Extending the Presidential Term of Office

It's no secret that the political landscape has been speeding up as this nation and its political system becomes more and more seasoned. For many years, a 4-year Presidential term has been sufficient.

The last few elections have really started off early with candidates declaring YEARS in advance of the general election. There were record numbers of debates in the past year, and you can see even now the various political players in the Republican party who are looking to step up and declare their candidacy when the time is right (as soon as possible).

Since things have sped up so much, the President has to spend more time focusing on the election (pandering to voters) and less time focusing on their job, resolving issues that affect Americans on a daily basis.

If the term of office were extended from 4 years to 6 or 8 years, this would give the incumbent sufficient time to dedicate to being the President.

Thoughts? This isn't some attempt to get Obama in office for more than 4 years. It's a question about the political process, and is not partisan in any way. I just think in a political position so demanding and time consuming, more time uninterrupted can be a good thing.

Very interesting thing you propose. I respectfully disagree. I feel that if the incumbent President has done his or her job, the issue of reelection is a formality.

I also feel that no matter how early one starts, it is the ending that counts. At the beginning of this last campaign, I seriously doubt that many people had predicted that their party nominees would be Obama and McCain.

I personally would like to see the race opened up to third parties so that their voice may be heard as well.

While I can understand your reasoning, I would have to say no when it comes to extending Presidential terms. Personally I think they have started dragging the election process on way too long and need to shorten the campaigning rather than extend the terms. We just had almost two years of campaigning for a four year term. If we extend the term to six or eight years, the length of time they spend campaigning will only increase right along with it. I don't know about you, but I couldn't listen to three, four, or five years of campaigning. Not to mention the amount of money wasted on campaigns as it is. There was over 2 billion spent on this last Presidential race. Can you even imagine the amount of money that would be wasted if the campaign got any longer than they already are?

Originally posted by jam321
Very interesting thing you propose. I respectfully disagree. I feel that if the incumbent President has done his or her job, the issue of reelection is a formality.

I agree with this, ideally. But I wonder about the short attention span of Americans and the fact that, come 2 years, Obama is going to be on the last page of the news as the Republican candidates come out and start running for election. The media will be focused on the Republican race for their big candidate while the incumbent isn't getting any of that.

Does anyone remember the situation when Democrats started declaring their candidacy for the 2004 election? Was there a lot of interest in George Bush at the time, or was the spotlight on the Democrats?

Honestly, no... A longer term as president is a very bad idea.

Look at all of the damage Bush was able to accomplish in each of his 4 year terms.
Now, look at the damage Obama has accomplished already, and he has only just begun. It is going to be the longest four years of our lives.

I would say the term per prez needs to be shorter, but that would be chaotic. This system is just broken beyond repair.

The spotlight depends on the media, not so much the candidate. If their is other more pressing news that will deliver big bucks, most of these candidates will get no attention. Also, Republicans don't have too many rising stars in their party. Most of the ones running are the same ones who ran previously.

Furthermore, the Republicans have a big issue in front of them. They are not united and don't have a clear vision of where they are headed. I am really not 100% sure that the guy they nominated to head them in the right direction is capable of doing so. Keep an eye on a lot of Republican discontent with their party in the coming years.

Originally posted by The Cyfre
Does anyone remember the situation when Democrats started declaring their candidacy for the 2004 election? Was there a lot of interest in George Bush at the time, or was the spotlight on the Democrats?

Who won the election though. By the time he came up for re-election, few people in the country could say they didn't know where he stood on the issues or that they didn't know anything about him. The same could not be said of the Democrats who were seeking a nomination, thus they were focused on. This time around we had a new candidate for both parties, but only one was focused on favorably. Extending the term limit won't change that.

reply to post by jam321


I'm forced to agree with jam on this one. Extending terms will only give them more time to plan for elections, thus tearing away from the very thing were attempting to stop.

Furthermore I think it's a good idea to shorten the campaigning process, that way the media would not have as much time to dish our their propaganda and fool the masses.

~Keeper

Longer terms? Hell No! I'd even like to see term limits on the House & Senate.

Someone much smarter than I once said, "Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and for the same reason."

Good points all, my only concern is that 4-year terms breed too much chaos as it is. I also think it would be good if the election process didn't begin so early, but you can clearly see the way this is trending, and there's nothing to suggest it's going to start going in the other direction. The simple fact of the matter is that elections are getting longer and longer, we are requiring to know more and more about our candidates. An incumbent has the office to speak for themselves during their non-campaign campaign, but that can also go against them and be a serious disadvantage.

