do his work without having to worry about keeping his job.

2. Then there is the "well, four years may not be a long enough time to get anything done" response. Having a six-year term like in the Senate would give the President more time to get his agenda through. While you may shiver at the idea of a Republican getting elected for six years, remember, he can't run for another election.

What do you think?

I'm also considering other changes, including

-Raising the House term to four years, and term limiting Congressmen to six terms (12 years) and Senators to three terms (18 years.)

[KingFlorez]

1. I don't like term limits for legislative bodies

The presidential terms are fine for as two terms, we just need additional checks to the executive and a vote of no confidence to get rid of rouge presidents. Term limits for legislative bodies don't work, because experience and competance is reduced. Cut their salaries and redraw their district independently.

[phoebe]

2. President - 4 years

Congressmen - 5 years, Senators 8 years - considering the illegal bribery/ignoring the people going on right now why the h*ck would you want to give these people any more time??

[dusmcj]

3. a mid-term election lets us eloquently dispose of the shitty ones

it's an important way for the people to be able to communicate that "that choice sucked".

Too bad the people didn't communicate effectively a year and a half ago.

[stevedeshazer]

4. Term limits don't work

That's what voting is for. Or, supposed to be.

If we take your scenario for Congress, in 18 years no current members will be left. Everyone is new, or relatively so.

But the lobbyists? No term limits for them. So the most experienced politicians in Congress will be a bunch of Gucci-shoed lobbyists.

I don't think that's a very good idea.

[onenote]

6. you're right, and the problem would not just be lobbyists

Unless you tried to have "term" limits for Hill staff, all you'd end up doing is concentrating even more power in the hands of unelected staffers who will have nice chummy relationships with the lobbyists. The elected officials will be figureheads.

onenote

[terryg11]

5. dont want term limits, even for executive branch

I dont think they are necessary even though I wish Bush had a term limit

[DuaneBidoux]

7. I'm for NO limit. Then we'd still have Clinton.

[mondo joe]

8. The electorate can limit the term at any re-election cycle.

I think term limits are quite anti-democratic.