There was a government from a country even closer than Mexico that limited presidents to a single 6-year term: the Confederate States of America.
Not being eligible for reelection is a double-edged sword. Every second term since the 22nd Amendment has been a disaster; couldn’t part of the reason be the fact that the president simultaneously is unchecked by a pending reelection, and ignored by Congress due to his lame-duck status?
As for unicameralism, no freaking way. We need two houses to protect us from abuses of power by a single body.
And there’s no such thing as a “non-partisan” legislature; legislators belong to factions and parties, even if they don’t admit to it.
Yes, but as I indicated in post #73, the CSA never lasted long enough to see how that would work out, and I argued that even if they had lasted until 1866, Jefferson Davis would have likely been granted an "emergency extension" in office because the CSA was in no position to hold national elections and have a smooth transition of power to a successor in the Presidency.
Mexico is really the only nearby country where we can see the effects of a single 6 year term in office.
I hate the Nebraska leg for it’s non-partisan elections which can only serve to help democrats and RINOs win Republican districts, or help wackjobs like Ernie Chambers win democrat districts. And it keeps NE from ever being counted among the legislatures we control despite us controlling it for decades I presume. When was the last rat majority?
Unicameralism intrigues me since the courts ruled all leg districts must be even in population so State Senates can’t be geography-based. But you make an excellent point, since MOST legislation is crap, something that makes stuff harder to pass is good. And there isn’t really a compelling reason for any state to consider switching to one house. Ventura pushed it in Minnesota when he was Governor, it went nowhere. People by and large don’t give a damn about “process” stuff like this.
As for POTUS term limits, they are going nowhere, nor will we ever limit them to 1, so this debate is purely for “fun”.
Could the professor be right about term limits? Is reelection being off the table a major part of the reason most second terms suck? Possibly, I don’t think so but maybe. I think most Presidents have sucked and that is the main reason.
When balanced against the threat of some awful President winning a third term, forget it. How many Presidents since Coolidge (or ever?) would we have liked to give a third term? Reagan in 1988? The only hard yes. Ike in 1960 to keep that swine Kennedy from having a 50/50 chance at victory?
Clinton would have won in 2000, yikes.
Limit to a single term is intriguing (4 or 6 years) but Mexico and the VA Governorship aren’t exactly shining examples of that system.