Should we change our 4-year presidential term system? (1 Viewer)

[DadsDream]

The framers of the Constitution looked at a number of options when deciding what the term of office for president should be. Not the least of their considerations was the time required for travel and transmitting news of events, documents and concerns of all involved.

Today, we are virtually alone among the major democracies in giving the president a fixed term of office with no recourse other than impeachment.

Other countries have chief executives who represent the majority party in the legislature. The legislature can issue a "vote of no confidence" and relieve the chief executive if they disagree strongly enough about his course of action.

Modern technology has shrunk the need to allow time for travel and communications to nearly nothing.

So, what do y'all think? Is it time we consider changing the term of office for the chief executive?

 

[Goatman Saint]

No, I think we should keep it. Unless someone wanted to install me as dictator, then that would be cool. The idea of having a fixed term is that either for good or bad they can have an opinion and stick to it. They would be at the whim of everyone and I don't think that is a good thing. The government is set up well with 2 years in the house 4 for pres and 6 for senate, and I do believe it works out.


Now if someone said that we should jettison Washington DC out into the ocean with all the lobbyists and trash that has collected there and replace it with all new, that i would be for.

 

[CitySaint]

Can the Pres suspend a pending election? How does that impact the terms of a president? Having the power of an electoral suspension if he or she wishes equals dictatorship, right?

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I voted "2 four yr terms, don't change"-- I don' t have a really good reason, except that I guess I'm a traditionalist and also, like Dave mentioned, it would be harder for a POTUS to stick to his guns as it were if he was constantly worried about his job-- though we see the disastrous results of that currently.

 

[DadsDream]

Can the Pres suspend a pending election? How does that impact the terms of a president? Having the power of an electoral suspension if he or she wishes equals dictatorship, right?

Lincoln stood re-election during the Civil War.

FDR stood re-election during World War II.

We don't suspend presidential elections, for exactly the reason you asked in your last question.

I don't recall ever reading of a time when a presidential election was suspended. Sure, there were times when the election day was moved or extended in various places, mainly due to bad weather. But an overall suspension? Nope.

 

[Sabine]

The framers of the Constitution looked at a number of options when deciding what the term of office for president should be. Not the least of their considerations was the time required for travel and transmitting news of events, documents and concerns of all involved.

Today, we are virtually alone among the major democracies in giving the president a fixed term of office with no recourse other than impeachment.

Other countries have chief executives who represent the majority party in the legislature. The legislature can issue a "vote of no confidence" and relieve the chief executive if they disagree strongly enough about his course of action.

Modern technology has shrunk the need to allow time for travel and communications to nearly nothing.

So, what do y'all think? Is it time we consider changing the term of office for the chief executive?

While we don't have the travel and communications hurdles we had initially, we are a much larger country (area and population wise) and many of the issues currently facing the country are very complicated and require a lot of thought and research. If we would only use the time wisely....

Further, the "vote of no confidence" to relieve the chief executive could be paralyzing for a president, who has to occasionally make a very unpopular decision/move for the "good of the country". Public opinion is so easily manipulated and molded by the press that I just don't think the "vote of no confidence" would be a wise move for us.

I think the current system works well enough.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Further, the "vote of no confidence" to relieve the chief executive could be paralyzing for a president, who has to occasionally make a very unpopular decision/move for the "good of the country". Public opinion is so easily manipulated and molded by the press that I just don't think the "vote of no confidence" would be a wise move for us.

That's what I was trying to say, but less eloquently than you, Sabine... thanks.

 

[cruize]

5 terms 5 years each. To change our highest leader after a max of 8 years is crazy. Also, put limits on everyone else as well. 3 terms 5 years each.

 

[RABDOG]

i like the four year length, but i think there should be no term limit...if the people want the same president four 20 years then that is what it should be.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I like the 4 year term but I'm not a fan of term limits. While I understand the downside I think the choice should always be with the people and not based on a time cap.

 

[Saint77]

I think we should change it to what it really is, first term 3 years, second term, 3 years. because in the first time they waist an entire year campaigning for the next term, and in the second, they cruise to retirement.

 

[philipkw]

I see no problem with the 22nd amendment limiting presidential terms.

Although I'm generally reluctant to mess with that document, I'm pretty sure I could get behind a similar amendment for the congress.

 

[Tony The Fish]

I'm ok with the two four year term format.

 

[LSSpam]

I'm almost in favor of 2 year terms without term limits.

 

[tjharris]

I think change in the congressional wing of the government is a much greater need.