Obama - a three term President?

[sandinista]

I think somebody should be able to hold office as long as the people want them to. They should have to go up for re-election regularly, of course. If it's not broke, don't fix it.

yep

[SteveB]

Putin shaves his chest apparently. That's always good to know.

[Ian]

Except in extreme circumstances (WWII included, maybe), I'm in favor of term limits. It's all well and good to talk about the will of the people, but prolonged power can potentially result in too much influence over what that will is. The power of incumbency is a real thing, and it can be used to affect the next election in many ways. Term limits, at least for supreme executive power (a very different thing from the separation afforded to judicial office or from the nature of legislative office), is just a form of checks and balances. And generally speaking, checks and balances are good.

Furthermore, the 2-term limit alters the outlook of a President. A re-elected executive who no longer has to think about the next election is likely to act differently than one who is worried about whether or not he's going to have another term. He/she is more likely to act in the nation's long-term interests (or if you're a cynic, in the interests of his legacy) than for short-term political gain. To take one example (and I'm using one I was against): George W. Bush waited until his 2nd term to try and tackle Social Security reform. I doubt he would've done that if he was planning to run for a 3rd term - it was a very unpopular thing to do, not least of which in Florida, and he knew it. But it took guts, and guts tend to be lacking in a politician who always has to keep one eye on the strategy of winning his next election. This also explains why lame-duck Congresses tend to be more productive than those in other times in the election cycle.

[Blind groper]

Without term limits, the odds of an autocratic and arrogant government increase. I like the two term limit in the USA, and wish we had it also. However, I would be inclined to suggest that it should be two five year terms, to permit the pres to make some necessary changes.

[Audley Strange]

I suppose really since it is the figurehead rather than the political party that has to give up after 2 terms, it really doesn't make much difference other than as a cult of personality thing.

[JimC]

Without term limits, the odds of an autocratic and arrogant government increase. I like the two term limit in the USA, and wish we had it also. However, I would be inclined to suggest that it should be two five year terms, to permit the pres to make some necessary changes.

Parliamentary systems with Prime Ministers are rather different; no one is voting directly for a PM (except in his own electorate, usually a pretty safe seat for his party). Of course, people's perception of a current (or prospective) PM is a big factor in how they will vote in an election.

In this context, terms are fairly meaningless -PMs can (and do) change within the life of a parliament...

[Jason]

Furthermore, the 2-term limit alters the outlook of a President. A re-elected executive who no longer has to think about the next election is likely to act differently than one who is worried about whether or not he's going to have another term. He/she is more likely to act in the nation's long-term interests (or if you're a cynic, in the interests of his legacy) than for short-term political gain. To take one example (and I'm using one I was against): George W. Bush waited until his 2nd term to try and tackle Social Security reform. I doubt he would've done that if he was planning to run for a 3rd term - it was a very unpopular thing to do, not least of which in Florida, and he knew it. But it took guts, and guts tend to be lacking in a politician who always has to keep one eye on the strategy of winning his next election. This also explains why lame-duck Congresses tend to be more productive than those in other times in the election cycle.

That sounds like a good argument against term limits to me. First term is trying to actually do what the public wants, second term is doing whatever 'you' want and screw the people. Doesn't sound very democratic.

[Ian]

Pretty cynical, but what the public wants and what is in the best long term interests are not always the same. We're a Republic rather than a true democracy for that very reason.

[hadespussercats]

Well, it's not democratic. It wasn't designed to be democratic.

Okay. Ian beat me to it.

[Drewish]

Term limits seem silly to me. How else can we get a cult leader for life into the White House?

[JimC]

Furthermore, the 2-term limit alters the outlook of a President. A re-elected executive who no longer has to think about the next election is likely to act differently than one who is worried about whether or not he's going to have another term. He/she is more likely to act in the nation's long-term interests (or if you're a cynic, in the interests of his legacy) than for short-term political gain. To take one example (and I'm using one I was against): George W. Bush waited until his 2nd term to try and tackle Social Security reform. I doubt he would've done that if he was planning to run for a 3rd term - it was a very unpopular thing to do, not least of which in Florida, and he knew it. But it took guts, and guts tend to be lacking in a politician who always has to keep one eye on the strategy of winning his next election. This also explains why lame-duck Congresses tend to be more productive than those in other times in the election cycle.

That sounds like a good argument against term limits to me. First term is trying to actually do what the public wants, second term is doing whatever 'you' want and screw the people. Doesn't sound very democratic.

