Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Should the President serve a six-year term?

augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 6:00:04 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
Should the President serve a single, non-renewable six-year term, instead of the current system?

If so, why? If not, why?
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2016 9:18:16 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/8/2016 6:00:04 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
Should the President serve a single, non-renewable six-year term, instead of the current system?

If so, why? If not, why?

No, it too long in my opinion. The president will likely just screw around. I support making it shorter if anything.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 11:33:52 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/8/2016 9:17:13 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
Because any one who will win this years election is an idiot.
How about a 3 year term?

In my view, three years is too short to implement any significant, long-term reform. Also, having a longer, single term allows the President to make controversial decisions because he or she won't worry about having to be re-elected.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2016 4:18:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/8/2016 6:00:04 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
Should the President serve a single, non-renewable six-year term, instead of the current system?

If so, why? If not, why?

No. Reasons-

1. A president would know they were not up for reelection so could do what they please totally ignoring public opinion.

2. An unpopular president would be around for potentially five or six years after they become very unpopular with voters for whatever reason. This is a very negative and demotivating thing for USA citizens.

3. A popular successful president would be limited to just one term in office.

4. It would mean candidates for the presidency are more likely to offer false promises to voters before an election as they know once elected they have 6 years of power guaranteed so there is no real implications for not fulfilling promises on policy.
augcaesarustus
Posts: 368
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 12:17:33 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/11/2016 4:18:38 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/8/2016 6:00:04 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
Should the President serve a single, non-renewable six-year term, instead of the current system?

If so, why? If not, why?

No. Reasons-

1. A president would know they were not up for reelection so could do what they please totally ignoring public opinion.

2. An unpopular president would be around for potentially five or six years after they become very unpopular with voters for whatever reason. This is a very negative and demotivating thing for USA citizens.

3. A popular successful president would be limited to just one term in office.

4. It would mean candidates for the presidency are more likely to offer false promises to voters before an election as they know once elected they have 6 years of power guaranteed so there is no real implications for not fulfilling promises on policy.

Thank you for your opinions. What if the President were chosen by independent electors, as was the original intention of the Framers? That is to say that the electors choose the President not based on the popular vote but rather on their own judgement or opinion? If we also stipulate that the President is not allowed to be a member of a political party (even when nominated as a candidate) ; then, given these two situations, would a six-year term be acceptable? Bear in mind that I understand that this isn't the case at the moment nor will it ever be; I'm simply talking hypothetically here.

With all of this in mind, it's also important to understand that the President has, since the inception of the Republic, taken on a role greater than what was originally intended; the separation of powers system dictates that it should be the Legislature that is primarily in charge of policy-making, not the President. Of course, the Congress would still, in any case, need to collaborate with the executive but such collaboration would be for the benefit of developing astute policy and legislation, and ensuring that it seeks the approval of the executive. Furthermore, as opposed to the presidential candidates 'running' for office on behalf of their parties, it should be the Majority and Minority leaders in each House that should be campaigning on behalf of the party. The President should technically stay out of it. It's then only after the elections of Congress that the 'independent' electors should then cast their vote for President, thus signifying the supremacy of the legislative branch over the executive branch.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 10:24:17 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/12/2016 12:17:33 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
At 2/11/2016 4:18:38 PM, beng100 wrote:
At 2/8/2016 6:00:04 AM, augcaesarustus wrote:
Should the President serve a single, non-renewable six-year term, instead of the current system?

If so, why? If not, why?

No. Reasons-

1. A president would know they were not up for reelection so could do what they please totally ignoring public opinion.

2. An unpopular president would be around for potentially five or six years after they become very unpopular with voters for whatever reason. This is a very negative and demotivating thing for USA citizens.

3. A popular successful president would be limited to just one term in office.

4. It would mean candidates for the presidency are more likely to offer false promises to voters before an election as they know once elected they have 6 years of power guaranteed so there is no real implications for not fulfilling promises on policy.

Thank you for your opinions. What if the President were chosen by independent electors, as was the original intention of the Framers? That is to say that the electors choose the President not based on the popular vote but rather on their own judgement or opinion? If we also stipulate that the President is not allowed to be a member of a political party (even when nominated as a candidate) ; then, given these two situations, would a six-year term be acceptable? Bear in mind that I understand that this isn't the case at the moment nor will it ever be; I'm simply talking hypothetically here.

With all of this in mind, it's also important to understand that the President has, since the inception of the Republic, taken on a role greater than what was originally intended; the separation of powers system dictates that it should be the Legislature that is primarily in charge of policy-making, not the President. Of course, the Congress would still, in any case, need to collaborate with the executive but such collaboration would be for the benefit of developing astute policy and legislation, and ensuring that it seeks the approval of the executive. Furthermore, as opposed to the presidential candidates 'running' for office on behalf of their parties, it should be the Majority and Minority leaders in each House that should be campaigning on behalf of the party. The President should technically stay out of it. It's then only after the elections of Congress that the 'independent' electors should then cast their vote for President, thus signifying the supremacy of the legislative branch over the executive branch.

In my view your proposed electoral system is less democratic. Whether it would lead to better governance is debatable and I can't really claim to know whether it would or not. I still think 6 years is too long though. Either 4 or 5 years and a 2 term limit in my view.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2016 12:40:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Term limits are stupid and unnecessary. 6 year terms for President would also be stupid.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King