How would you like these two changes to presidential elections?

1) Why? You should be able to reelect one guy the times you think it’s ok to do it.
2) This don’t even makes sense. Why and how that would be done?

I wouldn’t mind number 1 but number 2 has a potential for all kinds of issues.

Wouldn’t like them.

1. the president already is term limited. It would make more sense to term limit the Senators and Representatives to the same number of terms as the president.

2. You would have to do away with secret ballot to make this work. Even then you open up the door to a lot of potential fraud and corruption.

They’re interesting, but I don’t like them personally. What I want is an eject-from-office button that’s all my own ; )

Four years is barely enough to make much change in a democracy, slow as the process is. I don’t think one more year will add much. But, I do think four years is long enough for people to figure out if they like the direction they will go with their President, so the opportunity to decide to stay the course or find a new one is nice.

As for the second… we’ve got a long time to decide who to vote for, and it’s no secret when the due date for your decision is. If people don’t have their act together by then, I think it’s their loss…

Out of curiosity though, what made you think of those adjustments? Maybe I’m just not seeing the reasoning (gahh I sound awfully yay-system with what I’ve just said… : /)

@DancingMind 1. If more people get to be president maybe it will inspire team work. A narrow minded push for what you want wouldn’t last long since another president would be there to help change it back. With so much needing to be done in such a short time, maybe we’d open the election up a little more to lesser known folks with smaller pockets and bigger ideas.

2. When elections are close, the loser could make a final push to win an extra x amount of voters over to their side.

@Ltryptophan hm that is interesting… okay I like your ideas now, at least for sure in theory, I wonder how they’d pan out for real
I think getting people in that aren’t rich/backed by rich companies is key… probably need some direct effort at that, too, though to really see a difference there.

Actually, now that I’m thinking about the topic… I’ve sometimes wondered what it would be like if we chose a random person, or better yet a group of random people (probably to elect from or to work together) and just for a year, rather than having people step up to all that power… but maybe it would just cause chaos idk…

No and no. I’d like an end to term limits, all of them. Let the voters decide when to vote somebody out, or how long they’d like to keep them in. I do wonder about some who want the government to do everything for them, even tell them when it’s time to vote for somebody new. I’d go the other way.

1) No term limits, ever.
2) No early voting, but legit absentee is ok.
3) No “Party line vote” button, and the party the candidate is affilliated with will not be noted on the ballot. That would make you know the candidates and not just blindly vote for one party or another.

I don’t like either of them. Why should there be a vote-changing grace period? The possibility of two consecutive terms gives an effective president the opportunity to be, again, approved by the voters and continue. Any more suggestion?

In my opinion vote changing would smack of vote buying or other types of voter fraud.

Nothing wrong with 1. Shorter the better.
No need for 2. Campaigns are plenty long to decide on a candidate

Nope and nope, but I would be very happy if we had run-off elections and got rid of the electoral college.

You could volunteer to have your vote known so that you could recast it. Returning things is the American way! Realistically how anonymous are registered republicans and democrats in their voting. Sure they can vote either way and noone will be the wiser. Voting information can be sequestered, and in a nice law abiding society like ours noone will get hip to who we voted for…and if they did going public with it would be a bigger disaster for them.

I am not saying that 2 up there is a great wonderful idea either… Knowing who everyone voted for might be asking for trouble. There is, after all, a lot of money and favors on the line.

Maybe it would be good enough to just make it easier to recall sitting presidents in the US, without making them out to be monsters. Like a, “Thanks, it was a good run you had, but we changed our minds, we’re finding someone new, here’s some fancy golf clubs, and a watch!” We don’t want some dictatorial country like Libya out democracying old America now do we!

1. One five year term maximum

If I had my way, Bush would be serving a 5 year term right now.

2. You can change your vote up to three business days after the election.

Voter’s Remorse is a painful thing to go thru, but you’ve got to just hold your nose and vote, and not look back. If we didn’t take that first vote seriously there is no telling what would happen.
I don’t doubt there are improvements we can make, but these aren’t them. Keep trying.

I can see your point in suggesting a longer period for the president. However, that wouldn’t make much of a difference when there is a potential gridlock in Congress and the House when Republicans fight back the Democrats.
As far as 2 is concerned, I side with @filmfann for it is usually when you change youpr mind at the last minute when one messes up and later regrets the change made.
One thing that would improve the changes that a president has made during his term would be to make an amendment that the incoming president can’t just change things at his will, but must consult them with Congress and the House.

1. Returning an office-holder to another term is ( or should be! ) reward for good behavior and for representing his constiuents well. To limit him or her to only one term would be to put into office someone who cannot be rewarded for excellent work. The temptation to simply “feather one’s own nest” would be almost overwhelming.
2. A logistical nightmare.

How about an automatic annual vote on whether a new election should be held for the any office. Someone gets out of line…we all vote to have or not have new elections right down to dog catcher. If it isn’t popular then noone shows up. If it is popular on any level…new election.

The first one is arguable. It has its positive benefits.
The 2nd one is wasteful.

Why would the 3 days after an election be the magic window in which someone discovers something new about their candidate?

Due diligence is morally required before voting.

Look at all the dummies who voted for John Edwards in a primary, due to charisma and nothing else. They should have known he was a philanderer and liar just by careful observation and news reading prior to the election. Once a vote is cast, too late, as it should be.

Sounds like that would just complicate the process even more. Already we’ve had to recount votes in past elections.. I can’t imagine what it would be like if people decided to change their minds three days later.. no way!! It’s already complicated enough!

My favorite change to our political system would be no consecutive terms, for any public office.

You can run again, you just have to wait a few years. If people like what your party is doing they can always vote someone like you in in the interim.

I personally like the voting system the way it is. I wouldn’t change it.

How about they can be publicly impeached at any time for anything, isnt that how most jobs go without a union? same goes for congress, these “terms” in office is being used like a blank check, they work hard at getting elected and then work hard at making us believe there working hard, fire them on the spot.

@thecaretaker yes, hooray for you my friend…this is the thing I certainly couldn’t express myself though I was trying…here, here…truly…