What is the best electoral-legislative model for a four-year term?

What is the best electoral-legislative-presidential model?


  • Total voters
    6
  • Poll closed .
Hello, everyone. I am working on some Alternative Stories and would like to know which method you think would be the best.
Although in my History, the "main" country is not the United States, I will use this country as an example.
In the U.S. electoral-legislative system, Senators serve for six years and each "class" is renewed every two years, while in the House of Representatives they serve for 2 years and all are renewed every 2 years.
I want the term of office of the President to last 4 years (I have not yet defined whether he can be re-elected), I also want the Senators and Representatives to last 4 years but my doubt is whether or not they should be renewed by half every two years or whether they should make this proposed model where there is no mid-term renewal but where all the Senators are elected the same year and the representatives are elected two years later:

President: 2000-2004
Senate: 2000-2004
Representatives: 2002-2006

President: 2004-2008
Senate: 2004-2008
Representatives: 2006-2010

What do you think?
 
I'd say neither. Unfortunately, voter turnout is lower on years when there is nobody running for president, so votes that happen on those years are less reflective of the will of the people. I'd prefer this:

President: 2000-2004
Senate: 2000-2004
Representatives: 2000-2004.
 
President : 2000-2004 (elected 1998)
Senate : 2000- 2008 (elected 1998)
Representatives : 2000-2004 (elected 1998)

no limit at reelection, but no elected official allowed to campaign or enter as candidate until his term is over.
 
Hello, everyone. I am working on some Alternative Stories and would like to know which method you think would be the best.
Although in my History, the "main" country is not the United States, I will use this country as an example.
In the U.S. electoral-legislative system, Senators serve for six years and each "class" is renewed every two years, while in the House of Representatives they serve for 2 years and all are renewed every 2 years.
I want the term of office of the President to last 4 years (I have not yet defined whether he can be re-elected), I also want the Senators and Representatives to last 4 years but my doubt is whether or not they should be renewed by half every two years or whether they should make this proposed model where there is no mid-term renewal but where all the Senators are elected the same year and the representatives are elected two years later:

President: 2000-2004
Senate: 2000-2004
Representatives: 2002-2006

President: 2004-2008
Senate: 2004-2008
Representatives: 2006-2010

What do you think?

Why not both - half the Senators and Reps elected with the POTUS, half at midterm?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Unfortunately, voter turnout is lower on years when there is nobody running for president, so votes that happen on those years are less reflective of the will of the people.

Decisions are made by those who show up. Not bothering is an expression of your will as well: the will to leave it to others.

The argument for staggering elections is that it can ensure that not all of the political power can ever be put in place due to a single event. Imagine an attack like 9/11 happening in an election year where the President and boh Houses of Congress get elected in their entirety. In the resulting fear and outrage, a bunch of people suddenly get elected who would, in other circumstances, probably not be put in power. Can you say "emergency powers"? Staggering elections ensures that the decision of who's in power is never made on a singe day, and there's always some time in between to let things cool down a bit.
 
I don't approve of people's decision to only vote every four years, but I suspect the best way around the problem is to work with the general public rather than against them.
I understand your point about 9/11. I'm not convinced it would make a difference. The politicians who were in office swung strongly in that direction along with the American public. I don't think there could have been a much stronger swing even with a new election. Most parliamentary systems are designed so that when there's a sudden change, all the politicians who matter generally face a new election. But I concede I may be mistaken.

After some thought, if I were to choose between the two options, I'd pick the one where the president and House are elected at the same time, and the senate isn't. Because people really need to pay more attention to House elections. Also, the senate and the president pair up to choose the cabinet and justices, and it makes sense to have measures to avoid them working together in a hive mind. I'd like it even more if the senate was weaker, like the Canadian senate, with mostly review powers.
 
Fine, then I'll take a poll to see which model is best.
Option 1
President: 2000-2004
Senate: 2000-2004
House of Representatives: 2000-2004
Option 2
President: 2000-2004
Senate: 2000-2004
House of Representatives: 1998-2002 / 2002-2006
Option 3
President: 2000-2004
Senate: 1998-2002 / 2002-2006
House of Representatives: 2000-2004
Option 4
President: 2000-2004
Senate: 1998-2002 / 2002-2006
House of Representatives: 1998-2002 / 2002-2006
Option 5:
(List your model if not listed in all four options)
 
Last edited:
Fine, then I'll take a poll to see which model is best.
Option 1
President: 2000-2004
Senate: 2004-2008
House of Representatives: 2000-2004
Option 2
President: 2000-2004
Senate: 2000-2004
House of Representatives: 1998-2002 / 2002-2006
Option 3
President: 2000-2004
Senate: 1998-2002 / 2002-2006
House of Representatives: 2000-2004
Option 4
President: 2000-2004
Senate: 1998-2002 / 2002-2006
House of Representatives: 1998-2002 / 2002-2006
Option 5:
(List your model if not listed in all four options)
In option 1 the years for Senate are written wrong. I guess the correct one is 2000-2004
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
President - 4 year term
Upper House - 6 year terms, three "senators" per "unit", one third of chamber replaced every two years
Lower House - 4 year terms, half of chamber replaced every two years
Three term limits at each position.
 
President - 4 year term
Upper House - 6 year terms, three "senators" per "unit", one third of chamber replaced every two years
Lower House - 4 year terms, half of chamber replaced every two years
Three term limits at each position.

Good thing about this is it incorporates "rolling" changes in public sentiment. If there's a short term shift in any direction, it will be reflected in that class of legislators only. If that shift is sustained, you'll alter the entire government accordingly.
 
I voted for Option 1, everyone elected at the same time. I'd also accept Option 4, with the Senate elected at a different time from the president and the House of Representatives, only if the Senate has less power.

I've long thought the best model would be the president and the House elected at the same 3-year-terms with the Senate elected at 6-year terms during the same years as everyone else. This would have the advantage that the representatives would have time to do their jobs instead of campaign all the time, we can get rid of bad presidents sooner, and there'd be no such thing as a mid-term election. Since then, I've thought maybe variable terms like Canada has might be the best. They seem to work pretty well for the countries that have them.

TruthfulPanda, what are these "units" you're talking about?
 
Top