That brings up an interesting political debate. Some argue that many of the faults in the democratic system spring from populism, in that when politicians make decisions solely on how it effect their chances of re-election, they pander to fleeting and fickle public opinion. This, it is said, may prevent them from making wise decisions for the long-term benefit of the community; it certainly means they are often more preoccupied with current opinion polls than rational analysis of what a community needs. This is probably exacerbated by the nature of modern media, which favours the instant and shallow over the delayed but reasoned...

[Blind groper]

they pander to fleeting and fickle public opinion.

Still better than the monarchs who preceded them, who made decisions based on what was good for the monarch. I would much prefer an elected person who is concerned with pleasing the electorate.

[JimC]

they pander to fleeting and fickle public opinion.

Still better than the monarchs who preceded them, who made decisions based on what was good for the monarch. I would much prefer an elected person who is concerned with pleasing the electorate.

In comparison, sure, and in many cases it will work fine.

But not always, IMO, for reasons I have already explained...

[Jason]

Furthermore, the 2-term limit alters the outlook of a President. A re-elected executive who no longer has to think about the next election is likely to act differently than one who is worried about whether or not he's going to have another term. He/she is more likely to act in the nation's long-term interests (or if you're a cynic, in the interests of his legacy) than for short-term political gain. To take one example (and I'm using one I was against): George W. Bush waited until his 2nd term to try and tackle Social Security reform. I doubt he would've done that if he was planning to run for a 3rd term - it was a very unpopular thing to do, not least of which in Florida, and he knew it. But it took guts, and guts tend to be lacking in a politician who always has to keep one eye on the strategy of winning his next election. This also explains why lame-duck Congresses tend to be more productive than those in other times in the election cycle.

That sounds like a good argument against term limits to me. First term is trying to actually do what the public wants, second term is doing whatever 'you' want and screw the people. Doesn't sound very democratic.

That brings up an interesting political debate. Some argue that many of the faults in the democratic system spring from populism, in that when politicians make decisions solely on how it effect their chances of re-election, they pander to fleeting and fickle public opinion. This, it is said, may prevent them from making wise decisions for the long-term benefit of the community; it certainly means they are often more preoccupied with current opinion polls than rational analysis of what a community needs. This is probably exacerbated by the nature of modern media, which favours the instant and shallow over the delayed but reasoned...

Who decides what is for 'the long-term benefit' of the community? It's not a democracy, it's not a republic, it's a disguised plutocracy with a pretense of democracy. A disgusting perversion.

[JimC]

Furthermore, the 2-term limit alters the outlook of a President. A re-elected executive who no longer has to think about the next election is likely to act differently than one who is worried about whether or not he's going to have another term. He/she is more likely to act in the nation's long-term interests (or if you're a cynic, in the interests of his legacy) than for short-term political gain. To take one example (and I'm using one I was against): George W. Bush waited until his 2nd term to try and tackle Social Security reform. I doubt he would've done that if he was planning to run for a 3rd term - it was a very unpopular thing to do, not least of which in Florida, and he knew it. But it took guts, and guts tend to be lacking in a politician who always has to keep one eye on the strategy of winning his next election. This also explains why lame-duck Congresses tend to be more productive than those in other times in the election cycle.

That sounds like a good argument against term limits to me. First term is trying to actually do what the public wants, second term is doing whatever 'you' want and screw the people. Doesn't sound very democratic.

That brings up an interesting political debate. Some argue that many of the faults in the democratic system spring from populism, in that when politicians make decisions solely on how it effect their chances of re-election, they pander to fleeting and fickle public opinion. This, it is said, may prevent them from making wise decisions for the long-term benefit of the community; it certainly means they are often more preoccupied with current opinion polls than rational analysis of what a community needs. This is probably exacerbated by the nature of modern media, which favours the instant and shallow over the delayed but reasoned...

Who decides what is for 'the long-term benefit' of the community? It's not a democracy, it's not a republic, it's a disguised plutocracy with a pretense of democracy. A disgusting perversion.

What is "it"? I'm speculating here about a possible downside to one aspect of democracy, not suggesting that it be abandoned for some council of wise old scientists...

But human nature is such that we tend to grasp for short-term benefits, at the possible expense of long-term solutions. When you have an electorate that contains a fair proportion of fools, a media with a penchant for rapidly jumping from one shallow soundbite to another, and politicians who make populist decisions as they watch the opinion polls, we have potential problems in making decisions for the public good. No solutions suggested, mind you...