Current Events > There have been 4 US presidents during Merkel's chancellorship

(+) Yeah! (+)

2004: usa re-elects bush
2005: germany elects merkel
2008: usa elects obama
2009: germany re-elects merkel
2012: usa re-elects obama
2013: germany re-elects merkel
2016: usa elects trump
2017: germany re-elects merkel
2020: usa elects biden
2021:

---

i mean supposedly she's not running this year but i'm still not convinced that she won't go "haha jk" like last time

---

There a reason why the us only has a two term limit.

---

LastTomorrow posted...

There a reason why the us only has a two term limit.

There really arent any good ones though.

No term limits?

Really, imagine 16 years of trump.

Just do it once.

---

Now do Fidel Castro

---

Alteres posted...

Really, imagine 16 years of trump.

Just do it once.

Are you going to pay for my therapy?

---

LastTomorrow posted...

There a reason why the us only has a two term limit.

The reason is that people were butthurt FDR got 4 terms.
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

The reason is that people were butthurt FDR got 4 terms.

If FDR was a healthier man, who knows how long he would have lasted?

---

Returning_CEmen posted...

No term limits?

nope
it's an idea that has been brought up a few times but there doesn't seem to be a relevant amount of support for it

---

There Should ALWAYS be Term Limits, no matter the seat.

---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

There Should ALWAYS be Term Limits, no matter the seat.

The arguments against turn limits aren't bad I just don't agree with them.

---

Alteres posted...

Really, imagine 16 years of trump.

Just do it once.

But he didn't even reach his current limit.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

The arguments against turn limits aren't bad I just don't agree with them.

I think the concept of the PotUS or one Seat with one person having all that power is STUPID for ANY Constitutional Democratic Republic.

"Winner-Take-All" Electoral Systems are amongst the WORST possible methods for modern Constitutional Democratic Republic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting

Switzerland got the Executive Branch right with a small council with multiple seats (7 in Switzerlands case) working together to run the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Council_(Switzerland)

And we need multiple Representatives per Seat representing ALL the constituents that voted for them with 1.0 voting power per Representative.

This way we have ACCURATE representation per seat.

Then you wouldn't get the BITCHING from the Two Party system and all sides talking about how ___ doesn't represent them.

When you have a "Winner-Take-All" election system, some part of the electoral base ALWAYS gets screwed over.

That's part of the reason why you don't have high voter turn out, because the "Winner-Take-All" system screws you over.

---

there have been five presidents during assad's presidency

---

I'll vote for Merkel in 2024


---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

I think the concept of the PotUS or one Seat with one person having all that power is STUPID for ANY Constitutional Democratic Republic.

Surely that's a problem with the power afforded to the seat itself and not the term limits.

---

Well Australia doesn't have term limits but we have had 6 Prime Ministers during Merkel's chancellorship! One of which got booted from the job and got it back later!


---

I mean, I can see the appeal in no term limits in some ways. If the person is doing a good job and keeps getting voted in, why would you want to possibly end up in a situation where you're voting between two people who will both be underwhelming?

Tyranthraxus posted...

Surely that's a problem with the power afforded to the seat itself and not the term limits.

Both are needed IMO.

The power of that seat needs to be divided amongst many who are properly elected and there needs to be Term limits to allow new representatives to cycle in and out.

There should be no Consecutive Terms allowed, forcing each candidate to take 1 year off from serving in Government after their current term is done.

This would force every representative to do their job in the final year of their term.

Any representative that wants to spend time campaigning can do it on their own dime and their own time.

You can't get rid of the Political Party realistically, but you can force the Political Party to be a team game where they need a coherent strategy in terms of what values that they represent along with the candidates that represent each party.

---

ArchNemo posted...

I mean, I can see the appeal in no term limits in some ways. If the person is doing a good job and keeps getting voted in, why would you want to possibly end up in a situation where you're voting between two people who will both be underwhelming?

The main argument against term limits is that politicians become vulnerable to lobbying / bribery as they know their political career is about to end as such they will do favors for people to secure a cushy high paying corporate job after they leave.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

The main argument against term limits is that politicians become vulnerable to lobbying / bribery as they know their political career is about to end as such they will do favors for people to secure a cushy high paying corporate job after they leave.

They do that anyways in Governments that don't have term limits.

It's the same BS.

---

Sweden has had 3 prime-ministers in that time span.

2002: Gran Persson is re-elected (SocDem)
2006: Fredrik Reinfeldt is elected (Conservative)
2010: Fredrik Reinfeldt is re-elected
2014: Stefan Lfven is elected (SocDem)
2018: Stefan Lfven is re-elected
2022: ?____?

---

It's true, chancellors technically don't have a term limit. However, it's worth noting that German's highest court justices have a limit on how long they can be justices on there (12 years) whereas the Surpreme Court justices can be justices until they die if they want to lol.

SevenTenths posted...

I'll vote for Merkel in 2024

Is this TOAST announcing his forthcoming MOVE to the LAND OF NO TACO BELL?
---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

"Winner-Take-All" Electoral Systems are amongst the WORST possible methods for modern Constitutional Democratic Republic.

I definitely agree with this. The Electoral College is itself not a bad idea but letting small margins dictate an entire states voting skew has got to go. Its an amazing disenfranchiser where people end up feeling like they live in the wrong state for their political leanings (NorCal basically has no voice compared to LA alone).The Electoral system should try to reflect the peoples will in some way. Certain states do split electoral voting (I think its only Maine and Nebraska) but even then I dont really like either system (but if I were to choose, Maine seems to have the closest to what Id like to see nationwide).

---

Solid Sonic posted...

I definitely agree with this. The Electoral College is itself not a bad idea but letting small margins dictate an entire states voting skew has got to go. Its an amazing disenfranchiser where people end up feeling like they live in the wrong state for their political leanings (NorCal basically has no voice compared to LA alone).The Electoral system should try to reflect the peoples will in some way. Certain states do split electoral voting (I think its only Maine and Nebraska) but even then I dont really like either system (but if I were to choose, Maine seems to have the closest to what Id like to see nationwide).

I concur with you. In this day and age, NorCal really needs to divorce from the parts of CA they don't like.

We can all be adults and just be different states and seperate and go our own way.

Some cities should just literally split off into their own city state as well.

Portland can literally be it's own City State while the rest of Oregon goes the other direction.

Proportional Representation at every seat at every level of government would solve things with no limits on the # of candidates and a total combined voting power of 1.0 per seat would work out just fine IMO.
And divide the salary of each seat proportionally based on the amount of votes each representative gets from their constiuents in their area.

Any difference in salary will require that the Political Party pay and cover. I'm not willing to let tax payers pay the difference.

If you can't get rid of Political Parties, I'll make it more expensive to operate Political Parties since they'll be on the hook for any financial differences in salary along with the salary of support staff per politician at ALL levels.

The SCotUS allowed Citizens United to pass giving Corporations and Entites free reign to spend endless money on Politicians.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

I aim to make it FAR MORE expensive to be a poltician at ANY level.

Imagine each seat having multiple Politicians from your poltical party and having all that extra Salary being paid for by those who try to aim to influence the Campaigns, but in reality they will be on the hook to cover the Salary Difference of any member of the party that falls short but gets some voting power.

I will make it illegal for Companies and Outside entities from donating to any individual politician, force them to shove the money down the Political Party's bank account so that they can cover all their Representatives who only get a fraction of a whole salary along with all those expensive staffers.

Not to mention funding all those extra's / benefits of being a politician. That life style ain't cheap.

---