NationStates Jolt Archive

I do not know if this has been done before, however I would like to hear everyones opinions about the limit to how many terms one can serve as President in the US, please dont turn into a thread for bashing US or US presidents guys (even though if enough people post that is what it will turn into)

I generally think that if someone is able to get elected 20 years straight, they should get to lead for 20 years straight.

sorry for the bias here, I am mainly gearing it towards American politics.

sorry for the bias here, I am mainly gearing it towards American politics.
That is what is assumed.

Rule by consent of the masses, there should still be elections but they should be allowed to serve however many terms they are elected too.

I do not know if this has been done before, however I would like to hear everyones opinions about the limit to how many terms one can serve as President in the US, please dont turn into a thread for bashing US or US presidents guys (even though if enough people post that is what it will turn into)I wonder how much trouble we could have avoided if Kohl hadn't been allowed to serve more than two terms. We only have term limits for the President in Germany, not the Chancellor.

I don't see the point of term limits in a democracy. The people will get rid of someone when they no longer want them. It seems that making people leave office has the potential to chuck out someone with many years left in them and lots of experience in favour of starting all over again, generally with a clone because that's the closest thing to what the people wanted.

i am strongly against term limits. however, I am glad america has them now because then bush can't become president again.

i am strongly against term limits. however, I am glad america has them now because then bush can't become president again.
But it's highly unlikely he would do, even without the limits. Like I say, democracy tends to sort these things out on its own.

Well Bush would have probably never been president, Clinton would probably still be in office.

Although I don't think there should be "term limits" per se, I do think that every elected official, with the exception of the President, should be subject to recall.

The reason why? Simple! Upheaval!

If one group of people stays in office for too long, inefficiencies and graft and corruption make DEEP inroads.

By having limits, one more or less ensures that incompetants/hangers on are purged on a regular basis. That, and (let's face it) if you went for a task and didn't get it done in X years, why would Y years help?

Well Bush would have probably never been president, Clinton would probably still be in office.

Clinton would probably never have been President, REAGAN would probably still be in office! :D
(Well, until he died, anyway.)

Although I don't think there should be "term limits" per se, I do think that every elected official, with the exception of the President, should be subject to recall.

I disagree with you there, E. Every politician is the worst one ever... since the last one.

Recall just makes a mess of things (ie: California). I'd rather see term limits on Congress: no one should be representing their state for 30+ years. At that point they've spent so much time in Washington that they've forgotten why they are there in the first place.

i am strongly against term limits. however, I am glad america has them now because then bush can't become president again.

Horror. People electing people I disagree with.

i am strongly against term limits. however, I am glad america has them now because then bush can't become president again.

True. It would suck if he appointed his brother Prime Minister or something, too. :rolleyes:

On one hand, it might deprive the people of a spectacular leader.

On the other, it might save them from an idiot.

I generally think that if someone is able to get elected 20 years straight, they should get to lead for 20 years straight.It depends a lot on how they get elected for 20 years though. Politics isn't always a fair game. Even if the tactics used aren't outright criminal, there might still be manipulation.
If we look outside the US for a moment, consider how Putin's last presidential campaign went, he was basicly the only one in the media in Russia; no big surprise he got reelected (and that's ignoring the rumours of intimidating opposing candidates).
Nevermind outright dictatorships where presidents get 'elected' every term with 98% of the votes.

On one hand, it might deprive the people of a spectacular leader.

On the other, it might save them from an idiot.I don't have any statistics on percentages of great leaders and idiots in democratic societies, but I'm pretty sure which of the two would have a greater representation ;)

I disagree with you there, E. Every politician is the worst one ever... since the last one.

Recall just makes a mess of things (ie: California). I'd rather see term limits on Congress: no one should be representing their state for 30+ years. At that point they've spent so much time in Washington that they've forgotten why they are there in the first place.
Or, it might mean that the voters are pleased at the job they're doing. :)

Or, it might mean that the voters are pleased at the job they're doing. :)Or that so many people are fed up with politics that half of the voting population doesn't bother showing up at the polls, thus creating the illusion that said politicians were popular in the first place...