Talk Elections

.

I think the right thing would be one three-term limit.

Yes there should be term limits but the limit should be longer, like four or five full terms, consecutive or non-consecutive.

No.

Yes, but make it 3 or 4 terms.

Term limits are inherently undemocratic and unnecessary. All should be repealed.

My wording exactly.

If there were no term limits, elections would be completely predictable (barring someone's unpopularity or involvement in a scandal).  I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that if FDR lived to run in 1948, he would have gotten re-elected.

I'm kind of apathetic towards this issue, but we shouldn't have people in the Congress for decades. I mean jesus, Byrd's been in the US senate for what, 50 f***ing years!?

The problem is that people start becoming loyal to a President and will reelect him even if his record is less than stellar. Look at our Senate.

I don't think we have that problem.  We were willing to throw LBJ out in 1968, and Truman in 1952.  Besides, it's the perogative of the voters in a democracy to choose their leaders.  Why should we deny them the option to reelect someone?

Governors : Yes, get rid off them!

President : No.

Yes. Term limits do not allow the government to accurately represent the will of the people. If FDR needed a fifth term, and the people agreed, he should have gotten one, regardless of what petty arguments are presented opposing the continuation of his duties. (Of course, he was dead, but still) If a president needs more time to get his work done, he needs more time.

more terms = Corruption % increasing

I'd actually prefer an age or "senility" cap instead of term limits.  But if we're speaking strictly of term limits then I think a 10-term limit in the House, a 4-term limit in the Senate, and a 3-term limit for the president are all about right.  I would favor similar term limits for state legislators and governors.  I do feel that our term limits in Ohio are far to short.  The turnover rate is too high for anyone to really gain a good understanding of how the legislature works.

And then they are voted out of office when they become to corrupt...

I doubt that most presidents would serve more than two terms anyway if the 22nd Amendment had never been passed.

Truman was eligible to serve a third term anyway and chose not to because of his unpopularity.

Eisenhower was old and ready to retire.

Reagan was suffering from Alzheimers and was nearing 80. He would not have run for a third term.

Clinton would have liked to run for a third term, but I don't know that he would actually have in the aftermath of the Lewinsky scandal. In fact, I could easily see his way "out" of the controversy would be to announce he would not seek a third term.

(Although I could see Clinton running for a non-consecutive third term in '04.)

The presidency is an extremely intense job and most presidents are completely exhausted by the end of two terms. Plus, the time-for-a-change factor in the electorate kicks into high gear after two terms. Even FDR would not have won a third term had it not been for the war in Europe. After 1936, FDR got a declining percentage of the vote in each of his next two elections. Most presidents would still be wise to leave after two terms.

Overall, I'd argue that term limits are largely unnecessary and anti-democratic. The one office in which I think term limits may have some usefulness are mayorships - in cities, it's very easy to build political machines which can entrench corruption, and term limits may have some use in that context. But at the national level and at most state levels I don't think they're necessary or desirable.

My vote 2 terms alright for president but for governor 1 6 year term and 2 six year terms for senate.  Unlimited for mayor or House.

Much as I hate the idea of someone being entrenched in office well beyond their usefulness, I agree.  Elected officials can be term limited at the polls.

I agree that most Presidents wouldn't have even run for a second term even if term limits weren't in place.

I favor consecutive term limits. You can't serve more than two consecutive terms, but you can have as many total terms as you can win.

Even though I don't think it's particularly likely to happen in America any time soon, a strong executive taking power in a democracy and slowly turning it into a dictatorship seems to be one of if not the main way that democracies fall.  Term limits would if nothing else be a huge impediment to a wanna-be dictator president who would have to get both 2/3 and of congress and 3/4 of the states to approve of his hypothetical desire to be president for life.

Even though term limits for the presidency are anti-democratic and not likely to be relevant very often, the risk of repealing the presidential term limits does not outweigh the reward.  I don't care as much about governors although it seems like a good anti-corruption measure as others have pointed out.

Yes, but 8 years is really little time. I think some very good presidents should have the right to be granted a few more time to achieve their reforms.
So, a 3-terms limit could easily work.

No

Yes.

Agree. Allowing unlimited terms for the presidency is far more dangerous because it consolidates the entire power of the executive branch in one person allowing for greater chance of abuse and entrenchment that a single senator or congressman. No matter how many terms Byrd or Thurmond serve, as one senator among a hundred they won't accrue a fraction of the power held by the president.

That said, I think allowing the president to potentially serve 12 years instead of 8 demands longer range planning and makes a second term president a more active political entity than a mere lame duck.

No, don't repeal  them, but Presidents take too long to get started, so I'd be more agreeable to a longer 1 term.

.

I think elections and democracy should be about choice and if the choice of the people is to nominate a sitting president for a third term than so be it. The two term president can accept the nomination or not.


The last two term president that I think would run and could win was Bill Clinton.

In my opinion, the office of president should not have term limits just like no other office in government (excluding governors and a few state legislatures).  As others have said, elections are term limits.  I think that this country may have been better of with a 3rd term of Clinton.

FDR likely wouldn't have been President for Life if he didn't die, and the term limits were put in place by people who didn't like him.  If the people decide they want somebody for more than eight years, so be it.