Elect presidents to one six-year term. No more re-election campaigns that begin the day after the first election. No more incumbents spending gobs of time out on the road shaking hands and kissing babies instead of doing the job we elected them to. And no more campaigns that consist solely of the challenger blaming the incumbent for everything that's ever gone wrong. Obviously, it would take a pretty substantial Constitutional amendment. But it's worth at least discussing, as we're in the middle of an election cycle that's lasted three years.
The downside would be that it would attract the kind of politician whose attitude is "I don't have to think about reelection, so I can do whatever the fuck I want." Think GWB on speed.
Yep. There is much that can be done with the legislative branch that would be both easier and more useful.
Hmmm. Since we're just spit-balling... How about at the end of a Presidential term we have one and possibly two elections. The first would be held late spring/early summer of the President's last year and would ask the question: do you support the President's re-election. If a majority say yes, he's re-elected and that's that. If a majority says no, or if the President declines to run, an election is scheduled for November wherein two or more new candidates will contend. I know: lots of critiques here. But, like I said, if we're just spit-balling ideas... Some bright sides: -Shorter campaign seasons -Reduces "lesser of two evils" thinking as there would be more choices -Keeps the President on the job until he clears the first election
Winning Independence from England was extremely hard, but we did it. If you want something bad enough, you fight for it.
Interesting side note, b/c the South was so polarized White v Black and Whites were in constant danger of a rebellion, Jews weren't as discriminated against there as they were in the North. Quite a few were elected to office and fought for the Confederacy, more than fought for the Union.
That's how Mexico does it--single six year term--and what they get is a President that is both an instant lame duck and an unaccountable chief executive with a lot of discretionary power, the worst of both worlds. A six year, one term presidency in the United States would probably exhibit the same faults. You could actually make a better argument for extending the current two term limit to three terms, since at least the first two terms of a popular presidency would have the kind of productivity and sense of accountability that the prospect of re-election would bring. At the same time, most Presidents and most Presidencies tend to run out of gas during the later stages of the second term, and historically only one man ever seriously sought (and won) a third term in the nation's history even when the tenure of the President was limited only by the will of the incumbent and of the voters. The GOP Congressional leaders who acted as the drafters of the 22nd Amendment in 1949-51 seriously considered setting 12 years as the outer limit of a Presidency but decided instead that a two term limit would enhance turnover of control of the White House in a country which then, as now, had more registered Democratic voters than Republicans. We will probably see no change in the two-term rule.
