Four v. Six Year Terms

I like the idea of having a single, six-year term instead of our current model of a four-year term with the possibility of reelection. For a long while now, I have felt as though our four-year tradition is quite antiquated in the face of the current political climate surrounding the position. I have come up with four ways in which I see that this alternative system could be beneficial to our nation.

1. Citizens would have to be smarter about who we put in office. A six-year term is not conducive to flash-in-the-pan celebrity figures or highly polarized political figures. I think our citizens would begin to see who we elect in office as more of a long-term investment.

2. Likewise, I think the other branches of the federal government, in particular Congress, would be forced to work more cooperative – or at least diplomatically – rather than in partisan opposition, effectively stalemating the legislative process long enough to get someone else in office. Under the six-year model, I see a lot of the political maneuvering and smoke screens could fall to the wayside with the introduction of a more lengthy period of time demanding substantial, legitimate policy-making.

3. The tangible policies – not simply election or reelection rhetoric – would have a better opportunity to come to fruition. Change is happening so rapidly yet the effects of a president’s in-office policy changes are often not seen until the year or two after a president has left office. I think we need some consistency in office right now in major issues such as the direction we are going to take in environmental, economic and health care matters.

4. With the way our presidential campaigns are being funded, strategized and sensationalized (especially with the recent legislation legalizing corporate sponsorship), I think having an election every six years could elevate our political discourse to more substantial movement rather than partisan rhetoric of campaigning. The thought of reelection is a huge distraction from policy discussion and action for everyone.

SIDENOTE: In my world, I would have six-year terms for the reasons stated above WITH the possibility of reelection but not in consecutive terms. I think this would allow for the stated benefits to occur while still applying the healthy pressure on the office of needing to do well by the constituency. Having the non-consecutive rule would allow for presidents to gain perspective on their policies by employing pragmatism.