Is presidency term adequate?

[pavelcherepan]

I was just wondering what you guys think about the duration of presidency or prime minister term. Is it adequate? 

Say, with 4-year term in US and many other countries, when a new leader comes to the office it takes time to get a grasp on things and form the government, say it takes 6 months. Then at 3-year mark the next presidency campaign kicks off and now they are distracted from actually trying to do their thing and instead have to appease the public, travel all around the country and defend themselves against the attack of political opponents (or go on attack of their own). That leaves something like 2.5 years out of 4 to actually try and govern the country and implement whatever plans they had before entering the office. Seems like a lot of time being wasted on other things.

Edited March 12, 2018 by pavelcherepan

[StringJunky]

4 years feels about right and if they have a meaningful policy they'll likely get 2 or 3 terms to try and see it through. If it's too long they might get stagnant and complacent.

[pavelcherepan]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

4 years feels about right and if they have a meaningful policy they'll likely get 2 or 3 terms to try and see it through. If it's too long they might get stagnant and complacent.

I would agree if results of elections were in any way related to the policies a candidate is proposing, but as we have clearly seen in last US elections, policy plays very little role in the final result. It's usually just populist promises by accomplished demagogues which in most cases never get fulfilled.

Say we have a very capable leader, who is looking at a long-term scenario, which includes making some sacrifices in short term. This leader essentially has 2.5 years to set these plans in motion, because come election time they can get another Trump as main opponent with little policy ideas, but great skills of raising popular support. As a result all the good ideas can be abandoned.

Wouldn't it be better, for example, for the president/PM to be elected for, say, 8 years and mid-way through the term, people would have a vote of confidence, with no actual opposition. If president loses the vote, proper election starts. 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, pavelcherepan said:

I would agree if results of elections were in any way related to the policies a candidate is proposing, but as we have clearly seen in last US elections, policy plays very little role in the final result. It's usually just populist promises by accomplished demagogues which in most cases never get fulfilled.

One example is not enough to say that this is what "usually" happens.

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, pavelcherepan said:

I was just wondering what you guys think about the duration of presidency or prime minister term. Is it adequate? 

Say, with 4-year term in US and many other countries, when a new leader comes to the office it takes time to get a grasp on things and form the government, say it takes 6 months. Then at 3-year mark the next presidency campaign kicks off and now they are distracted from actually trying to do their thing and instead have to appease the public, travel all around the country and defend themselves against the attack of political opponents (or go on attack of their own). That leaves something like 2.5 years out of 4 to actually try and govern the country and implement whatever plans they had before entering the office. Seems like a lot of time being wasted on other things.

With mid term elections the campaign actually never ends but rather shifts between stages. Also the results of midterms can drastically alter a Presidents ability to govern. Out of 4yrs a U.S. president might have anything from no time to the whole time to successfully push their policies through. Depends on how accommodating Congress is. 

4yrs is adequate however the process for electing officials isn't in my opinion. In a democracy voting should be a protected right. Everyone should have equal access to voting and election day should be a holiday.