EroticySteve

I was thinking, 4 years seems like an arbitrary number for term length.

I go both ways on this issue. I think that in some respects 4 years is way too long to commit to a leader, in other respects 4 years may not be enough if you have a leader that is well liked and effective.

Bi-annual elections would make much more sense. It would change the way in which we value the office of the President. For any leader looking to make a difference they would have much less time, half of what they have now to come through with their promises and agenda. If they should fall short, we can elect a new leader much sooner. Even the best leaders would be encouraged to make rapid change and act quickly for America.

I also think that you could also do something else good along with bi-annual elections and that is to remove the two-term, 8 year limit on the position of the President. To simply lose a leader as a matter of circumstance and tradition may not be the best thing for everyone.

Any thoughts on this?

__________________