The XXII Amendment to the Constitution of the USA is unreasonable and should be repealed.

For the sake of simplicity I will answer my opponent in the order he presented his rebuttals. 1. I will provide both a factual example and a hypothetical one. a) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was ultimately elected to four concurrent terms. This would be considered tremendously positive to those who did support him, and of those there were plenty. Conversely, FDR's election would be extremely unfortunate for those in opposition to him. His New Deal was very unpopular among those leaning conservative and especially among the business community (due to its policy of big government). This is somewhat masked by what seems to be landslide victories for him in each election due to the odd institution known as the Electoral College. Here is how each election breaks down: Election of 1932 - FDR carried all but 6 states, but received only 57% of the popular vote. Election of 1936 - FDR carried all but 2 states, and recieved an astounding 61% of the popular vote. >>Nothing is wrong so far, he obtained his election with no obvious string pulling. It was the 1940 election that he was able to manipulate the system to get himself nominated again within his own party. He moved the nominating convention to Chicago (he had considerable sway over the electioneering machine in place there). Such actions were especially vulnerable at this time when the people did not vote on their party nominees, it was largely decided with back room deals. Election of 1940 - FDR carried all but 10 states, but recieved only 55% of the popular vote. Election of 1944 - FDR carried all but 12 states, receiving only 53% of the popular vote. Despite his claims to not seek a third and fourth term, it is widely known that he had made certain behind the scenes that his party would 'demand' it of him. He effectively served as 'President for Life' since he served for thirteen years and died in office. For the most part this is less possible today because of the nominating process of our primary elections. Therefore I will present a hypothetical scenario. b) As it stands now, an incumbent president generally has control over his party, or at least considerable sway. In almost all cases, if an incumbent desires another term he is nominated for it. This currently does not apply to a third term since this is not legal. If it became acceptible to serve for more, given an incumbent's power, this would become commonplace. I will outline some possible scenarios below based on current laws and regulations. --- The executive controls patronage (office appointments). He could build up a network of supporters through this at the lower level, ensuring widespread support. --- For the same reason, a president could build up support among the higher ranks of his party by appointing them to high office (cabinet positions), ensuring the party's support of his re-election. This is a factor as to how it works now with a second term. --- Crises can and have been manipulated and/or invented in order to create a 'surge' in an incumbent's popularity during an election season. I won't accuse the Iraq War as being an example of this since it is an argument for another day, but imagine someone so inclined to use such a war. In both of these scenarios a huge portion of the electorate would be left out. At any given time, a president is lucky to be elected by 60% (as FDR above). Usually it doesn't reach 50%. That means that the other half of that number do not support this person for president. Imagine G.W. Bush having the ability to serve as many times as he would like. He actually lost the popular vote in his first 'victorious' run for the white house. Because of the electoral college, a successfull candidate needs only garner enough support to win a slight majority in any given state to recieve All of its electoral votes. Some states split their votes, but the same principle applies to the electoral district in these cases. 2. In reality, a huge proportion of voters do not pay close attention to policy and issue, but vote strictly along party lines. They will generally vote for whoever tops the ticket to the party they belong to despite their record. Therefore a candidate is guarunteed a certain proportion of votes regardless of their performance. Unfortunately, money goes very far in deciding elections. Couple this with some other tricks to get elected and my opponent's argument is moot. The fact is, people get reelected despite their performance, there are plenty of examples through history. The point here is that someone serving too long becomes out of touch with the very people he is supposed to be representing. He has been above them, and away from them for so long that he does not understand them. This applies to all positions without term limits. This is a valid argument and has been one of the basic principles of almost all forms of republicanism. I will address lame duck status below. 3. I thank my opponent for not jumping on a typographical error on my part, and he correctly interpreted my meaning. In theory, what my opponent states is correct, and it would be nice if this were reflected in reality. The fact is that a president who desires nomination from his party for another term will typically get it. Here is a complete list of incumbents who were denied re-nominated by their party since 1900: There it is, the complete list since the year 1900 to present. Here is a list in the same time frame of men re-nominated despite performance, and despite notable opposition within his party: William Howard Taft - opposition within party, he did not turn out 'progressive' enough. Herbert Hoover - his presidency is accepted as among the worst. Harry S Truman - was expected by most, even within his party, that he stood no chance at re-election. He also held one of the lowest approval ratings. Much of the party wanted to nominate Eisenhower. Jimmy Carter - accepted as among the worst presidencies. George W. Bush - 4. I am not contending that presidents tend to under perform in their first term. It would take extensive research to find this out, and it is not related to the problem of perpetual campaigning. The main problem with this concept is not that it creates a president always ensuring he is looking out for the public will, because the public will rarely decides election. The problem is that the incumbent is seeking to keep his large campaign donors happy. This creates an executive that is in debt to lobbyists and campaign financers. He is more accountable to them than to the public will, this is reality. This is where the lame duck status fits into the picture. A president who attains such status does not have the need to worry about the next campaign, he does not need to worry about from where the next contribution is coming. 5. I must remind my opponent that America is not a Democracy, but a Federal Republic. Furthermore, as the corrent system stands, the people do not elect their president. They elect representatives to the electoral college who represent them. Final point: My opponent has offered only one reason why the term limit to the presidency should be removed: "My final point is that in a Democracy, the nation should be free to elect any leader they want" The first part of this statement is moot, since the U.S. is not a democracy. As for the second, a good mix of money and demagoguery could ensure a perpetual election of a 'bad' president. A rotating office is the best way to ensure that the president is more in touch with the public will; to prevent manipulation of the system for re-election; and to limit the amount of 'perpetual campaigning'.