If the president has a 5-year term, when should legislators last?

My preference is to allow politicians to serve any number of nonconsecutive terms, at least in the House. Forcing representatives to sit out a couple years in between terms keeps them in touch life outside the beltway to an extent, and it reduces the conflict of interests from running for office while holding office (the need to take time off to campaign, opportunities to engage in favor-trading, necessity of fundraising for reelection during your time in office, etc), but it still allows experienced legislators to hold office again so long as voters in their districts approve of their records at a couple years remove (and approve of what they've done with themselves during their time out of office). It would also have the benefit of creating a deeper bench of experienced legislatures with proven track records, since any given seat would have to rotate between at least two people.

But that's specific to the House, which is designed to have more turnover, to be more immediately responsive to the electorate, and to be in closer touch with the people they're representing. The arguments against term limits are stronger for the Senate, which is supposed to be longer-serving and more insulated from the voters, and where longer individual terms reduce the problems of running for office while holding office (i.e. a one year campaign period for reelection overlaps 1/6 of a Senator's term, but 1/2 of a Representative's term).
 
In an old, old, old, pre-AH timeline I did, I balanced a five-year set presidential term against a parliamentary-style lower house with members elected for a term of up to five years, but which could be dissolved all the usual ways. A prime minister and cabinet is then chosen from that lower house, once again the usual way. The upper house was more along the lines of the US model. Elected in staggered thirds, every two years. One negative from this as I found out is that you can end up with a lot of elections, including multiple ones the same year. I do like the dynamic in parliamentary systems that when a country faces a crisis, a government has obviously failed, or a new issue emerges requiring a different portfolio of political skills for the country, a change of government is possible without waiting to an arbitrary moment on the calendar. You then have a senate and a president capable of serving as the brakes as needed.
 
Other proposals would be:
Prop 1
*President: 2000-2005
* Senators
**Class 1: 2000-2010
**Class 2: 2005-2015
Representatives
**Class 1: 2000-2010
**Class 2: 2005-2015
Prop 2
*President: 2000-2005
* Senators
**Class 1: 2000-2010
**Class 2: 2005-2015
*Representatives: 2000-2005
In all cases, they may be re-elected for at least one further term of office.
 
The president has a 5 year term in Lithuania.

Legislators still have 4 year terms, meaning that the two election cycles go out of sync like a Julian Calendar on steroids.
 
In fact, the people creating the USA federal constitution in 1787 didin't buy the separation of powers thing either. They didn't set things up so that one party would always control the White House and the other party controlled Congress, or that the presidential party took looses in mid-term elections. In fact they thought we wouldn't have parties at all. Anyway, they ensured that half the federal elections were still concurrent legislative and executive elections.


Actually, no - though they gave Congress the power to set up that arrangement.

Down to the ACW (and beyond in a few cases) many states elected their Congressmen in the odd-numbered year. Iirc they weren't all elected in even-numbered years until some time in the 1870s.
 
Anyways, would we have them making the presidency be five years so as to separate it from regular elections? Sounds like a bad idea that might have been done early on before the two party system was set in place.

Alternatively, instead of a single President, have a five-member Executive Council, serving five-year terms but with one seat coming up for re-election each year. Thus every Congressional election will coincide with the election of one member of the EC, but not with the others.

Iirc there were some early proposals along those lines in 1787, but they didn't get very far because Washington was head and shoulders above everyone else as the choice for first Chief Executive.
 
There are a number of examples of Senators like Webster, Clay and Calhoun who in the Senate did their best to avoid the Civil War. In the House we would have lost people like John Quincy Adams who served 17 years. FDR was able to combat both the depression and the Axis based on his ability. All of these individuals and perhaps others would be denied their ability to address problems. I am not that naive to think that every politician elected turns into a noble statesperson but it should be my right to make that determination and not some arbitrary time limit that deprives me the right to form my own opinion. One issue not addressed here is what to do for those who serve in one of the two branches serving in the judiciary. Would Taft be prohibited going on the bench?
And if re-election is limited to 6/8 terms (24/32 years), what would be your opinion?
 
Top