Presidents should serve 6 year unlimited non-consecutive terms.

As math seems to be challenging to my opponent I will attempt a chart below. E=election year. A=Year with president A in office. B= year with president B in office. Number=Year 1EA 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 7EB 8B 9B 10B 11B 12B 13EA 14A 15A 16A 17A 18A 19EB Count it! The time from A's first election to A's second election is 12 years (year 1 to 13. 13-1=12). While the time from A's first election to the END of A's second TERM would be the 18 years (year 1 to 19. 19-1=18). I don't know how I can make that any clearer. Unless I missed something big, I consider the math issue closed. _ On to real issues... >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. Yes it can which is why you would have the Presidential election during a year that we don't elect senators, that way none of them would get the presidential election year advantage. And each of the senator elections would occur during the presidential term. All of the senate groups would have an election during a president's term thus giving the advantage to no one. > Staging presidential elections on odd years would simply add very costly extra elections for no good reason. For some reason my opponent thinks that an election every 4 years would be cheaper than an election every 6. Maybe elections are cheaper in bulk, maybe they're not, but that's arguing that the cost of an election is more important that the effectiveness of the office. _ > Presidents are elected for four years… That is why I said that a president CAN be in office for 8 years in a row. And allowing the president to focus on running the country rather than running for office is one of the reasons for nonconsecutive terms. > So you think we need this president out of office for a bit before we realize that he's an awful president? 6 years nonconsecutive terms would have forced Bush out of office 2 years ago. The Enron fiasco happened while Bush was in office, but the "creative accounting" that Enron was doing started when Clinton was in office. Just illustrate how the result of one president's actions or inactions would not occur until another president was in office. That is why we need a chance to see the real result of their actions. In the short run we just can't tell. _ > The president is the leadership. If my opponent thinks that "the president is the leadership" then why the concern over senate group advantage? Clearly by my opponent believes they are part of the leadership. My opponent is aware that we have 3 branches and the concern over senate group advantage clearly illustrates the importance of the senate's role in leadership. The executive branch is only one of the three branches. The president can't even write laws. The Supreme Court recently overturned part of the Patriot Act. And Congress can overturn a veto from the president, and pass the bill anyway. It is those checks and balances that make all of the branches "the leadership". ___ >> It [Unlimited terms] would allow us to get 6 years of subpar executive branch leadership. They would be 18 years older than when they previously were elected. I think my opponent was referring to the "nonconsecutive" aspect rather than the "unlimited terms" aspect, but my opponent's argument of "subpar executive branch leadership" still needs to be addressed. The leaving president would not be in the president's office, but that doesn't mean that they would just wink out of existence for 6 years. Whoever looses this election will likely go right back to the senate and work there. The "subpar" president could very easily have the "above par" president in an advisory position, or on the chiefs of staff, or heading the FCC for all I care. The point is that the "above par" president could do any number of things when waiting the 6 years before running again. In which case, that president would only be 12 years older than when he/she was first elected. ___ >> Also, if a president simply served at the pleasure of the electorate they would always be discouraged from such [last minute actions that would prevent them from being elected in the future] actions. This is why I am arguing for unlimited terms. If a president always had the chance to return that president would not make last minute actions like mass presidential pardons of friends and friends of friends as Clinton did. Not to pick on Clinton, he was just the last president that left office with no chance to return, and thus no consequence of his final actions. I'm sure that Bush will do something similar, because he too will have no chance of returning and thus no consequence of actions. Preventing these types of things are exactly the reason that presidents should be able to serve and unlimited number of terms. ___ My opponent's other suggestions: >>1) Expand the house to 1500 congresspersons. This does not address the president's length of term, return ability, or non-consecutive terms. As such it has no place in this debate. >>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. 40%? That would mean that we out someone that the majority (60%) wants in. And now it appears that my opponent has abandoned the earlier argument of election cost. And that would not give anyone interested in running adequate notice to start campaigning. Maybe an election is coming up midterm, maybe not. This frequency and unknown would not provide a stable government. >>3) Presidents elected by popular vote. Cool. And then that president could serve for 6 years, an unlimited number of terms as long as they were nonconsecutive. >>4) Run off elections for presidents rather than party primary. This is another good idea from my opponent. And then that president could serve for 6 years, an unlimited number of terms as long as they were nonconsecutive. __ Here are my standing points. Unlimited terms would: 1. Allow a good president to be elected repeatedly. My opponent has time and time again argued that a good president should be allowed to return if they are doing a good job. As all I am asking for is a chance to see how good of a job that president did, it would appear that we agree on this point. Non-consecutive terms would: 3. Prevent someone from staying in power for too long. My opponent's distain for Bush has clearly illustrated the strength of this point. 4. Allow the president to focus on running the country rather than trying to get reelected while running the country. My opponent has made no comment with regards to trying to run the country *while* also running for election. This point stands uncontested. 5. Let the people and business be able to plan ahead more accurately. My opponent's views have leaned on the immediate rather than the future. As a result my opponent has made no comment indicating that looking ahead would be detrimental. 6. Allow the people to see the long term results of any actions by a president before voting for them again. My opponent has made some argument here, but all of my opponents arguments seem to reflect the notion that whatever is going on at any given moment is entirely the fault of whoever is currently in office. 7. Help prevent presidents from starting wars just to stay in office. Here Bush becomes another good example. We invaded Iraq in 2003. 2004 was an election year. If Bush had no chance of being reelected, declaring a war would not have helped him to "run" the country for another 4 years for a total of 8. This is why I argue that presidents should serve for 6 year unlimited nonconsecutive terms.