Germany doesn't have term limits.

[Smith_3]

I live in Germany. Chancellor Helmut Kohl was in office for sixteen years here. It sucked but I wouldn't go as far as calling it a dictatorship.

That said, I would support setting term limits to eight years here too.

[Djinn]

1. no term limits in either of my homes either

and while it would have avoided 10+ years of Thatcher & Howard I'm not really big on term limits. I don't see any real benefit in them at all. The US doesn't have a more robust democracy than nations that don't have them.

[MADem]

2. A vote of NO CONFIDENCE could have dumped Maggie, though.

There aren't term limits because there aren't terms.

I mean, really. It's not the same system at all.

So long as the party has the majority and the confidence, they can keep cranking.

You can turn on a dime and dump your PM when they lose confidence. It's a much quicker process than us getting rid of someone by, say impeachment.

[malaise]

7. There are terms, but you can be reelected as many times

as citizens want you. Parties remove leaders on rare occasions but Prime Ministers under siege can call elections rather than resign. Just study Barbados 1994, but then you know everything on the subject already.

By the way more than a few no confidence votes fail.

[MADem]

13. There are no set terms, though. That's just not accurate.

In the UK they have to have an election at LEAST every five years, but the smart guys call one when they know they'll win in a walk. It's all down to timing. During the war (WW2 that is), they only had to have an election every ten years.

I did not speak to the success rate of no confidence votes, just that they exist as a mechanism in the parliamentary system.

[malaise]

14. If there are no terms then I dare

any parliament to overstay its limit beyond five years. Maybe for clarity they should have omitted that part of the Westminster constitutions (codified and uncodified).

[MADem]

15. But that's not a term. A term is an established start, and an established termination date.

And that isn't what happens.

When a Senator gets elected, he or she serves for six years. When a representative gets elected, he, or she, serves for two years. THAT's a term. They know the start date and the date where they'll have to gin up a reelection effort.

If you're suddenly standing for reelection halfway through your five year slot, that's not a term. It just isn't. Your political future is keyed on the party leadership's decision making processes.

And on edit--there is a campaign under way currently to ESTABLISH fixed terms, but they aren't happening yet: http://www.fixedterm.org.uk/

.I believe that fixed term elections should be initiated because they would stabilise the democratic process, and would help us move away from the negative style of politics where all power lies in the hands of the Prime Minister - the ‘Presidential’ style of governing which Tony Blair epitomised during his time at Westminster. Gordon Brown entered 10 Downing Street promising to share his ‘vision’ with the British citizens, to restore power to Parliament, and to spearhead constitutional reform: but in action, these promises have faltered. He has returned to his regressive stance, highlighted clearly by his flip flopping over the snap General election - dismissing it at the last moment when the Tories were clearly making ground in the opinion polls. Politics should be about making a difference for our communities, not about whether an election will shore up support for a fledgling London Labour Government.

[malaise]

18. Parliament serves a maximum five year

termin Westminster systems. Spare me the semantics please.

A fixed election date takes away power from the people and hands it to the political elite. Sure Prime Ministers can call elections when they want, but citizens can also demand elections. I will never support a fixed election date.

Blair was weakened the day he lost way too many votes over the Iraq war. He also lost two key members of his cabinet. I would never give up the parliamentary system for the Presidential one. Further you might check the stats on the number of presidential systems that end up as military dictatorships when compared with parliamentary systems.

[MADem]

19. But it isn't fixed, so it is meaningless, and less than democratic.

As I have been saying. A TERM, in most electoral systems, IS fixed. The whole mess isn't 'dissolved' at an advantageous moment to maintain power.

It isn't 'semantics.' It's an undemocratic tool, the current system.

From the cite I provided above: The Campaign for Fixed Term Parliaments is a cross party initiative whose aim is to persuade politicians that the Prime Minister's power to call an election at the time of his or her choosing is an anti-democratic constitutional anachronism and should be replaced by a fixed parliamentary term of four or five years.

October 9th, 2007
The electoral machinations of the last two weeks have demonstrated a fundamental flaw in our constitution. It’s time that we had a proper debate on whether the Prime Minister should continue to be able to call an election at a time of his or her choosing. Political and electoral realities mean that all prime ministers - whatever their political affiliation - call an election when they think they can best win it. They would be inhuman - not to say very bad politicians - if they didn’t. But in the 21st century can we really justify this constiutional anomaly any longer?

This site is dedicated to putting the case for fixed term parliaments and designed to begin the process of lobbying for such a move. Its supporters come from across the political spectrum. It’s a web based initiative started by Conservative, Labour and LibDem bloggers. How quickly it succeeds depends on you. If you agree with our aims, sign uo as a supporter and join our mailing list.

[malaise]

20. Undemocratic is when people have no means to remove

a leader who is violating the law. Unless you impeach Bush he can get away with murder. At least we can force an election at any time during that five year term.

[MADem]

22. The two wrongs argument doesn't cut it. NT

[Djinn]

25. wrong

just because it doesn't have a specific and fixed end date doesn't make it "undemocratic". Out of ALL the democratic nations on earth, the US has the lowest participatory rate and one of the lowest rates of political knowledge anywhere on earth.

