Why don't we vote on presidents and officials every year?

[FDRrocks]

I don't mean the official reasons. I want logical arguments. Why do we wait 2 and 4 years? That is really a long time.

[JohnKleeb]

1. Isnt that what did they in Ancient Rome with consuls?

I dont know, its a good question though.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

2. Because it would be even MORE time spent in the wrong places

Imagine how little constructive work would get done if every year was an election year. Plus.. would you really want to watch presidential political ads 24/7. And.. it would leave little room for long term planning (economic, domestic, etc.) and barely enough for short term...

And that's just off the top of my head. :P

[FDRrocks]

3. The time issue seems nonexistent to me...

Since many americans spend a disprportionate amount of time in front of a television. Besides that, what if campaign adds were banned up to a certain period initially before the elections (i.e. McCain-Fiengold) or banned wholesale, but debates were allow in the weeks leading up to the election.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

4. Getting better but...

I still think one year is too short a time for a president to get much of an agenda accomplished. Two years...maaaaaaybe. There is something to be said for stability.

How many one year terms would you limit this to?

[FDRrocks]

5. None, In response to you question.

I do not agree with term limits, at all. And the guy wouldn't have to be in only a year, he could be reelected, ya know :)

[POed_Ex_Repub]

7. We'd have to work extra hard on the entrenched incumbants

Imagine a 30 year reign of Bush *shivers*, simply because people are in the habit of voting for him. I find the "debate only" format of gearing up for elections very appealing though. The amount of money raised for a candidate should not be such a factor in the election. One thing you could have is a national holiday "voting day", maybe that would raise the % of voters? I still stick on a year though.. is a year long enough for a president to establish himself? What if the first year is bad because of the previous admin? Should people get yanked on the basis of one year's performance? I'll go two years in this hypothetical debate, no less ;-)

[SoCalDem]

6. I would rather see all the branches have 6 year non concurrent terms

and supreme court limited to 15 years...also non concurrent..

That way they would not be running for office constantly. They could be ousted if they did not fulfil their promises, but they would not have to keep raising money for the next term..

If one was a congressman and wanted to run for senate, they could, but they could not just keep occupying the same damn seat forever..

No one can convince me that those 535 in DC are the best that this country can muster..

We would probably be better served if the took a page from Publishers Clearing house


Occupant
1234 Anywhere St.
Loonybin,TN 12345

"Congratulations !, You may already be a senator"

[Fleshdancer]

8. It would cost too much money and take too much time

Poor districts would get screwed because holding an election is not cheap. If states are starting to cancel primaries now in order to save money, then I don't know how they would be able to afford doing it every year. The campaigning would never stop (yuck), and I imagine voter turnout would be even lower than it is now.

I really don't think 4 years is too long.

[cryofan]

9. We should, but read chomsky about propaganda-induced apathy

The USA is a business owned by its citizens, in essence. And like every business owner, we should carefully manage our chosen managers. However, our managers have used the money we pay them to place us in an apathetic state with respect to the management of this business. Thus, the current lack of voter participation. We should be far more involved. And as for what kind of dividends would be paid for increased involvment, just look at the European countries who have high voter participation rates. They work much less in a year, but still have cheap healthcare paid by taxes, also cheap universities, more generous welfare and unemployment, and many other tax funded social services available to the middle class...

[UTUSN]

10. Good Grief----NO---Isn't It Bad Enough Like This?

We're already in a constant campaign of 4 years. But it doesn't hurt to fantasize about possibilities, since no change is going to happen. We can't even get REASONABLE, common sense, NEEDED changes done, such as abolishing the electoral college and installing nationwide REGIONAL primaries all voting on the same day. Some undefined period of parliamentary change of government according to current realities would be even better. ---Well, alrighty then, back to the unreal real world.

[Blitz]

11. Because a nation needs stability

and very, very little can get done in 1 year. You don't want Presidents and other officials constantly pushing quick fixes with the next election in mind. Some programs require short term pain for long term gain. A perpetual election season wouldn't allow that.

On the contrary, I think that Presidential terms should be increased to 6 years. As the system now stands, a President gets into office, requires about 6 months to get all his people in and get his administration rolling (especially if he or she is taking over from the other party), then is on the campaign trail for the mid-terms less than a year later. After the mid-terms, he or she has about a year to work before once again having to campaign in earnest for re-election (less if there is a primary challenge). A six year term would alleviate this problem. Two year congressional terms suffer from the same problem and I would be in favor of increasing them to 4 years.