Smithers MINNEAPOLIS

No on both, but all for it if congress is the question.

This makes some sense. Then it would be (somewhat) less likely that a president would do things without regard to the consequences since (s)he would no longer be in office. On the other hand, it would be a six year lame duck presidency, and (s)he wouldn’t have to listen to the people at all since there would be no chance of re-election anyway. So I’d say six year presidency plus the ability to be re-elected. Would also save a lot of campaign money.

No term limits, shorten the term to six months.

The extended election cycle is a product of 24-hour news networks.

2 year terms. 3 terms possible. Has to consider consequences of actions. If popular, will get reelected. If still popular, reelected but lame duck period is shorter, and something can be done quicker with his fuck ups. Wouldn’t it be nice to have it now?

I think we have the two banches reversed as it relates to term limits.

The Presiden’t term should be 4 years but without a term limit.

If the people keep electing he or she, they should stay in office and maintain the continuity of the executive branch.

As for congress, I believe term limits make sense.

It works for Mexico. Less campaigning.

Nothing short of a parliamentary system (and a good few choices of political parties to coalition) will do.

The only practical number of terms you can limit is one. Anything greater than that just makes the last one irrelevant, and seniority is turned on its head because the juniors know you’re on the way out no matter what.

The Presiden’t term should be 4 years but without a term limit.

Good point. We’d be coming up on Bill’s 5th term by now.

Good point. We’d be coming up on Bill’s 5th term by now.

Maybe so. It would still be better than Hillary.