Presidents should serve 6 year unlimited non-consecutive terms.

>>There are a number of reasons that the founding fathers set it up this way… this is not an improvement and not worth making. Actually the founding fathers didn't set it up this way. There have been two big changes since they set it up. The president's terms have been limited. And now the people in the state (rather than the state officials) elect senators. Even though my opponent says "…this is not an improvement and not work making. ", my opponent has also said that we should remove term limits. So my opponent and the founding fathers and I agree on part of my proposal. __ >> Sure it's twelve years between elections but I prefer an elected official to do their job and in this case that would take another 6 years. 30 years if they serve three terms. Nothing I am suggesting would prevent a president from doing their job. In fact, not allowing a president to be in office for consecutive terms would allow the president to focus on doing his job rather than running for reelection, and prevent some conflict of interest because people would not be able to make campaign contributions to someone that is currently in office. My opponent still seems to think that once a president leaves office they cease to exist. If one president was popular then they could act as an advisor or secretary of the state or a number of things before running for president again. Being able to return would eliminate the "lame duck" period because that president could come back. And check the math. It would be 24 years between the first election and the third election, not 30. ___ >> So your suggesting that we have elections every year for three years in a row? Every three years? S1 - 0 - S2 - P - S3 - 0, and always tuck the presidential election between a pair of senate elections. Yes. And now that my opponent has mapped it out, it is easier to see all the advantages. This would make it possible for the incoming president to know who all will be in the senate he becomes elected. As it stands now 1/3 of the senate leadership could change just as the president is trying to get in and oriented. Having a senate election the year after would allow the people to react after the presidential election. And this would allow one senate group election half way through the president's term. That sounds good to me. And the senate election before the presidential election would again allow the people who like the current president to shift the leadership toward that, and those who dislike the president to shift the leadership away. Everyone wins. Over all, each senate group would have to run on issues, rather than just tagging along with the popular party. __ >> Placing the presidential election between senate elections would cost the taxpayers millions upon millions. Elections are cheaper in bulk. my opponent is simply asserting with no basis, rather than arguing with evidence. My opponent must mathematically prove having more presidential elections at the same time as senate elections is cheaper than fewer presidential election that are independent of senate elections. Just the cost of voting and counting, not the cost of campaign donations/expenditures. My I suggest over a 12 year period (because 12 is devisable by both 6 and 4). And we would like to see sources. And even then, all my opponent would be arguing is that the cost of voting is more important than the effectiveness of the leadership. ___ >> If the electoral process functions correctly they would elected for as long as the people wanted them to serve. No they won't. Presidents cannot serve for more than 8 years. That's why we should remove term limits. ___ >> I think a good portion of running the country is the ability not to be a complete screw up people want out of office. People are quick to change their minds. The president would have to be "a complete screw up people want out of office" at the moment of elections. Bush's approval ratings went from low to about 90% to about 50% in just a few years. People appear to be rather fickle in the moment, yet we still seem to be able to look back and see what was a good idea. This is why I am suggesting 6 year nonconsecutive unlimited terms. It prevents people from voting based on the heat of the moment, and still allows a good president to be reelected. __ >> The accuracy of my plans do not revolve around who is president 10 years from now. My opponent appears to be arguing what would be better for my opponent rather than what would be better for the country. Consider how the price of oil has consistently gone down ever sense Obama said that he might consider drilling, despite how long it will take to actually get that oil. My opponent's plans may be rather short sighted but many other people and business plan farther ahead. __ >>Some ideas look good on paper and how they turn out half a dozen years down the road makes for very little insight into the effectiveness of a president. Then why was the first thing my opponent mentioned in the previous round the founding fathers? Because my opponent knows the reality, how an idea turns out several years down the line makes for tons of insight into the effectiveness of leaders. Otherwise my opponent would appear to be saying that if it looks good on paper then the long term effects don't really matter. Communism looks great on paper, the reality however has been devastating. Social security looked good on paper, but we can already see how much of a disaster that has been. If my opponent thinks that we should ignore the long run, then I would certainly like to understand why. __ >> There's a considerable amount of dumb reasons to start wars but reelection is a new one to me. Really? This country is incredibly hesitant to change presidents while a war is going on. Here's a list of major wars; the president(s); and if that president was reelected. War of 1812; Madison; YES Mexican War; Polk; did not seek reelection Civil War; Lincoln; YES Spanish War; McKinley; died in office World War I; Wilson; YES World War II; F. D. Roosevelt / Truman; died in office/YES Korean Conflict; Truman/ Eisenhower ; not eligible/YES Vietnam Conflict; Eisenhower / Kennedy/ L. B. Johnson/ Nixon / Ford; not eligible/ died in office/ YES/ YES then resigned/ YES Desert Storm; Bush Sr. ; NO Iraqi Freedom; Bush Jr. ; YES 9 out of 10 that could have and tried got reelected. 9 out of 10 are pretty good odds, after all it even got NIXON reelected. The president has the power to declare war. Since war makes the odds of reelection pretty good this could certainly create a conflict of interest. If the president was not allowed to serve consecutive terms then that conflict of interest would be removed. This is why it is important to study history and look at the long term effects of choices. _ Presidents should serve 6 year unlimited nonconsecutive terms. It would eliminate numerous points of conflict of interest, allow better response from the people, and help to align the interests of the all of the leadership and the people. My opponent only seams to disagree with the 6 year and the nonconsecutive aspect. My opponent's arguments appear focused around another type of change (something for a different debate) or focused entirely in the short run. There are countless examples of how only looking at the short run can be detrimental. Everything from adjustable rate mortgages to dropping out of high school is nice in the short run, but I want this country to last.