posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:55 AM
reply to post by GuyverUnit I
You realize this might be a good thing? You can harass your Congress to instigate a "vote of no confidence" whenever you don't really like your
President and so the best leader would always be represented throughout time. But doesn't that go against the Constitution, in that the powers of the
legislative branch usurp that of the executive? I'm not American, so I wouldn't know.
One of the main reasons for the fixed terms is that the mob mentality of the general population might not be an accurate predictor of what the country
needs. Then again, if Americans had the chance to depose Bush through a "vote of no confidence" then that might have been perceived as a good
choice. Then again, no one really knows and Bush probably did a lot to help the security of the nation that many people will just never possibly
understand. If people are forced to put great thought into a vote every four years it's probably likely you get the best candidate. Knowing that
there is a set limit to the duration of a President's office, puts him in a position to plan and organize his goal in an efficient manner. Then
again, the power that being a sole ruler for two definite terms might get to their heads. Conversely, you have a government that doesn't accomplish
anything particularly useful.
Fact is, removal of the term limit would essentially destroy the two-party system that America has at the moment. Many, many different parties would
form and they would become much more viable in the face of this change. Canada, with a population of 30 million, usually has four major contenders in
Parliament each election. Britain, with double Canada's population, has approximately 10-12 parties. Following that, a Parliamentary style government
in the U.S. would probably need somewhere between 20-30 different parties to remain viable. Otherwise, having only two parties in a system where the
President could be deposed at any moment would result in a very fractious and volatile political system. If one party does something stupid, it would
only be a matter of weeks until an entire new administration would be introduced. Where's the unity in that? America, as a global political leader,
needs to be maintain a greater degree of solidity than the rest of us, in Canada, for example.
Read this article from TIME Magazine for another perspective.
I might have totally misunderstood this, but if there is no term limit, and no ability to pass a "vote of no confidence" in Congress, then how would
new Presidents be elected? Does Congress call for elections whenever it wants? I think that's what happened during the early history of America at