I do have a slight different concern considering the electoral college verses a purely popular election process than my peers, but not enough to see the change as necessary yet. However, I want to bring up another aspect that I think needs reforming. The one thing that really bothers me about our current election rules is that if a person is elected twice to office, they are not permitted a third run (Roosevelt being the last three term President). I think we could at least consider that after being elected twice, the possibility. As a nation we should be able to make better judgements based on that person's past performance. Admittedly, as a nation, we sometime don't really see the effectiveness of a presidency, good or bad, until years down the road. I would propose a mandatory sitting out for one election, after two consecutive terms. By then if an ex-President wants to put his hat back into the ring for a third time, then I see no reason we shouldn't consider his electability. It only benefits us, we the people, and that's why we have elections in an attempt to put the person in power that we think will do the best job.


Bobby

No, we don't really get the satisfaction of kicking his personal butt out. Sending his party into the minority wilderness is our only revenge.

That'll do I suppose. But gee it was fun kicking Howard out :) He got the message (in the end) that his relentless adoption of Bush's policies was despised by many here.

Imagine that. Bill V Hillary for the Democrats nomination? Now that would be interesting.

Is the two term restriction in some ways undemocratic? Why should someone not be bale to lead for as long as the people want that person to lead? If there is no one better to take on the job why should the people have to put up with that? Shouldn't it be a matter of the bets man (or women) for the job no matter how long they have been in control?

Like it or not we might get that anyway. I think their still sleeping together unless Bill's in the doghouse again.

Roosevelt actually had four terms. It was a little before my time, but I think it was due to WWW II that it was permitted.



Well, I agree. I certainly see it as limiting Democracy. I think the counter-view is that some are seeing it as part of the check and balance system of our government. Here is a link as to the purpose of the amendment: Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Bobby

With respect to Roosevelt and four terms, which is correct, a constitutional amendment was passed after his death limiting the president to two terms. Amending the constitution is a very democratic process; I think I read where it has been done only 27 times.

I've read where several ex-Presidents, including one Ronald Reagan, totally disagreed with the amendment.


Bobby

Its been working for 200 years and has flaws that can be fixed but I think if there as anything majorly wrong would have been perfected by now

Like everything else in Ameica, its all about the money. The rest is show. That's about money too.

"Undemocratic"? Well, I suppose it's one of many ways our system divergences from the ideal of a "perfect" democracy where a vote is required on every decision.

The concern behind the rule, I think, is that the power of incumbency to shape and influence the selection process is considerable, possibly so great as to unfairly disadvantage challengers and frustrate the electorate's desire for change.

And yes, it was adopted after Roosevelt, and because of his four-term run. People decided it was too dangerous.

You mean like Romney's purchase of the Republican nomination?

As excon would say... BWAaaaHAaaaHAAaaaa!!

(ex, buddy, are you there? How do you spell it really? That doesn't look right)

Young lady, you have a lot to learn about history, American and otherwise. I suggest you hit the books.

I like term limits . It is bad enough we have an entrenched unmovable bureaucracy .We don't need it in our political class. The power of the incumbent is too great . This is true not only of the executive but it is even worse in Congress. Robert Byrd has been in the Senate since 1959 .Even the old Soviet Politburo did not serve as long.

Hmmm. The Soviet Politburo did not face election or re-election. You could make a similar argument for campaign finance reform: look how efficient they were.

We do not have a "no confidence" system here. The only time a President leaves office before the end of his term is if he becomes incapacitated or dies in office (as has happened a few times, resigns (as Nixon did) or is impeached and found guilty of a crime (this has never actually happened, though Clinton came close... he was impeached but not found guilty). Otherwise, a President serves his full term.

If at the end of two terms, people don't like the policies of a president, they don't vote HIM out of office... but they do get to vote for new candidates who have different policies. Your system makes the vote a referendum on the individual, whereas ours makes it a referendum on the policies. Which I know is the opposite of what I said yesterday, but it is still true. Your no-confidence system makes a no-confidence vote a matter of the popularity of the individual PM, whereas ours makes it an issue of the policies. On the other hand, because we vote for the individual rather than the party, we have a more direct say in the choosing of the President.

Even if a President were to be impeached, his VP would take over, and likely impose similar policies. If you want to get rid of the policies, you have to vote those policies out of power. If you don't like the individual, you can vote against the individual. In your system, the indivudual who is least popular can still become PM, if his PARTY is popular. Similarly, the party that is currently in power can be taken out of power if the people don't like an individual PM... even if they happen to still like the party and its policies.

Why should an entier party that has popular policies lose its power because a particular individual is disliked. And why should a disliked individual automatically take office, just because a particular party is popular.

Take Israel for example: Ehud Olmert's predecessor was Aiel Sharon, who was widely popular and well-liked until he suffered the stroke that put him out of office. Sharon brought his party to power and popularity. Ehud Olmert is incredibly unpopular in the wake of the wa in Lebanon a year and a half ago, and there have been some calls for a no-confidence vote for close to a year now. But there are people within his party who know that they cannot win such a vote, and the people LIKE the party that is currently in power, even if they don't like Olmert. As a result, there is reluctance to go through a NC vote, which the party may not win. So Olmert, who is disliked, stays in power because of the fact that people like the PARTY. And in order to get id of Olmert, the entire party would need to be taken down.

So the result is that a widely unpopular PM remains in power, not because of his policies, but because of which party he represents. If Olmert were to stand for election on his own, as our President does, he would lose in a landslide. But they can't get rid of Olmert without getting rid of the party, even if the party is popular.

I prefer a system of direct elections, where the individual office-holder stands for elections. The advantage is that unpopular people don't hold office just because of what party they belong to, and parties don't lose power because of individuals.

Our system isn't perfect, but I think it has certain advantages over other systems. On the other hand I agree that it also has disadvantages... there have been a few President's that I would have liked to vote out in middle of their terms with a NC vote.

It's a give and take... you give up certain advantages in favor of others. Our system works for us, and that's all that really matters.

Elliot

Just some additional information . President Andrew Johnson was also impeached and tried . He was acquitted by a single vote. In the case of Bill Clinton the Senate never came close to the 2/3 vote needed for conviction.