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?

__________________

Sly

As is, Presidents already spend the last 2 years of their first term trying to get reelected. Now you want bi-annual so the President spends every waking minute with one thing in mind?

If you cut into 4 years too much nobody would ever get anything done. Every 4 years things are crazy enough with the elections, I would not want that happening every 2 years.

__________________
Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted

Windows VPS now available
Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc.
Click here for more details.

Snake Doctor

You have to remember the U.S. President can't act alone to change things quickly. He has to work with congress.

As it is now a president really only has about 18 months to do anything substantial.
After that the folks in congress are running for re-election and don't have time to deal with him.
After the midterms are over the next thing you know they're running for re-election again themselves and congress is either trying to make that easier or harder for the president (depending on which party controls congress)
Or if it's the president's second term, after the midterm elections they're a lame duck and congress is trying to set the table for the new nominees.

What I think may be a better situation is to have a president serve one six year term. A president may serve two terms total in their lifetime but NOT sequentially.
If they want to serve two terms they'd have to sit out for 6 years and then run again.

I also think term limits for congress are important as well but that's another issue altogether.

Sly

I just noticed this.

Contrary to popular belief, a President can not snap his fingers and BAM something happens. If that were the case, don't you think every President would be making changes a lot quicker than what they do? These things take time. We have Checks and Balances in place to stop any one person from having too much power. The scenario you're speaking of would grant that one too much power.

I like the 6 year term Lenny mentioned. Not only would it give the President more time to get things accomplished, it would also eliminate the "burden" of getting reelected. But then again, a 6 year term just may grant too much power.

__________________
Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More - Paxum and BTC Accepted

Windows VPS now available
Great for TSS, Nifty Stats, remote work, virtual assistants, etc.
Click here for more details.

EroticySteve

Sly, you're being very shortsighted and you're basing the future and possible changes on the current system. A two year term with no term limits would essentially change the way in which our voting system works too. In fact it would require a radical change of many sytems, processes and standards.

You're right, this single change would be chaotic under the current structure however, many things would have to change. I believe that this would be a closer to ideal situation for all Americans.

Change is good yet if you have an effective leader in place it doesn't make sense to make their departure after two 4 year terms a mandatory issue. At the same rate history has shown that sometimes the right leader is not elected, you sometimes don't know that ahead of time and rather than displeasure and possible fallout as a result a shorter term would require astute decision making and faster change.

__________________

$5 submissions

Bi-annual... hmmm. IMHO, a president needs more than 2 years in order to translate his policy agenda into action.

__________________

who

Never. There should be a King.

WebairGerard

keep it the same. maybe lift the 2 term ban. crack down on corruption in electoral system, have a paper trail of all votes and COUNT ALL VOTES.

__________________

who

A public jury should count the votes.

It never matters who actually votes, or who they vote for, what matters is who counts the fucking things.

Elli

Who needs a new President? Bush is doing just fine! He's one more national emergency away from declaring a permanent state of emergency and making himself "Temporary" Emporer.

__________________
email: [email protected]

EroticySteve

By current standards you are right. The status quo states that it take a long time to make changes. Blame beureaucracy and lack of motivation to make change along with fear and personal agendas.

If you create a two year term with no term limits you can have a great leader in place who can make continual changes or be voted out.

As far as chaotic election campaigns, we'll see a change in that too. People can seek out information. I think research done on your own part is much better than basing your decision for the presidency on their own marketing efforts.

__________________

Doctor Dre

I don't agree on this . The presidential campaings gotta be planned years ahead ... making the decisions that should normally be taken to the 2nd level...

The biggest problem of democracy is the big mess arround the electoral process

__________________

BlueWire

A good president can generally get a 2nd term, thus they have 8 years to make a difference per say. I think its fine as is

EroticySteve

I think there may be some misunderstanding.

A good President will win his term, and his merit will insure his potential re-election. However, should he be doing a poor job you do not have to wait a 4 year term for a change. This will change much of the hype and hoopla that comes along with a year of campaigning. Campaigns by design will have to be concise, to the point and straightforward. With the Internet available to nearly all campaign information can be transmitted via the web and if there were standards by which candidates had to post information you could finally compare the merits of a potential leader side by side.

By erasing term limits you don't have to see a great leader leave for an arbitrary reason such as a term limit.

__________________

je_rome

I don't agree with re-election though

__________________
Make money on any traffic. Join KlikRevenue.com Today!

broke

I'd rather see the powers bestowed on the executive brach rolled back than see changes in the term length and/or term limits.

__________________
Perfect Gonzo

milambur

5y term for democrat presidents and 1y for republican presidents

__________________
Alea iacta est