One and Done
By Callimachus | Related entries in ElectionsReader_I-Am, who needs no introduction here, has an interesting suggestion:
Bring on term-of-office reform: One six (or even five?)-year-term presidential term (anyone wanting a second bite at the apple can sit it out for six to twelve years).
And don’t give me that lame-duck nonsense; I don’t buy it anymore as a trump card. Why the heck do we think what we have is better now or at any time during second terms for at least the past 40 years?
Of all the proposed fixes to the constitutional system that regularly get aired, this is one of the few that makes sense to me. I’ll have to go refresh my reading of the arguments in the Constitutional Convention, but as I recall this was on the table for a while. It also is consistent with the classical models. If we’re going to go for it, I say one six-year term and then a 10-year wait till you get to try again.
This entry was posted on Monday, May 15th, 2006 and is filed under Elections. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 15th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
I like it.
In fact, why stop with just the presidency? I’d also be in favor of a similar provision for members of both houses of Congress. Think of it as a check against other people’s Representatives and Senators (and other people’s check against yours, of course).
May 15th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
/me points out that the math is messed up.
6 year term + 10 year wait is exactly the same as a 6 year term + 12 year wait.
May 15th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
Joshua, I’m not sure. One can imagine a situation where legislators become better at their job (rather than better at keeping there job) through experience. Though considering the structural advantages enjoyed especially by house members (Franking, gerrymandered districts) maybe it is a good idea.
May 16th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
I can respect the job experience argument, yes. And frankly, it may be a net plus to our society. There are probably more elected officials who improved with experience and parlayed that into genuinely better representation of their constituents, then there are those who concentrated primarily on tactical campaigning tricks to keep their name at the top of the polls.
On the other hand, it may be that with the one-on, two-off rule, the elected could still gather job experience in the off years, via unelected positions such as chief of staff, cabinet staff, or advisor. This might even be healthy, as they would be performing civil service in an environment where they don’t have to worry about public image (as much) for a while.
May 16th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Um down wit it. wun en dun.
May 17th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
At first, I was in favor of term limits for every member of government, in every branch of government (so, e.g. no lifetime appoints to the federal bench, just a 1 term deal set at, e.g. 15 years.)
But I’ve changed my mind about the President. In domestic affairs, a term-limited President becomes a lame-duck. In foreign affairs (and military/security), it is another matter.
If you term-limit a politician how is forced to politic in order to accomplish something, then the lack of voters is enfeebling: the closer you are to an election, the more politics becomes about that election. If you aren’t in it, you can’t do politics, so you can’t accomplish your goals. So, in domestic policy, a second-term President slowly become enfeebled.
However, in foreign affairs, a President can accomplish all sorts of policy goals (whether trade, security, etc.) largely without domestic politics. Here, the lack of voters actually *strengthens* the President, because they cannot threaten him with anything.
So, I’m not sure that doing a 1-term Presidency is a great idea, from the foreign and security perspectives. Of course, if more of this power were shared and checked by other branches of government, then a 1 term Presidency would make better sense. (of course, if 1 party controls the legislature and the executive, then you regain much of the same problem again.)
May 18th, 2006 at 12:39 am
Bob, you’re right, I was reflexively defaulting to base 10.
October 19th, 2006 at 1:47 am
I’ve long advocated this, but with the possibility of a second 4-year term in extraordinary circumstances — wartime, e.g., or conversely, a really excellent president in the midst of doing great things — but with a very high bar: two-thirds of Congress and a landslide popular referendum. It should be the rare exception, not something to aspire to (I can already see the scenarios: president accused of starting war in order not to give up power).
I can’t stand the way first-term presidents hit the ground campaigning and policy becomes all about politics from Day One. The president ought to be a little above partisanship, and making him (or her) virtually un-reelectable might help to create that kind of disinterestedness. Legacy would be all.
October 19th, 2006 at 1:50 am
president accused of starting war in order not to give up power
Wag the Hog.