It all makes me even more in favor of the Mexican system. You got one term and then you can never, ever serve again.
Which is a reaction to the Porfiriato. Revolutionary leaders seldom know when to let go of power and let those who follow take charge, at least officially.
Of course the biggest shortcomings of the Sexenio during the period of PRI's total rule was that outgoing President pretty much picked his successor. Yet most former leaders of that era largely adhered to keeping a low profile in retirement, refraining from trying to exercise unofficial power (Luis Echeverria being one infamous example). Calles tried this with Cardenas and got himself exiled.
I think having such six years term would be beneficial in the U.S. A four years term, with the possibility of reelection, proved to be breeding disfunctionality. You essentially have one year to try doing something meaningful. Then it's the midterms campaign and after that you're already either running for reelection or become a lame duck. Frequent elections and long electoral cycles may be exciting for us, political junkies, but are not good for the country.
my thought would be abolish the midterm and leave them solely for gubernatorial races, while extending both the House and the Senate terms by two years each. A six year Presidency strikes me as too long for an executive role as powerful as POTUS.
I agree that two years is too short a term for a legislative assembly, but the idea of giving a President four years of unchecked power with pliant legislative majorities is an absolutely terrible one. It would basically be the French system, which is the worst of both worlds between US-style presidentialism and Westminster parliamentarism (see the relevant thread). I much prefer the 6-year term with 3-year House terms idea, combined with a drastic curtailing of unilateral Presidential powers.
Of course, better than any of that would be to have a parliamentary system, but I guess that's besides the point of this argument.
