I dont really see the point of term limits.
Britain doesnt have any, and they seem to manage OK. (Although I would have liked "That Bloody Woman" to have been limited to one one-month term).
Tom:"Just because a majority of people wants something does not make it a good idea by any stretch of the imagination"
You're perfectly right, but that's democracy for you.
President for life? I think it would be tougher to do this as Prez than as, e.g, Senator (Ol' Strom comes to mind).
You have a greater public impact as Prez.
Blair looks as unstoppable now as "TBW" did 15 years ago. She stopped.
Your party eventually gets fed up with you. "TBW" got voted out by her colleagues once they relaized she was going loopy and becoming unelectable. Same would have happened with Reagan as his Alzheimers became more pronounced (or he would have voluntarily stepped aside during/after his 3rd term - I give him benefit of doubt).
The voters eventually get fed up to and need a change (unless that leader leads them to a glorious perpetual utopia).
Witness most elections in Europe over last 20-30 years. One faction begins to dominate (right in 80's) before the pedulum swings the other way (left in 90's, right in 00's).
Familiarity breed contempt.
Cheers,
Tony
Current Events » in reply to Term Limits . . .
Re: Term Limits . . .
