Two term limits; this is a think piece for discussion

[MysteryMeat]

I was thinking about this the other day while going through some statistics and figures about past elections:

(Notwithstanding the current administration) what do you all think about the two presidential term limit? Looking back over presidencies from years past, I noted at least 2 interesting situations: 1) The two terms served by George Washington, he received 100% of the electoral vote (he was uncontested in those elections, and then did not run for a 3rd term), and 2) Franklin Delano Roosevelt served 4 term (after which the 2-term limit was imposed).

Think about that 2nd one: FDR had 16 years at the head of the country.

The reason for my examples is thus: do you think in today's times the 2-term limit is appropriate, or are 'big business' and personal political interests so rife with corruption that it is good to limit the country's exposure to one type of corruption or another for a set amount of time? Do you think anyone today could be strong enough and hold the nation's hearts for such a long time?

[Funkenstein]

Three words for you.

One Supreme Potentate.

/shiver

As much as I am sure that there possibly is/may/could be a person who could serve in that endeavor, would you really want to risk that? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts completely (even with checks and balances in place).

Hooray for limits.

golfclap.mp3

P.S. I've been reading the "Left Behind" series. Potentate is just a cool word to use.

$$$

[Adam D]

I think it is a good idea. Although, I generally tend to find any limitation on an individual's ability to wield uncontrolled authority to be beneficial. Considering that valence issues, rather than policy or other salient issues, determine how people vote by a vast majority, I would rather see the politicians change and something new come around, even in the potential situation that I found a president I approved of.

If you think about it, it is quite startling to think that FDR held the oval office for 16 years. If you look at everything going on then and how FDR campaigned and held office, it makes a great deal of sense how it happened. The country needed a president that was going to look out for everybody, rather than somebody like Hoover that basically had nothing to offer and wanted to leave resolving the Great Depression to the wealthy. FDR looked at poll data and figured out what people needed and wanted and did something completely different by listening to the people and advancing policy in the interest of the majority of citizens, rather than a pluralistic minority.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by Adam D
If you think about it, it is quite startling to think that FDR held the oval office for 16 years. If you look at everything going on then and how FDR campaigned and held office, it makes a great deal of sense how it happened. The country needed a president that was going to look out for everybody, rather than somebody like Hoover that basically had nothing to offer and wanted to leave resolving the Great Depression to the wealthy. FDR looked at poll data and figured out what people needed and wanted and did something completely different by listening to the people and advancing policy in the interest of the majority of citizens, rather than a pluralistic minority.

That brings up another intersting facet though: do you think presidents would try to be more in-touch with the people if they weren't limited to 2 elections? If FDR did it by listening to the people (and was the only person to have done it), do you think others would follow suit if they didn't have the 2-vote restriction?

[Funkenstein]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
That brings up another intersting facet though: do you think presidents would try to be more in-touch with the people if they weren't limited to 2 elections?

If the candidates in question didn't get the idea that they were to reflect the will of the people during ANY term, do you think they would be apt to do so for anything over the original term itself?

Current president as an example (if he is re-elected).

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by rufuspfunk
If the candidates in question didn't get the idea that they were to reflect the will of the people during ANY term, do you think they would be apt to do so for anything over the original term itself?

Current president as an example (if he is re-elected).

What i'm saying is the 2-term limit may set up a 'snatch and run'-type situation, whereas the exclusion of the limitation may set up a more 'for the people'-type thing.

Anyone can spend $100million+ dollars and win over the flock of sheep this country's people have become, as may be witnessed if herr dictator gets re-elected. Think about the apathy that leads the people to: "Oh well, the worst that will happen is that it will only be for 8 years".

[Funkenstein]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat


Anyone can. . . witness. . .the apathy. . .

Sorry. I like to play editor quite a bit (as evidenced by these boards).

That is what must be struck at. People getting mad about things that they can't change. They can change it. If they become aware of the political dealings within their state, they can affect the electoral vote.

It is sad that most of America got their feelings hurt in 2000(especially the "father" of the internet) after the voting fiasco. Now that everyone knows, there should be no apathy.

The above rant leads back to this point (which ties back to your thread): Anyone can spend the money needed to win over the sheep because they have the political backing to do it to begin with. No one can fight back who isn't there to fight back. The "other side" wasn't ever voted in.

Let's see how 2004 plays out and follow up on this thread.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
What i'm saying is the 2-term limit may set up a 'snatch and run'-type situation, whereas the exclusion of the limitation may set up a more 'for the people'-type thing.

Anyone can spend $100million+ dollars and win over the flock of sheep this country's people have become, as may be witnessed if herr dictator gets re-elected. Think about the apathy that leads the people to: "Oh well, the worst that will happen is that it will only be for 8 years".

I think rufuspfunk is correct. If the president ignores the will and interests of the population in 1 or 2 terms, there's nothing to suggest he or she would do so for more terms. If that's the way they came in, that's likely the way they will stay.

I understand what you're driving at though, and if candidates pushed (and even tried to accomplish) more populist platforms I might tend to agree that it would promote presidents who advanced policies in the interests of the majority of the population. But as long as mainstream political debate lies between two very narrow sectors of the business party I can't say I really see how it would benefit the country.

I suppose you could make the argument that it might reduce lame-duck terms, which might be true. That might even be good for the country, because those are the terms where the wealthy really cash in on their political investments. However, you also open the door to allowing demogauges to manipulate the system for decades and accomplish really terrible things for the population as long as they have a sufficiently strong bread and circus routine to string the public along. I think that's a threat that outweighs the possibility of limiting lame-duck terms.

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
That brings up another intersting facet though: do you think presidents would try to be more in-touch with the people if they weren't limited to 2 elections? If FDR did it by listening to the people (and was the only person to have done it), do you think others would follow suit if they didn't have the 2-vote restriction?

Prior to FDR there was an understood self-imposed ban on seeking a third term...... observing a kind of dignified restraint on power


Regardless of the term limit amendment - limits exist - we vote

Wise to restrict the president to 2 terms? I believe the analysis goes like this - better to prohibit several benificent executive to purge one tyrrant. I tend to disagree. A tyrrant stands little chance of re-election. However, the amazing harm caused by such a beneficial leader as FDR necessitated the amendment.

Originally posted by rufuspfunk
Three words for you.

One Supreme Potentate.

/shiver

As much as I am sure that there possibly is/may/could be a person who could serve in that endeavor, would you really want to risk that? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts completely (even with checks and balances in place).

Hooray for limits.

golfclap.mp3

P.S. I've been reading the "Left Behind" series. Potentate is just a cool word to use.

$$$

your post really scared me. i believe i'll stop reading on. thanks

[Funkenstein]

Originally posted by ffrresshman
your post really scared me. i believe i'll stop reading on. thanks

Then my point has been honed properly. Inspiration through fear.

Brock on!!!



<------ to add to the prophesized apocalyptic moment, check the post number. . .

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Dionysos]

I'm nitpicking, but FDR served for 12 years and not 16. 1933-1945. He died in '45.

[johnny861]

Originally posted by MysteryMeat
That brings up another intersting facet though: do you think presidents would try to be more in-touch with the people if they weren't limited to 2 elections? If FDR did it by listening to the people (and was the only person to have done it), do you think others would follow suit if they didn't have the 2-vote restriction?

I would say FDR was an excellent President up to the point he when he started degenerating


A lot of bad decisions were made at the end of his Presidency.