rare political posting

[ceagle]

Okay, so in some cases we have term limits, and in others we don't.

Here's the thing... in your estimation, which is better...?
- Term Limits (which means we always have a Lame Duck who can do pretty much anything in their last term, sometimes a full half of their time in office), or
- No Term Limits (which allows some people to become career politicians, as long as they can keep getting elected)

Some say the best argument for no limits was our president Roosevelt, who held the country together through very difficult times... and others say he is also the best argument against unlimited terms (and is the main reason we have term limits today), because his popularity almost established an executive dynasty.

It's a pretty tough question, since both elements have good and bad... but which is better, less likely to be abused, and more likely to motivate a leader toward good?


[Poll #1222208]

Thanks! ^v^

Comments

[loveyouenola.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's not right to limit terms - that flies in the face of true democracy. The people should decide by vote when someone's time is up.

Plus the real issue of the 'lame duck' situation... it's just plan flawed.