Term Limits

[SeventhSon]

So with the upcoming US election in the fall, I was thinking about the idea of term limits. I live in Canada, and up here as long as a Prime Minister remains leader of his (or her) party and that party has the confidence of the House of Commons, they can be Prime Minister. However, we can pretty much call an election anytime the party in power loses said confidence. The US of course cannot do this.

What is your opinion about term limits? If a president is really popular and really good, it would make sense that he should get to be president longer, so long as there is a way to make sure he governs reasonably and can be removed from office if deemed unfit to govern (see: Confidence of the House). This might also help reduce the election timeline from basically being a year and a half or two years down to a couple of months.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

term limits are awesome. I'm in favor of them for all political positions

[rumborak]

Well, while unlimited terms can sometimes be good, in cases like Italy they can be a disaster. Overall I'm for limits on it.

rumborak

[Omega]

I tend to sympathize with the model that Mexico has established: a 6 year presidential term and no re-election. This allows an elected president enough time to accomplish his goals and also removes the burden of having to worry with campaigning for re-election and dissuades political cliff-hangers near the end of a term.

[GuineaPig]

A potential problem of term limits with respect to congressmen/senators: creates an incentive for one to cram all their corruption/fraud/insider trading into a shortened span of time.

[Super Dude]

I tend to sympathize with the model that Mexico has established: a 6 year presidential term and no re-election. This allows an elected president enough time to accomplish his goals and also removes the burden of having to worry with campaigning for re-election and dissuades political cliff-hangers near the end of a term.

That sounds pretty good. But does it work for them? I mean from what little I know, Mexico's in pretty rough shape.

[Omega]

I tend to sympathize with the model that Mexico has established: a 6 year presidential term and no re-election. This allows an elected president enough time to accomplish his goals and also removes the burden of having to worry with campaigning for re-election and dissuades political cliff-hangers near the end of a term.

That sounds pretty good. But does it work for them? I mean from what little I know, Mexico's in pretty rough shape.

It generally does work for them, yes.

 The reason why people believe Mexico is in "rough shape" is merely because of the negative media hysteria to paint Mexico as a hell hole where, if you visit, you face a 100% probability of being kidnapped, killed or mugged. That is partly true as there is certainly violence in Mexico, but mostly only in specific pockets of the country. Unfortunately, Mexico's current President Calderon, after much economic pressure from the US, agreed to launch a vain, bloody and pointless war against the drug cartels back when he took office in 2006. 6 years later, 55,000+ Mexican nationals dead and no real benefits to point to. Americans are throwing even more profit at the cartels than ever and an endless armament of weapons their way for good measure, too.

So yes, Mexico is somewhat struggling right now, but not necessarily because of Mexico itself but rather mostly because of the US, really, although part of the problem is undoubtedly shouldered by Mexico as well.

Many speculate that prior to Calderon, Mexican Presidents had an unwritten agreement or truce with the cartels to be able to transport their drugs mostly unhampered by governmental authority into the US provided violence was kept at a reasonable low and between the cartels themselves. The Mexican public is absolutely fed up with the unnecessary bloodshed and so the next president will likely end or at least de-escalate the "War against drugs" in Mexico. The problem, though, is that Uncle Sam would probably take offense at that and slap Mexico with some unfavorable economic treatment. From what I know of the general opinion there, people simply want to stop being herded by the US to do its favors or to be obligated to take actions merely to please their northern neighbors.

[GuineaPig]

I tend to sympathize with the model that Mexico has established: a 6 year presidential term and no re-election. This allows an elected president enough time to accomplish his goals and also removes the burden of having to worry with campaigning for re-election and dissuades political cliff-hangers near the end of a term.

That sounds pretty good. But does it work for them? I mean from what little I know, Mexico's in pretty rough shape.

Yeah, but it's not like the term limits on the presidency are what's fuelling the drug war.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

[Super Dude]

I tend to sympathize with the model that Mexico has established: a 6 year presidential term and no re-election. This allows an elected president enough time to accomplish his goals and also removes the burden of having to worry with campaigning for re-election and dissuades political cliff-hangers near the end of a term.

That sounds pretty good. But does it work for them? I mean from what little I know, Mexico's in pretty rough shape.

Yeah, but it's not like the term limits on the presidency are what's fuelling the drug war.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

I wasn't saying that so much as suggesting that, as Omega said, term limits do have an effect on policy. For all I know, the reason for chaos in Mexico is economic disparity, the symptoms of which we see in this country.

And yeah I mean I've been to Mexico so I know it's not like the media portrays, but then I'd always stayed in the less urbanized areas.

[TL]

Lack of term limits is something that typically works fine in parliamentary systems, but in a presidential system, limits are typically a good idea.

[Chino]

Unlimited for the president. Limited for the members of congress.

[lordxizor]

I think two terms for the president is good. I would like to see one term for senators (maybe two) and two or three terms for reps.

[El Barto]

A potential problem of term limits with respect to congressmen/senators: creates an incentive for one to cram all their corruption/fraud/insider trading into a shortened span of time.

Kind of what I was thinking.  The problem isn't that crooked assholes get to serve too long in congress.  The problem is that it's full of crooked assholes.  I don't think term limits would do anything to deter that.  The solution is to reform congress so that it's not the cushiest job in the free world.  Once you establish that people are there for the betterment of everybody else,  rather than themselves, then you want them there as long as they'll keep doing it.

[Super Dude]

A potential problem of term limits with respect to congressmen/senators: creates an incentive for one to cram all their corruption/fraud/insider trading into a shortened span of time.

