President should serve

[Schifference]

One 6 year term. No need to spend 2 years campaigning. One 6 year term and out. What do you think?

[Swordsmyth]

No.

Term limits are terrible, six years of a lame duck not needing to care about re-election is a horrible idea.
The public has such a short attention span that the President should either have no fixed term and be removable at any given time or he should have to run every year if we are going to change away from four year terms.

[Republicanguy]

I think a decade is fine.

[Origanalist]

I think a decade is fine.

Who cares? You're not from here.

[Swordsmyth]

I think a decade is fine.

Nobody cares what a slave like you thinks.

[TheTexan]

No.

Term limits are terrible, six years of a lame duck not needing to care about re-election is a horrible idea.
The public has such a short attention span that the President should either have no fixed term and be removable at any given time or he should have to run every year if we are going to change away from four year terms.

Voting every year would be a dream come true

[Republicanguy]

Unlikely, may be three years.

[Swordsmyth]

Unlikely, may be three years.

Nobody cares what you think.

[Occam's Banana]

Voting every year would be a dream come true

What they should do is let everyone vote once every day.

Then, at the end of each EY (Electoral Year - sort of like FY for "Fiscal Year"), they add up all the votes and the winner gets to be President for the next EY. (They could even release quarterly reports for running vote totals.)

That way, when someone says something like, "electronic cigarettes are not useful for hunting - as such, they are not protected under the 2nd Amendment and should therefore be banned," then we can vote for that person on that day. But then, if the next day the same person says something like, "We should not invade and conquer Canada just because they don't know how to make bacon right," then we can vote against that person on that day.

What's really great about this system is that we won't get hung up wondering what to do when we agree with Candidate X on Issue A but not on Issue B, and we agree with Candidate Y on Issue B but not on Issue A. Just vote really hard for X (and against Y) because of A on Monday, and then vote really hard for Y (and against X) because of B on Tuesday. Rinse and repeat, every day throughout the year. Problem solved!

[r3volution 3.0]

A single term has the potential advantage of liberating politicians from their illiberal constituencies post-election. On the other hand, under such a system, those constituencies would be more careful in choosing representatives; i.e. they'd look for true believers (who would carry out the wishes of the constituency voluntarily, rather than only under external pressure). So, I don't know that it would make much of a difference. On the other hand, I don't see any harm in it. And if there were to be a single term limit, the length of the term should indeed be extended, to maintain regime certainty in the face of higher turnover.