I absolutely agree with term limits, I don't think any politician should be allowed to hold office for longer than a certain amount of elections. I think this is a great idean and should never change. I just think the President should hold one term for 6 years, two terms as a limit. That's 12 years total in office instead of 8 for a 2-term President.

reply to post by The Cyfre


The debate is part of their job. If they can't handle doing their job after all the debating is done then they should be drop kicked out of the White House. These Presidents of ours are meant to be cart-pulling oxen. They should exhaust every last ounce of their strength and still some more. Why else would I give them my vote?

No, term limits should not be extended. The term limit for the senate is already 6 years and the house is 2 years.

If anything I would like to see term limits on senate and house members and also within that add a recall option.

As in we then can fire any elected member of government at anytime. That way when they get voted in they have more pressure to listen to us because if they make the wrong decision they can be kicked out. Which would come in real handy right about now. Oh, and also outlaw political parties.

Gee, I agree term limits should not be extended and also, other elected officials terms should be limited.

That said, too bad THEY don't agree with us, because there are already two bills out there wanting to abolish the 22nd amendment of the constitution.

ATS thread Government and Media hypocracy

presidential term limits bill

Originally posted by The Cyfre

Originally posted by jam321
Very interesting thing you propose. I respectfully disagree. I feel that if the incumbent President has done his or her job, the issue of reelection is a formality.

I agree with this, ideally. But I wonder about the short attention span of Americans and the fact that, come 2 years, Obama is going to be on the last page of the news as the Republican candidates come out and start running for election. The media will be focused on the Republican race for their big candidate while the incumbent isn't getting any of that.

Does anyone remember the situation when Democrats started declaring their candidacy for the 2004 election? Was there a lot of interest in George Bush at the time, or was the spotlight on the Democrats?

The media will of course focus on the Republican candidates in a couple years, but not like they did for the Democrats. For the Dem candidates in 2006, they were always following a negative story about the war or Bush in the media, and then would come the "hope" segment with the Liberals. It was as if the media was saying, "Don't worry everybody, help is on the way". Then of course, after the puff piece on the Dems, inevitably there would be a stark reminder story about the mean ole' Republican candidates who stood in their way to the white house, who want to only help the rich, destroy the environment,and fight useless wars.

In two years, you watch. Every story about the Republican Candidates will either follow or be followed by a story that is all positive about President Obama. Watch, and if I'm wrong, I will gladly eat crow.

OP,
Lengthening the terms for President would be terrible unless we in turn held them to one term. I could deal with one 6 year term for the President much better than I could handle a President for 2 terms of up to 12 / 16 years. The last 2 years of a Presidents terms is always when the SHTF anyways. Any longer than 4 year terms, and if and when the next "bad" President is elected they could do some serious damage to the country in that amount of time.

reply to post by redhatty


I definately agree with you. Term limits on all offices and lets include some sort of review or method to oust unelected petty Hitlers, excuse me bureaucrats, like the "on the take" electrical inspector who OKed the upside down outlets in my house.

No no no no no no

Even if Obama was the second comming of Lincoln, Reagan, FDR all rolled into one, I would not support anything beyond 8 years no matter how popular.

Too much time having such absolute power would be disaterous.

Cast my vote for the "leave the limits as they are for Prez."

Sure - if someone that does really well is in there people may be sorry to see them go in 8 years (assuming they win 2nd term).

But, do you really want someone that doesn't do so well to be in there any longer?

As an American I'll be the first to admit that if you look at history we have elected some really fine Presidents from time to time. However, we have also elected some stinkers too. Just like Presidents - the people's judgement isn't always perfect.

To be really honest, I'd like for them to cut down term limits and number of times Congress could serve. It really doesn't matter which side controls Congress or who the Prez. is at the time. Lots of problems stem from that "old boys" club on both sides of the fence.

reply to post by redhatty


You are so right, there definitely needs to be limits on how long those people stay in office.

The rules of payment for those jobs need some major overhauling too. It's supposed to be an honor and privilege to hold those positions, such high pay scales for them are uncalled for. We should be the ones deciding how much they are paid. If they want good money...do a proper job, it's what the rest of us are required to do.

As for extending the presidential term, we already dread the next 4 years when looking at the first 2 months, why would we want that extended?

[edit on 28-2-2009 by SheaWolf]

Here in New Zealand I am not fond of three year terms and would like to see a national election every four years . Politicians never seem to really get out of campaign mode here either . As a point of interest having a political system built around the person rather then the party makes term limits a viable idea .

Would be the point of extending the presidential term while some members of Congress are still up for re election very two years ?

Cheers xpert11 .

[edit on 1-3-2009 by xpert11]