>>It's always seemed daft to me, this 8 year limit on power, and, indeed, the automatic 4 years of staying in power. Here a PM can be elected as many times as she can win, but equally can be ousted mid-5-year-term.
>
>The idea is to not have politicians worrying about elections, campaigns, and who they have to bribe/smear/destroy too often. They can plan on a 4 year cycle.
>
>The 8 year limit is designed to keep someone from becoming entrenched as president where they have managed to seal out the opposition. It's too bad that doesn't apply to senators and congressmen.
>
>This also follows mention in another thread about why don't we have a presidential election when a president kicks off in office. Again, the idea is to allow the government to maintain some functionality rather than stopping the presses for more campaigning.
Perhaps some reshaping of that system would do good for US as a country...
No matter how democratic does system appear, fact is that you had
father & the son ruling country
for 16 years, and if HRC won nomination (and presumably
two of consecutive ellections) you would have been having situation
where
two families run country for consecutive 32 years. Before that Reagan was President
twice.
Beside there is only
two relevant parties out there running country for past what ...
two centuries ?
Some cynics might further claim that this is barely
twice better then Saudi Arabia where
one family is running country forever.
Way to saturated political system.
Not to say to constipated, because if I do, then someone migh add that it takes laxative size of Alaska to
uhmm... get things goin' ? :0)