No re-election.

[Jacobtm]

In México, the constitution prohibits back-to-back re-election. Their governors and Presidents and Senators each get one 6-year term, and their "deputies" (representatives) each get one 3-year term.

Is this a good idea? I feel like what it does is just gives party leaders the real power instead of elected representatives, so I'm not particularly enamored with it. As you may know, the PRI had a 1-party state going on for some 70 years without ever re-electing a president.

[Хahar 🤔]

It's definitely a bad idea, expecially in a place with a machine like Mexico once had.

[k-onmmunist]

No, just reduce it to 1 year and allow them to get re-elected without limit if they can hold on.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I'm fine with the twice 4 years term, I may authorize it a 3rd time, but nothing more.

[Hatman 🍁]

Term limits of any kind are undemocratic.

[k-onmmunist]

Term limits of any kind are undemocratic.

So is allowing someone to rule until they die.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Term limits of any kind are undemocratic.

Hugo Chavez always knew it...

[Jacobtm]

Term limits of any kind are undemocratic.

If a president can sucessfully pack the whole government appartus with his supporters over say 10-15 years, he can easily undermine democratic institutions.

[Хahar 🤔]

Term limits of any kind are undemocratic.

So is allowing someone to rule until they die.

How is that undemocratic?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Term limits of any kind are undemocratic.

No one shall be an executive for an unspecified period of time.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Term limits of any kind are undemocratic.

[© tweed]

It's definitely a bad idea, expecially in a place with a machine like Mexico once had.

no, it was perfect for the PRI machine, which is why it existed

[Smid]

Elections are the best way of determining when people think it's time to change leaders, not term limits. I don't think removing term limits would have allowed Bush to be re-elected in 2008...

[ottermax]

This is why Virginia has such weird election results. I wonder what it would be like if Tim Kaine could have run for re-election this year instead of an entirely new set of candidates.

[ottermax]

Another way this can go bad is the sense of legacy politicians sometimes face. In South Korea presidents only have one term so they are always trying to leave their mark on the country. Sometimes this is positive, but usually the president mandates huge white elephants like a trans-national canal or doubling the number of airports. It's better than corruption, and South Korea is lucky to have a booming economy to support their presidential legacy dreams.

[Хahar 🤔]

It's definitely a bad idea, expecially in a place with a machine like Mexico once had.

no, it was perfect for the PRI machine, which is why it existed

Well, obviously. It was a good idea for the PRI, but they weren't the ones who made it.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Term limits of any kind are undemocratic.

If a president can sucessfully pack the whole government appartus with his supporters over say 10-15 years, he can easily undermine democratic institutions.

Yes, but it also doesn't necessary mean that an absence of term limits directly leads to the end of democracy, France lived from 1958 to 2005 with terms of 7 years without any limit, and Mitterand stayed 14 years, and we didn't fall in the end of democracy, because the 5th republic before 2005 permit to have legislatives that balanced it. Though, I ought to say that our current constitution has clear lacks of democracy, but still, it remains some democracy.

[Free Palestine]

Term limits of any kind are undemocratic.

If a president can sucessfully pack the whole government appartus with his supporters over say 10-15 years, he can easily undermine democratic institutions.

That's what separation of powers is for, and to a lesser extent people with guns.  You see, the president wasn't at all meant to be like he is today - so, say, a hundred and fifty years ago, a president having three, four terms wouldn't have been a very bad thing.  Because the president had a very limited role.  That changed with FDR, who was a very active president who served four terms.  Term limits were put in place by his opponents.

The 22nd Amendment puts this horrible change in the presidency into writing.

[Hatman 🍁]

Let me explain my view,

When a candidate cannot run for whatever reason, that is undemocratic. Term limits prevent individuals from running for election, preventing the voters from choosing the favoured choice.

Term limits of any kind are undemocratic.

If a president can sucessfully pack the whole government appartus with his supporters over say 10-15 years, he can easily undermine democratic institutions.

That is besides the point. Many leaders are freely re-elected over and over again. It's happened in Canada many times.

[Jacobtm]

Term limits of any kind are undemocratic.

If a president can sucessfully pack the whole government appartus with his supporters over say 10-15 years, he can easily undermine democratic institutions.

That is besides the point. Many leaders are freely re-elected over and over again. It's happened in Canada many times.

[/quote]
It's not besides the point, it's the whole point. It's how so many countries in Latin America are currently turning their countries away from free and fair democracy. They claim that they're the only ones capable of fixing the numerous problems in their countries, and when they fail, they begin to blame all other aspects of politics, ask the voters to democratically expand their powers, change constitutions, and at the end of the day, you're left with countries with "democratic" institutions which are hollow.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

California's term limits haven't worked out so well. It only encourages politicians to kick the can down the road.

[Хahar 🤔]

Term limits of any kind are undemocratic.

If a president can sucessfully pack the whole government appartus with his supporters over say 10-15 years, he can easily undermine democratic institutions.

That can easily be done with or without term limits. One doesn't have to be in office to hold power.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This is why Virginia has such weird election results. I wonder what it would be like if Tim Kaine could have run for re-election this year instead of an entirely new set of candidates.

Kaine would not have been running for reelection; he'd probably be seeking to replace Mark Warner, who was reelected in 2005, or running for reelection after taking office in January, 2009, following Mark Warner's election as President.

[© tweed]

I can't take cries for democracy seriously when all of the campaigns are corporately funded.