[backtothestreets]

I don't like term limits because we stand to lose good leaders in an effort to oust poor leaders. If an amendment were embraced and ratified I'd prefer it stated a person cannot be elected to an office they have held without attaining a 5% increase in the popular votes, since the last election, for the office they seek.

This would force office holders to work more diligently for the constituency of the office they seek to retain.

FDR would not have been reelected to a third of fourth term if such a law had existed. In fact, he would not have been reelected to a second term! 1932 = 57.4%; 1936 = 60.6%; 1940 = 54.7%; 1944 = 53.4%. In contrast, Reagan enjoyed an 8% increase in popular votes in 1984 results over the 1980 election results.

If a change comes, make it a change that forces office holders to increase their performance for the constituency served, not simply occupy an office for a length of time.

[Melas]

While your suggestion is amusing, it has an obvious flaw: The more popular the president during his/her first election, the poorer his/her chances would be to win a second term.

A President Clinton, elected in a three way race with a popular vote in the low 40's could easily pick up 5% for a second election. By contrast, it would be next to impossible for a popular president with 65% to pick up an additional 5% to make 70.

[supercat]

I don't like term limits because we stand to lose good leaders in an effort to oust poor leaders. If an amendment were embraced and ratified I'd prefer it stated a person cannot be elected to an office they have held without attaining a 5% increase in the popular votes, since the last election, for the office they seek.

First of all, I wouldn't have a good showing in a candidate's earlier races increase the hurdles in later ones. On the other hand, requiring that a candidate receive 50% to get in office, 66% to stay in office one extra term, 75% for two, 80% for three, etc. might not be a bad concept. The biggest difficulty would be having to deal with multi-way races. Perhaps the proper thing would be to set up the election similar to California's recall vote, with two questions for voters:

1. Should official X remain in office for a second (third, whatever) term?
2. If official X does not remain in office, which of the following should be the replacement?

Answering "YES" to the first question would not preclude answering the second. Thus, the incumbent's party could run a proposed new candidate who could win even if the incumbent didn't receive the supermajority required for victory.

Even that, however, would not be entirely without problems. Perhaps retention should be determined in the primaries. People casting primary ballots for any party would be allowed to answer the retention question; if the official didn't manage to receive enough votes, the replacement selected by his party in the primary would go on to the general. Note that retention votes may be tabulated separately by party; in the unlikely event that a candidate receives the required 67% overall retention vote, but fails to win a 50% vote by his party, the party may decide to replace him despite his eligibility.