Having a specific last day on the job for the President does NOT make a democracy.

[Djinn]

24. so what?

that's still a term - it is a MAX term limit, there is simply no barrier on RE-ELECTION.

Seriously just because "term limit" doesn't mean exactly the same thing as it does in US doesn't mean it doesn't exist

[Odin2005]

17. That's why I wish the US had a parliamentary system.

I'd like something similar to Germany's parliamentary system, with federalism and a bicameral legislature. The powers of the state governments would keep any "tyranny of the majority" tendencies that can happen with a more British "supremacy of parliament" form of parliamentarianism.

[Djinn]

23. no there are no terms

we just vote people into office with the understanding that they'll leave when they get bored. :eyes:

and no we can't "turn on a dime" - the PARTY can but citizens can't. The only way a PM can be dumped from Parliament is via an election.

I am a citizen of both the UK and Australia - if you want to make up things to suit your argument you're gonna have to try better than that

[Toots]

3. The US Supreme Court ruled term limits are unconstitutional

As part of the infamous Contract for America there were proposed "term limits" for all our representatives. It was taken to the Supreme Court and the court ruled in a Democracy term limits were not constitutional. They said the people had a right to elect anyone they please as many times as they please..Don't know how term limits on the Presidency holds up in that light...:shrug: A side note a lot of Republicans swore they would self limit themselves, they made promises. The whole purpose of the Contract for America was to prove to america that Republicans would keep their word. Most of those Republicans that swore they would self limit themselves did not do so..

[Squatch]

4. How could it be "Unconstitutional" when term limits are explicitly provided for

as an Amendment in the Constitution?

[Selatius]

10. Because that amendment only applied to the White House, not the Senate or House.

If the House or Senate want to overturn the Court's interpretation of the law, they merely only have to pass an amendment mandating term limits for House and Senate officeholders. Then, it becomes constitutional.

[Squatch]

11. Response #3 in this thread deals with Presidential term limits.

The OP dealt with term limits applied to the German Chancellory, which is the German equivalent for our chief executive, the Presidency.

Please, try to keep up.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. Not quite. Congress can only PROPOSE an amendment.

In all cases, whether an amendment is proposed by Congress or by a convention of states, the proposal must then be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Then and only then would a proposed amendment to set term limits on Representatives and Senators be constitutional. :hi:

[Hosnon]

5. The Supreme Court ruled that in a democracy term limits are not constitutional? That's not how

the Court works.

If its in the Constitution, it's constitutional.

Edit: Spacing.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

6. You're wrong.

What was proposed by the Contract with America was a constitutional amendment and therefore the USSC wouldn't have had anything to say about its constitutionality. The amendment was soundly defeated in the house.

I suspect the case you are thinking of is U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, and they did not say that term limits are bad for democracy. What they said was that the constitution specifically forbids them. It doesn't have anything at all to do with the nature of democracy itself.

Don't know how term limits on the Presidency holds up in that light.

That's because you're confusing what is and is not acceptable in a democracy with what is and is not constitutional. They are separate concepts. Term limits are not inherently undemocratic.

[Toots]

8. I guess I remembered things wrong

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/termlimits/termlimits.htm

Some states have even tried to limit the terms of their members of Congress. In 1995, however, the Supreme Court ruled that letting states establish such restrictions would violate the Constitution and weaken Congress's national character. The only way to limit congressional terms is to amend the Constitution, the court ruled.

Seems to me if this was already within the Constitution there would have been no need for either a Constitutional amendment or a Court case over it. I don't recall the thing voted on in congress as being a Constitutional amendment, only just a vote do impose term limits.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

12. Yes, that's the decision I referenced.

Seems to me if this was already within the Constitution there would have been no need for either a Constitutional amendment or a Court case over it.

There isn't anything specific in the Constitution about term limits for members of Congress. There is, however, ambiguous (in the eyes of those who favor term limits) language regarding the qualifications for office. The Republicans wanted to change this, so there would be specific language in the Constitution providing for congressional term limits. Why is this so hard to understand?

I don't recall the thing voted on in congress as being a Constitutional amendment, only just a vote do impose term limits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_With_America

Search on "term limits"

[LeftishBrit]

9. Neither does the UK. I wish it did!

Both Thatcher and Blair stayed on far too long for their own and the country's good.

[Djinn]

26. now that Blair has gone

has the UK improved substantially? Not at all, nothing at all has changed and wont until a general election removes 'Labour' - term limits would have changed nothing.

[Odin2005]

16. Parliamentary systems and Presidential systems are not really comparable.

A prime minister is generally the leader of the most powerful political party in the legislature and governs with the consent of the legislature, a consent that can be removed by a vote of no confidence by the legislature, this prevents prime ministers from have any chance of becoming a dictator.

I've read that every country with a presidential system of government has succumbed to dictatorship, with the US being the sole exception. it it quite easy for a president to centralize power and turn the legislature into a lap dog if a country does not have a strong tradition of liberal democratic politics. Indeed, the US's strong liberal democratic tradition is pretty much the only thing keeping Bush from becoming a dictator.