NationStates Jolt Archive

I think yes. The XXII Amendment specified that the president may only serve two terms. That may have sounded like a good idea to Republicans in the late forties that were angry over FDR's four terms, but it has had dramatic consequences. Elections to first term presidencies are about issues, but the second term presidencies are about personalities. The incumbent almost always wins because of his familiarity. Out of the ten presidents since the amendment's passage, only three were voted out of office, and one (Gerald Ford) wasn't even elected president nor Vice President.
Second terms have also become pointless. Congress, knowing that punishments can't be doled out to them later, crafts their own agenda. In Clinton's second term, for instance, Congress used its power on spending cuts and the like, and nearly even toppled the President. There is no such thing as an activist second-term president, and that's why the elections, and the terms themselves, are so pointless.
The country does not need to shut down for a four year period at any given time. Congress can ensure the nation's smooth operation, constant reform, and constant accountability of government by giving presidents an unlimited number of terms.

I'd agree with its repeal but then I worry on the timing as some crazies out there might use it to elect Bush for a third term. I might move to Canada if that happened, I swear!

You might get a dominant-party system and the dominant party would become complacent. That would be a bad thing. Blair's doing a Maggie at the moment, coming back for the third term.

No it definitely shouldn't be repealed. Liskeinland is deads right about the unfortunate tendency people over here have to keep reelecting the same cretins over and over here, and if there wasn't an addenda to the constitution you'd probably have had Reagan in the White House for at least another couple of terms...

No thanks. I don't like dynasties, which is one of the reasons I'm not wild about the notion of a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

And as for the re-election numbers, here's how I break them down:
Re-elected
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush

Not re-elected
John F. Kennedy (assassination exception)
Lyndon Johnson (chose not to run for re-election, but likely would have lost)
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
George H. W. Bush

Those numbers are pretty close to my mind.

Yes, I believe it should.

No thanks. I don't like dynasties, which is one of the reasons I'm not wild about the notion of a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

And as for the re-election numbers, here's how I break them down:
Re-elected
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush

Not re-elected
John F. Kennedy (assassination exception)
Lyndon Johnson (chose not to run for re-election, but likely would have lost)
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
George H. W. Bush

Those numbers are pretty close to my mind.

Face it, we already have dynasties, they are called political parties.

I'd agree with its repeal but then I worry on the timing as some crazies out there might use it to elect Bush for a third term. I might move to Canada if that happened, I swear!
Don't worry. There would never be enough political will unless we had a situation like what Lyndon Johnson created, where he thought of the House and Senate like Him and Her.

OH GOD!!! Bush a 3rd term?!?! No!

Face it, we already have dynasties, they are called political parties.
They aren't dynasties for the simple reason that they tend to be a bunch of interests in one party, and as such, they change platforms completely once every forty or so years. For instance, when the Democrats were first created in the 1790s, they advocated for strong state governments, a loose federal government, and no taxes. Is that them now?

No thanks. I don't like dynasties, which is one of the reasons I'm not wild about the notion of a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

And as for the re-election numbers, here's how I break them down:
Re-elected
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Richard Nixon
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush

Not re-elected
John F. Kennedy (assassination exception)
Lyndon Johnson (chose not to run for re-election, but likely would have lost)
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
George H. W. Bush

Those numbers are pretty close to my mind.

I chose only those that were actually defeated.

It's a fair bet that Kennedy would have been re-elected if he hadn't been shot, though. Given he'd already nearly started a war with Russia a couple of times by then, it's probably a good thing he got killed when he did.

You might get a dominant-party system and the dominant party would become complacent. That would be a bad thing. Blair's doing a Maggie at the moment, coming back for the third term.
No. The dominant party would last only a short time before it'd factionalize, and perhaps even split. That's what's happening in the Labor party right now. If Blair was forced to quit after his second term, the party would still factionalize, and there's nothing he'd could do about it. But since he'd not, he's forced to fish out for political allies and keep on the same ideaological track he's been on since he was first elected. He can't moderate himself that easily and appeal to more constituents because his tenure is about the issues, and not the person. Thus, elections turn into referendums on ideas.

Repeal it - only to put in Amendment XXVIII, limiting a president to one term

Limiting the term a persident can have severly limits his powers. Blair at the moment is struggling after having addmited he won't run again and I feel it happens to most presidents in secound term.

Repeal it - only to put in Amendment XXVIII, limiting a president to one term
And add an ammendment that they have to be publically burnt to death in a huge wickerman if the crops fail or the deficit rises?

And add an ammendment that they have to be publically burnt to death in a huge wickerman if the crops fail or the deficit rises?
Actually that would be a good idea....:cool: