WI: US Presidents Can Only Serve Non-Consecutive Terms

As the tin says, what if the Constitution were written in such a way that while Presidents could serve as many terms as they could get elected to, these terms could not be consecutive?
 
First of all you'd probably need a different precedent setting president than George Washington, its hard to imagine him leaving office for his farm then deciding that he made a mistake and returning to office later on. It would be interesting to see an America with Jefferson, Hamilton, or Burr as the first president, I could imagine them at least trying to do that if not succeeding. You'd probably see a lot more outgoing presidents running for governor or Congress to keep themselves relevant after they leave office for the first time.
 

Gaius Julius Magnus

Gone Fishin'
First of all you'd probably need a different precedent setting president than George Washington, its hard to imagine him leaving office for his farm then deciding that he made a mistake and returning to office later on. It would be interesting to see an America with Jefferson, Hamilton, or Burr as the first president, I could imagine them at least trying to do that if not succeeding. You'd probably see a lot more outgoing presidents running for governor or Congress to keep themselves relevant after they leave office for the first time.
Adams would likely be the first President but you're right in that the Presidency probably wouldn't end as the endpoint for its occupants.
 
Adams would likely be the first President but you're right in that the Presidency probably wouldn't end as the endpoint for its occupants.
First of all you'd probably need a different precedent setting president than George Washington, its hard to imagine him leaving office for his farm then deciding that he made a mistake and returning to office later on. It would be interesting to see an America with Jefferson, Hamilton, or Burr as the first president, I could imagine them at least trying to do that if not succeeding. You'd probably see a lot more outgoing presidents running for governor or Congress to keep themselves relevant after they leave office for the first time.
The OP says the Constitution is written in the manner he's talking about, not that the first President makes a precedent... therefore Washington is still going to be elected, having a Constitution that limits to unlimited term non-consecutive terms does nothing to change that. In fact Washington didn't want to run for a second term, Hamilton and Jefferson agreed they HAD to have him as president for a second term and convinced him. Washington of course won't back back for a non-consecutive term, unless something majorily threatening the system. Jefferson may be more likely to beat Adams in the next election. Could the Virginia dynasty actually last more years by taking turns? Maybe. Until NY dominates the Electoral College and we see northerners assert in the presidency. We may even see a civil war earlier as a result.
 

Deleted member 97083

The OP says the Constitution is written in the manner he's talking about, not that the first President makes a precedent... therefore Washington is still going to be elected, having a Constitution that limits to unlimited term non-consecutive terms does nothing to change that. In fact Washington didn't want to run for a second term, Hamilton and Jefferson agreed they HAD to have him as president for a second term and convinced him. Washington of course won't back back for a non-consecutive term, unless something majorily threatening the system. Jefferson may be more likely to beat Adams in the next election. Could the Virginia dynasty actually last more years by taking turns? Maybe. Until NY dominates the Electoral College and we see northerners assert in the presidency. We may even see a civil war earlier as a result.
Hmm, interesting points. Are you thinking that the Virginia dynasty leads to more of an expectation of pro-Southern rule by the Southern states, increasing tensions enough that, say, something like the Nullification Crisis could balloon into an earlier Civil War? Otherwise, what do you think would cause the civil war to occur earlier?
 
I'd fully expect that system to lead to Presidential alliances. That way "I server term one, then you term two, and then me term three" becomes the norm. It is only a step better than unlimited terms, as whilst there is slight variance, both are politically reliant on the other. One is President, the other leads to be Speaker of the House/Senate.

This becomes dangerous if one of the two is obviously the more powerful political player - or has blackmail - as you create the unlimited term system but with an obvious scapegoat.

Another possible side effect (if there aren't alliances in play) is an increase in short-termism and party politics. Their interest is to get the party, not themselves, elected in the new election, and so need rapid results based on policy platforms. This means you don't see long-term plans very often.

If alliances are avoided, it could make the President less powerful overall, as without the focus on getting the same man elected twice in a row, but instead the party as a whole, parties are likely to try and build larger party consensuses.
 
Top