Kind of what I was thinking.  The problem isn't that crooked assholes get to serve too long in congress.  The problem is that it's full of crooked assholes.  I don't think term limits would do anything to deter that.  The solution is to reform congress so that it's not the cushiest job in the free world.  Once you establish that people are there for the betterment of everybody else,  rather than themselves, then you want them there as long as they'll keep doing it.

Yep, and there's no remedy to my mind that can assure that. If anyone has any ideas on this, I would love to hear them.

[El Barto]

A potential problem of term limits with respect to congressmen/senators: creates an incentive for one to cram all their corruption/fraud/insider trading into a shortened span of time.

Kind of what I was thinking.  The problem isn't that crooked assholes get to serve too long in congress.  The problem is that it's full of crooked assholes.  I don't think term limits would do anything to deter that.  The solution is to reform congress so that it's not the cushiest job in the free world.  Once you establish that people are there for the betterment of everybody else,  rather than themselves, then you want them there as long as they'll keep doing it.

Yep, and there's no remedy to my mind that can assure that. If anyone has any ideas on this, I would love to hear them.

There are plenty of remedies for that.  It's just that they won't come about from the people currently exploiting the system.  There's absolutely no reason why campaigning should cost hundreds of millions of dollars, except that they want it to.  Do away with that and you've made a huge change.  I'd also look into definite prison time for ethics violations.  Give them a real risk to worry about.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

I wish gubernatorial terms were limited more strictly.

I live in Texas.

[TempusVox]

I'm all for term limits. Term limits are fine, but the bigger issue is campaign finance reform. The day a member of Congress is elected he/she begins fundraising for re-election. This has led to a system that is entirely broken, and horribly corrupt in my opinion. My wife worked for many years on the Hill both working for members of Congress and as a lobbyist. She still works as a "consultant" on environmental issues (NRDC). I have seen the machinations of Congress firsthand, and I firmly believe that if the 99% Movement knew about everything what goes on regarding campaign fundraising and finance, they wouldn't be protesting on Wall Street, but would instead refocus their sights, and they would burn Washington DC to the fucking ground. Perhaps term limits would be a good first step toward finance reform, but I doubt it.

[Scheavo]

Why should they march on DC for the fund raising that occurs, when it's the Corporations that willingly give the money away? I know there is some measure of blackmailing going on, but it goes both ways.

Which isn't to say I don't think big-government isn't the issue, it is, but big-government is big because it's merged with big-business.

Also, I'm not entirely sure the "99% Movement" doesn't really acknowledge this issue.

[XJDenton]

If democracy is working properly it has term limits built in: elections.

[rumborak]

I always liked the parliamentary's vote of no confidence to keep leaders in check to not abuse their powers too much. A president has essentially free reign for 4 years.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

I tend to sympathize with the model that Mexico has established: a 6 year presidential term and no re-election. This allows an elected president enough time to accomplish his goals and also removes the burden of having to worry with campaigning for re-election and dissuades political cliff-hangers near the end of a term.

That sounds pretty good. But does it work for them? I mean from what little I know, Mexico's in pretty rough shape.

It generally does work for them, yes.

 The reason why people believe Mexico is in "rough shape" is merely because of the negative media hysteria to paint Mexico as a hell hole where, if you visit, you face a 100% probability of being kidnapped, killed or mugged.

That's not the only reason.  One other big reason is that every year shitloads of people voluntarily leave being a citizen of their country to come hear and have a better lifestyle as an illegal immigrant.  That says pretty shitty things about the homeland.

[snapple]

I always liked the parliamentary's vote of no confidence to keep leaders in check to not abuse their powers too much. A president has essentially free reign for 4 years.

rumborak

How exactly does that work?

Also, doesn't that cause a problem when the politics are completely partisan and parliament is controlled by a different party than the President/Prime Minister?

[Scheavo]

I always liked the parliamentary's vote of no confidence to keep leaders in check to not abuse their powers too much. A president has essentially free reign for 4 years.

rumborak

How exactly does that work?

Also, doesn't that cause a problem when the politics are completely partisan and parliament is controlled by a different party than the President/Prime Minister?

No, because it causes an election. It's impossible for the pm to not be the head of the majority coalition. I think you're basically thinking of the US, which is why nothing ever get's done here.

I tend to sympathize with the model that Mexico has established: a 6 year presidential term and no re-election. This allows an elected president enough time to accomplish his goals and also removes the burden of having to worry with campaigning for re-election and dissuades political cliff-hangers near the end of a term.

That sounds pretty good. But does it work for them? I mean from what little I know, Mexico's in pretty rough shape.

It generally does work for them, yes.

 The reason why people believe Mexico is in "rough shape" is merely because of the negative media hysteria to paint Mexico as a hell hole where, if you visit, you face a 100% probability of being kidnapped, killed or mugged.

That's not the only reason.  One other big reason is that every year shitloads of people voluntarily leave being a citizen of their country to come hear and have a better lifestyle as an illegal immigrant.  That says pretty shitty things about the homeland.

Our economy is not our government, I also believe theres a lot going back to Mexico now.

[PraXis]

Two years for everyone, no exceptions, GTFO when you're done.

[ReaperKK]

I tend to sympathize with the model that Mexico has established: a 6 year presidential term and no re-election. This allows an elected president enough time to accomplish his goals and also removes the burden of having to worry with campaigning for re-election and dissuades political cliff-hangers near the end of a term.

I came here to post this pretty much .