Should President Obama, or any President, be allowed to serve a third term?

[Jacque67 7,328]

Take the cucumbers out of the produce section, and Spooky won't go shopping.

Ooh, Matron;)

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Take the cucumbers out of the produce section, and Spooky won't go shopping.

What a man does with a cucumber in the privacy of his closet is his business.

[Jacque67 7,328]

http://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CBoQtwIwBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DheB2g0IvOMg%26autoplay%3D1&ei=PXv0VPfTEdHW8gXb-oDgCQ&usg=AFQjCNFp6vPPXrgVG40OeXJdVClw4ZnbNA&sig2=9gu5vhYPm7j24wQYCfQj-w

Cultural history;)

[Sousuke 1,214]

I'm for 2 term limits across the board. Problem with 1 term is you have little accountability.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You are still stuck with the first term good or bad, and the chance lingers, that the malfeasant could still be reelected to office, and in the President's case, with less than a majority of the popular vote. If you want to make elected officials more accountable to those that vote for them, then perhaps make it easier to remove them from office by the legislative branch, or even allow the populace to recall them from office directly. That does create a problem, however, by making the process easier, you do enable even more mischief.

I would not mind doing away with the electoral college. I would like to think my vote for President living in California counts as much as some one in Florida or Ohio voting for President, but it doesn't. Only a handful of states get to decide who will be President, and California, despite having the largest voting population of any state, does not.

Edited March 2, 2015 by I AM NOT THAT GUY

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Answer: Four presidents took office without winning the popular vote. In other words, they did not receive a plurality in terms of the popular vote. They were elected, instead, by the electoral college or in the case of John Quincy Adams by the House of Representatives after a tie in the electoral votes. They were:

•John Quincy Adams who lost by 44,804 votes to Andrew Jackson in 1824

•Rutherford B. Hayes who lost by 264,292 votes to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876

•Benjamin Harrison who lost by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland in 1888

•George W. Bush who lost by 543,816 votes to Al Gore in the 2000 election.

[Teddy B 17,252]

You are still stuck with the first term good or bad, and the chance lingers, that the malfeasant could still be reelected to office, and in the President's case, with less than a majority of the popular vote. If you want to make elected officials more accountable to those that vote for them, then perhaps make it easier to remove them from office by the legislative branch, or even allow the populace to recall them from office directly. That does create a problem, however, by making the process easier, you do enable even more mischief.

I would not mind doing away with the electoral college. I would like to think my vote for President living in California counts as much as some one in Florida or Ohio voting for President, but it doesn't. Only a handful of states get to decide who will be President, and California, despite having the largest voting population of any state, does not.

I would be in favor of that. I'd also like to see political party affiliation done away with, it will never happen, but it would be nice to just vote for the person rather than the party. Imagine if people had to actually research where a candidate stood on the issues rather than ticking the box with either the "D" or the "R" next to it. It would go a long way in educating the voters and I bet a lot of people might just find out that they're not as one sided as they think.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I would be in favor of that. I'd also like to see political party affiliation done away with, it will never happen, but it would be nice to just vote for the person rather than the party. Imagine if people had to actually research where a candidate stood on the issues rather than ticking the box with either the "D" or the "R" next to it. It would go a long way in educating the voters and I bet a lot of people might just find out that they're not as one sided as they think.

California has an open primary with the top two candidates having a runoff in the general election. It is not a bad system, although you end up with some strange races in the general. Keeps things interesting.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I would be in favor of that. I'd also like to see political party affiliation done away with, it will never happen, but it would be nice to just vote for the person rather than the party. Imagine if people had to actually research where a candidate stood on the issues rather than ticking the box with either the "D" or the "R" next to it. It would go a long way in educating the voters and I bet a lot of people might just find out that they're not as one sided as they think.

That wouldn't apply to many here. Education is a bad thing judging by some of what is posted here.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Well said .

That comment is right up there with Ace BooKoo being a racist statement.

Still love you however, just saying . Everybody plays the fool sometimes.. Darn now I will be singing that song in my head all day

That was so 645 topics again. You can't still use that when you are speechless. It doesn't work anymore.

[Teddy B 17,252]

California has an open primary with the top two candidates having a runoff in the general election. It is not a bad system, although you end up with some strange races in the general. Keeps things interesting.

I'd like to see an open election format across the board, parties be damned.

That wouldn't apply to many here. Education is a bad thing judging by some of what is posted here.

It seems that some here cannot muster up anything more than a "D" or an "R" when it comes to voting, sad really.

[JohnR! 5,495]

It does keep it interesting and keeps the politicians on the honest side, or as much as they can manage....

California has an open primary with the top two candidates having a runoff in the general election. It is not a bad system, although you end up with some strange races in the general. Keeps things interesting.

[JohnR! 5,495]

If that were to happen, it would take away the 'us' vs. 'them' mentality that fosters the D/R discourse. In addition I can think of half a dozen posters that would be unable to participate in this forum if there were the case. They would find themselves unable to understand a world without labels.

I'd like to see an open election format across the board, parties be damned.

It seems that some here cannot muster up anything more than a "D" or an "R" when it comes to voting, sad really.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

It does keep it interesting and keeps the politicians on the honest side, or as much as they can manage....

Honest and politician doesn't mix, like oil and water. Or was it vinegar and oil? Or gas and water?

[JohnR! 5,495]

Like NASCAR and books. :rofl:

Honest and politician doesn't mix, like oil and water. Or was it vinegar and oil? Or gas and water?