4 ms·

I've always thought this. Limit all representatives, especially the president, to one term. That way they have no motivation to waste their time and our money o

by joesmo 10y ago

I've always thought this. Limit all representatives, especially the president, to one term. That way they have no motivation to waste their time and our money on getting reelected. You don't even need to touch age then. If you then make it illegal for all representatives, especially the president, to accept donations and maybe give each candidate a set sum to spend we might actually bring democracy back. I'm certainly not holding my breath though. It's basically asking Congress and the president to commit permanent political suicide.

kilroy123 10y ago
I think we should limit the presidency to, one, six year term. That way they don't need to worry about getting re-elected and playing it safe.
- dexterdog 10y ago
  I would say one 8-year term with a removal vote in at mid-point. It takes 33% (or so) to keep your job in the mid-term and you run unopposed. If the axe is dropped then he becomes a lame duck and we do primaries and the like to pick a new president within a reasonable amount of time, not the shit-show of what we are going through now.
  - koolba 10y ago
    > It takes 33% (or so) to keep your job in the mid-term and you run unopposed. Who votes at the 4-year mark? The senate, congress, or national election? If it's the latter, electoral or popular vote? If it's via popular vote I think it'd be next to impossible to eject anyone.
    - dexterdog 10y ago
      Pop vote. The idea is to only remove a sitting president if the people really want it. 50% to remove would happen to often in this day.
dmckeon 10y ago
Consider 3 groups: elected officials, their staffers, and lobbyists. Strict term limits would remove office-holders and any expertise accumulated in whatever term they served, while the other two groups would tend to conserve accumulated expertise, relationships, etc. Persistent incumbency may be bad, but strict term limits seem worse.
- joesmo 10y ago
  Worse how? How can it be worse than a government that isn't run by the people? I'd rather the government doesn't get anything done than the current situation where the government doesn't get anything done and the only focus is on getting re-elected and raising money. Considering that representatives in Congress spend more time raising money for re-election than anything else by far, I can't see how it could be worse to have the actually do the jobs they were elected to do and swore an oath to do.

by joesmo 10y ago

kilroy123 10y ago

I think we should limit the presidency to, one, six year term. That way they don't need to worry about getting re-elected and playing it safe.

dexterdog 10y ago
I would say one 8-year term with a removal vote in at mid-point. It takes 33% (or so) to keep your job in the mid-term and you run unopposed. If the axe is dropped then he becomes a lame duck and we do primaries and the like to pick a new president within a reasonable amount of time, not the shit-show of what we are going through now.
- koolba 10y ago
  > It takes 33% (or so) to keep your job in the mid-term and you run unopposed. Who votes at the 4-year mark? The senate, congress, or national election? If it's the latter, electoral or popular vote? If it's via popular vote I think it'd be next to impossible to eject anyone.
  - dexterdog 10y ago
    Pop vote. The idea is to only remove a sitting president if the people really want it. 50% to remove would happen to often in this day.

dmckeon 10y ago

Consider 3 groups: elected officials, their staffers, and lobbyists. Strict term limits would remove office-holders and any expertise accumulated in whatever term they served, while the other two groups would tend to conserve accumulated expertise, relationships, etc. Persistent incumbency may be bad, but strict term limits seem worse.

joesmo 10y ago
Worse how? How can it be worse than a government that isn't run by the people? I'd rather the government doesn't get anything done than the current situation where the government doesn't get anything done and the only focus is on getting re-elected and raising money. Considering that representatives in Congress spend more time raising money for re-election than anything else by far, I can't see how it could be worse to have the actually do the jobs they were elected to do and swore an oath to do.