Time to Change the 22nd Amendment

Historically, before FDR, the president had served no more than two terms and afterward Congress was determined that it wouldn't happen again. This was before the days of widespread television with their incessant commercials touting how one person was better than another and that this enables them to do a job determining the direction of the country. The one nice thing about living in California during the last presidential election was that since we were considered to be blue, they didn't bother with the political commercials. We had practically none in my area. I'm pretty sure it was a little different in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin.

I am so tired of the the constant running for election and then reelection. The news will only continue to post more stories about who has raised the most money for something that will happen in late 2008. It's like a basketball game. You can lead the first three quarters of the game but it is the last two minutes that are interesting and the last 30 seconds are intense and usually determines the outcome. I'm like most American's in the fact that I don't care until the last 30 seconds so quit bugging me. In my defense let me say that I have already made up my mind by the time I vote (for the last dollar standing) in the useless June primary.

The Fix - Chris Cillizza's Politics Blog - (washingtonpost.com)

As always, the two ends of the spectrum are the easiest to identify. Virginia Gov. Mark Warner (D) stands out as having had the best year; Tennessee Sen. Bill Frist (R) clearly had the worst. Between those two poles (and pols) is a considerable gray area. In several instances an argument could be made that some politicians included in the "worst" category could be included in the "best" and vice versa. Take this list as a conversation starter. Have quibbles or kudos? Post in the comments below. And remember: If you are running for president, it's far better to have had a bad 2005 than a bad 2007.

So exactly what is my proposal? One six year term for president. Period. Using a four year term to split the difference between the two year term for the House of Representatives and the six year term for the Senate was useful during the horse and buggy days. Now they get elected and the next day have a reelection PAC. Do the job first. Times have changed and it is time for us to change with it. With the technology we have today we can have a national primary folowed 60 days later by the national election. Then the president can actually do some work their first five years in office before they become a lame duck.

Other countries seem to be able to pull off elections within a shorter time period. Even Iraq. They might not always be successful, but can we say that our's are? Less and less people are voting and it could be that they are so desensitized that they just don't care until the day after because they think the system is corrupt, that their vote won't count, or will be disqualified for some reason that they have no control over.

We have the technology to easy the voter's suffering. Could we start using it?



Technorati Tags: voting, term limits, 22nd Amendment, elections,