• Welcome!

    We're a UK based community of cult entertainment fans - so whether you're into WWE, Marvel, DC, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, Star Wars, Doctor Who, Star Trek and more - join us!

    It's free to register, so why not sign up and discuss whatever you're into...

Should the presidency be limited to just one-term?

Messages
92
Ratings
4
Points
8
In most democracies across the world, the president is normally elected, with the option to run for at least a second-term. A leader who knows that they are eligible for a second term will probably strive to deliver during the first term. Would limiting the presidency to just one term ensure more inclusiveness or would it encourage laxity?
 

Zack T

Active Member
Messages
479
Ratings
110 1
Points
43
You know, that's an excellent point and I think it has validity. Politicians often do things differently when they're in the final term due to term limits, or when they've decided to retire. I'm personally for imposing term limits on every political position.

However I don't know that the presidency would be good to limit to a single 4 year term. The problem I have with it is that we go through this cycle where we flip flop between Republican and Democrat. Nearly everytime we elect a new president, it's someone of the opposite party of the last president. And because of that, we experience a sudden shift in focus and policy and we can't ever make any legitimate real progress or change as a country because we're constantly walking ourselves in a damn circle with each president either trying to undo the work of the last president, or make their own mark (only to be undone by the next president).

In that regard, I almost think removing term limits for the President only would be better. If someone can do a good enough job and garner enough support to win that office multiple times, then maybe it should happen. Of course, that's a scary thought when it's the person you totally don't support holding that office. But that's politics...not everyone's gonna like everyone.

Who knows.
 
Messages
91
Ratings
3
Points
8
I agree with you @Zack T that real progress can only be made when there is no such cycle that almost makes it obvious that the next President would be from a certain party. Certain policies require time for their full implementation to occur and at times a change in leadership ruins everything.
 
Messages
45
Ratings
3
Points
8
I would not advocate for limiting presidencies to single terms. Although it may increase the level of urgency of the office holder, a single term may be too short for a president's plans and policies to effectively be implemented. Also, the option of multiple terms gives the voting public opportunities to re-elect leaders who served them well.
 
Messages
86
Ratings
1
Points
8
George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover are examples of Presidents that never got reelected for one reason or another. In a way, limiting the presidency to a single term would not be as effective giving the electorate a second chance with a leader.
 
Messages
92
Ratings
4
Points
8
Well, the 22nd amendment was passed by Congress after Franklin Roosevelt was elected to four terms. Thing is, why did the lawmakers deem it fit for a President to only run for two terms? That is the big question.
 

Zack T

Active Member
Messages
479
Ratings
110 1
Points
43
It was tradition. It started with George Washington. After his 2nd term, they wanted him to keep going, but he didn't want to. So after him, all future Presidents followed his example and opted not to run for a 3rd term or more.

That is until FDR. FDR kept going primarily due to The Great Depression and World War 2, as far as I understand it.

Why it became law to limit it after then, I'm not really sure. Probably just as a safeguard against voter tampering or perhaps it was purely political spite, to keep the opposing faction from remaining in power too long.
 
Messages
94
Ratings
4
Points
8
It was tradition. It started with George Washington. After his 2nd term, they wanted him to keep going, but he didn't want to. So after him, all future Presidents followed his example and opted not to run for a 3rd term or more.

That is until FDR. FDR kept going primarily due to The Great Depression and World War 2, as far as I understand it.

Why it became law to limit it after then, I'm not really sure. Probably just as a safeguard against voter tampering or perhaps it was purely political spite, to keep the opposing faction from remaining in power too long.
This makes sense @Zack T. A good indication of a mature democracy is when a sitting President opts not to run for another term despite a majority of the electorate wanting him to. When all is said in done, what matters is the quality of our leadership and not really for how long they serve.
 
Top