Who Needs Term Limits Anyways?

My guess is so Obama can stay in office longer.

if this happens i will truly be disguested and will move. I live close enought to canada and would not bat an eye and would move there

Term limits aren't that important - people get bored of leaders eventually.

yeah but you open the door to other things and really when was the last time we have gave the gov an inch and they in turn took a mile? it happens all the time.

They are very important, especially in a time where people are voted in just because of a marketing slogan.

Is that why so many congressmen and senators end up serving until they retire?  Imagine that happening with a President.  If you're a Republican imagine someone like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter serving in the office until they decided they had served long enough, if your a Democrat imagine if Bush decided to continue serving in the office until he wanted to retire.  The term limits on the Presidency are extremely important especially in a world where the incumbency rate is so f'in high.

The Dems probably want to run slick willy again.

All it takes is a better slogan, a bored populace and a loss of faith for government to change. In Australia we went from John Howard (We decide who comes to this country and the manner in which they arrive) to Kevin Rudd (Kevin07). K-Rudd really isn't that much different from little Johnny.

Congressmen and senators last so long because no one contests their seats, for reasons I've never fully understood (the money alone must be worth it!). The position of president always has good job applicants from all sides of politics.

Let's face it - Obama would have utterly rolled Bush. Bush might not have beaten Clinton, but Clinton would have had stiff competition from George Bush elder. You get better candidates when patience isn't enough to win.

Remember that the proposal is to remove the limits on the number of terms, not on the length of any individual term.

That's simply not true.  There are plenty of times when seats are challenged but the incumbent wins.  In general it is because of campaign financing (the incumbent undoubtedly gets more cash) but sometimes it is about name recognition, etc.  We have a 90-95% incumbency rate in this country.  It's absurd.  That alone is reason enough to keep term limits around.

Personally I think there ought to be term limits on congress as well.  Part of the problem that we have the spending problems that our country has is because members of congress put up all kinds of spending bills to send money to their home state just to keep their jobs.  If they knew that they were only allowed to have two or three terms in office that wouldn't be as big a problem.

Imagine what a sitting president could do to keep their position for another term.  Any number of executive orders, picking a fight to start a war, etc.  We definitely don't need that and term limits help to prevent it.

It's getting to the point where I'd say we should just flat-out prohibit reelection to the same office for all federal positions, period.

Your forgetting money, crazy left wing zealots like Al Franken all ready buy elections. If any thing They should also put term limits on Congressmen and Senators too. Eight years of lining your pockets is enough for everyone. This would end career politicians and help steer it back to the original purpose... to serve the people. Also prohibit sons, daughters, brothers or sisters, and niece s or nephews from serving the same post. These political dynasties need to go away, too much nepotism in both parties.

And also when the politicians can create the crises that leads to their constant election.  Hitler did it, and Chavez is trying to.

But notice this only comes up with democrats?  Probably because they fear the fact they have to honestly face the electorate every election with a new clown.

russia, china, nazi germany... Actually the vast majority of dictatorships hold sham elections.

Term limits are just another (very important, and very effective) barrier against a bloodless coup. Where a leader is voted into power and slowly eliminates opposition within the government until he is a dictator.

remember, hitler spent years in prison for a failed coup... and then went and got himself democratically elected into power.

It's not democracy's fault that voters are apathetic. What are you doing to shorten representation periods? Do you campaign against the incumbent regardless of who s/he is?

A prime minister is vastly more powerful than a president. A PM has no checks or balances on his/her power, save perhaps the judiciary, but even then it's not much of a check. So long as he/she has party support, elections can be postponed indefinitely, laws can be enacted that modify voting procedures and rights, electorates can be redrawn to favour party members. The possibilities are nearly endless.

But we've yet to see a first-world PM become a tyrant, despite Oz and British PMs regularly serving more than 8 years. Why not? Because the people get bored and vote them out eventually. Good ones stay, the bad ones get the boot after a few years. It's the way things work.

And in some ways a president has more power as he does not need support from his party.

We need term limits in Congress. 

I don't blame democracy.  I blame the politicians and the media for creating the myth that voting for someone who isn't the incumbent or in a major party is a waste of a vote.  And I do what I can to attempt to get people to vote against incumbents, but all too often it is for naught.

Good thing the us does not have a prime minister than. putin was a prime minister, now he is the dictator of russia. so was hitler, so were others. And let us not forget how in countries like england and australia human rights have been chipped away to almost nothing. (the great australian firewall, and the ban on self defense in england).

That being said, the US also had severe chipping in human rights... by congress, by bush, by clinton... than obama got elected partially on the promise of overturning all that crap with his executive orders. We shall see if he does do it or not. But that was one of the things he promised which I supported.

you know I got bashed for voting for the third party this last election... and was told exactly what you said.... why would you do that you are just wasting your vote.... I was like wait a minute..... nether guy earned my vote and someone else did.... even knowing that there was a very very large possibility that my canadate was not going to win, I refuse to " soften" my views just so it could fit withen " the other 2's veiws and thinking"

My vote to me is something you should have to earn.... and if I  feel that you did not and someone else did.... then guess what.... you are not getting my vote

I just pity those fools.  I look at it this way.  My guy lost, but he had no chance.  And I dont have to take the rap for the train wreck that is coming because I did not vote for the clown!

Voting 3rd party does have advantages.

Well simply put, people have gotten away form having the people earn their votes and instead.... who is the least of the 2 evils.... whihc is to bad

there is the other issue. Any argument that could be made to convince you to vote at all (aka, yes one person's vote doesn't count, but if everyone thought that nobody would vote, so your vote does count, etc) can be made for voting for a third party. Any argument of "you are wasting your vote" could be made in general, because YOUR single vote isn't changing anything to begin with.

True enough. As you say, turning the country into a tyranny would be very difficult, but I think we can both agree that it's more possible than in the US tripartite system.

If that's what you think, you really need to visit one of these countries and find out what it's really like. In many areas, I'd say they have a greater respect for human rights than Americans do. In particular, the great Australian firewall doesn't actually exist and you can actually defend yourself in England; you just can't get away with killing the other person in doing so unless you have a really good reason.

At least there are still a few people out there that stand by their principles.  I don't care if someone chooses to vote for one of the major party candidates as long as they have reasons for doing so.  What always annoyed me was when I got crap for voting third party yet the person giving me crap couldn't give me a solid reason to vote for their guy.  They could rattle off a list of why not to vote for the other opponent, but nothing for their guy.  If I'm going to vote I want to vote FOR someone not against the other guy.  Which is why I always say that you can always write-in someone if you can't find anyone to vote FOR on the ballot.

Darn tootin'.  That is one of my favorite side effects of voting third party.  When the sh*t hits the fan I can always say, "at least I didn't vote for <insert candidate's name here>."