Presidents should serve 6 year unlimited non-consecutive terms.

>>Um… If there are 3 senate groups that serve 6 years each, then senators are being elected every other year. A president could be elected during one of the years that we don't vote for senators. What? Yeah, every two years there are elections for all of the house and a third of the senate. Which third of the senate is elected during a presidential year changes each time. Election years can drive up the turnout and cause incumbents to lose or get through hard reelections. This would in essence give 2/3rds of the senate easy reelections permanently. Staging presidential elections on odd years would simply add very costly extra elections for no good reason. >>Currently a president can be in office for 8 years in a row, which is why I am forcing a cut at 6 years in a row. Apparently my opponent thinks that 8 is fine but 6 is too much. Four. Presidents are elected for four years and then the people get to have their voice heard and figure out if we'd like to clip it off now or not. I'd be more than happy to shorten this to two or to whenever the people hate that bastard in the whitehouse (such as exists in other countries). Being forced to endure an extra two years of a crappy president is not acceptable. Further, what if the president is really really good? Shouldn't we have the option to keep electing very qualified people who do a good job? >>The president is only part of the leadership. The people can still vote for senators and house reps. That change can happen in 2 years. The president is the leadership. The congress writes bills to be signed into law. There are some checks and balances but to say that's pretty well nothing more than a roadblock. In 2006 the House and Senate switched parties because the president is a douche. They can't stop him. They just slow him down with the screw ups. >>What's wrong is that we don't really know if they are good at it until we have a chance to see the long term effects. Really? So you think we need this president out of office for a bit before we realize that he's an awful president? You attack my final note by ignoring the time lapse in between non-consecutive terms. Elected. Serve 6 years. Out of office 6 years. Elected. Serve 6 years. That's 18 years. 30 if you want a third term. ---- Unlimited terms would: >>1. Allow a good president to be elected repeatedly. It would allow us to get 6 years of subpar executive branch leadership. They would be 18 years older than when they previously were elected. >>2. Discourage presidents from last minute actions that would prevent them from being elected in the future. Doubtful as the non-consecutive terms would be completely unreasonable and nobody few would care. Also, if a president simply served at the pleasure of the electorate they would always be discouraged from such actions. --- Suggesting the better modifications is an argument against this proposed modification. If you're going to rock the boat and toss a wrench into the system there are much better boats and much better wrenches. It's a massive amount of work to change the system and if you aren't changing it for the better then you shouldn't change it at all. 1) Expand the house to 1500 congresspersons. 2) Presidents should serve until they are voted out of office (40% say out him and new election starts) by the people during the midterms. 3) Presidents elected by popular vote. 4) Run off elections for presidents rather than party primary. Etc. There are a number of *ACTUAL* improvements and you're proposing we go about enacting this crap when we could just as easily do far better things?