Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
FDRrocks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 01:26 AM
Original message
Why don't we vote on presidents and officials every year?
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JohnKleeb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. Isnt that what did they in Ancient Rome with consuls?
I dont know, its a good question though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POed_Ex_Repub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FDRrocks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #2
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POed_Ex_Repub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FDRrocks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. None, In response to you question.
Edited on Mon Jan-05-04 01:37 AM by FDRrocks
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 :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
POed_Ex_Repub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
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 ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 01:37 AM
Response to Original message
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"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fleshdancer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
8. It would cost too much money and take too much time
Edited on Mon Jan-05-04 01:46 AM by GloriaSmith
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cryofan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 23rd 2014, 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC