Look I’m NOT saying we shouldn’t have to vote every 4 years to elect a president for another term, but all I’m saying is that if a president is bettering America, why should he/she be limited to a number of terms? If they want to keep serving and the people want to keep voting them in then they should be allowed to stay. Think about how long we have had no term limits for those in congress…
Also many times what happens is that we progress with one president’s policies only to regress when a new president of totally opposite views comes into office and withdraws all the previous policies. That’s no way to move forward as a country!
Term limits for presidency isn’t even actually that old and was imposed as the 22nd amendment in 1951. Yet it didn’t impose term limits for congress… The other problem is that world leaders have to keep dealing with new U.S. leaders every 4-8 years which I think affects relations between us and other super powers around the world.
You’ll get little traction with this, but a super majority in an American popular vote wouldn’t have to be a minimal requirement on a per case basis imo.
I think a President should have the first two terms if they can win the electoral college vote, as usual… and if they want additional terms, then they have to win both the electoral college AND the popular vote. As long as they can win both, then I say they should be able to serve as long as they/the people want.
I view this more as a problem with the stability of our system for selecting the president, not so much an argument to increase term limits. Ideally the president would not have strong partisan loyalties, act as a unifier between the parties in Congress, and not be drastically different from their predecessor.
For this to actually happen, presidential electors need more agency, and the process of voting they use needs to guide them towards compromise.