Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

The 2 Term rule

Discussion in 'The Members Lounge' started by Simonr1978, Feb 11, 2007.

  1. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Just out of interest, I've been wondering about when and why the two term rule was brought in for US presidents. Rather that look through the vaguries of the web as a whole I was wondering if any of our US members (Or anyone else for that matter) could explain why this was brought in in the first place.

    I'd take a guess that it's intended as a safeguard against someone being elected then becoming effectively a dictator, but that is basically a guess.
     
  2. CrazyThumbs

    CrazyThumbs New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Long Island NY
    via TanksinWW2
    It was because, I think FDR, went 4 straight terms. The opposing political party found it unfair, and so the 2 term rule was made.


    ....or something like that.
     
  3. Revere

    Revere New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Iowa, US
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes your right. Well I think if you can make it 4 terms then you deserve being there. You have to be liked a lot to be elected twice let alone 3 times.
     
  4. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    The rule has always been there, but it was not changed into a law until after FDR.

    Interestingly enough, Russia has a similar rule, however the rule is only that there can't be more than two consequtive terms - after someone has served for a term, the same person can serve again.
     
  5. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    Or just cheat with the votes on the election day (remeber Florida and all those recounts and votes that kept popping up)
     
  6. Hoosier phpbb3

    Hoosier phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Messages:
    904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bloomington, Indiana USA
    via TanksinWW2
    Quillen:
    It's not the "popular vote" but the "electoral college" that elects our president. In the majority of elections however, the "electoral" vote reflects the outcome of the popular vote.
    In the race you are obviously referring to, this was not the case. Democrats would not have railed about the law had the electoral majority leaned their candidates' way. The purpose of the Electoral College--IIRC--is to balance the vote between the heavily, and comparatively less-populated states in selecting our President.
    If not, New York, California and Texas would be the only states electing our leadership. Thankfully, that is NOT the case.

    Tim
     
  7. Revere

    Revere New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,094
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Iowa, US
    via TanksinWW2
    Im happy to see tho Quillion that you are interested in our politics :)
     
  8. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Tim can you or anyone else explain the difference please? I'd kind of thought that the person who had the most votes won. What's the difference between the "popular vote" and the "electoral college" and how is that decided?
     
  9. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    The popular vote is what is used in Europe, i.e. one man = one vote, and the person with the most votes win.

    In the US, the presidential election is determined by the number of electoral votes. Each state has a certain number of electoral votes, which to some extent is based on the population of that state (though not entirely), and the candidate in each state who get the most votes get all the electoral votes of each state (i.e. all votes in the state for the other candidates are lost).
     
  10. CrazyThumbs

    CrazyThumbs New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Long Island NY
    via TanksinWW2
    If you still don't understand the Electoral college system, don't bother since it's a stupid system, made a couple hundred years ago. I think it had something to do with they thought people were dumb, or smaller states, I don't know.

    Quite a few presidents lost the popular vote but won the electoral college to become president :roll:
     
  11. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    For President, it is two consecutive terms or ten years total. The ten year part is if you are Vice-President and you become President during that time. You will serve out that term and then you will have to run for re-election. If you win, you can be President for up to 10 years at which pint there will be a Presidential election.

    You can also run for again after sitting out a term.

    Congress felt that FDR was getting to much power. Like the old saying "Familiarity breeds contemp." Unfortunately, the Congress doesn't seem to think that THEY need term limits.
     
  12. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    And after all the dust was settled and commission after commission investigated it turned out that Bush won both elections (2000 and 2004).
    Most of the claims of cheating were partisan attempts to overturn an election by the losers. Humans being what they are there are some irregularities in every election however there was no evidence of widespread fraud or disenfranchisement.
     
  13. JCalhoun

    JCalhoun New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,911
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mobile, Alabama- Heart of Dixie
    via TanksinWW2
    The Electoral College is easiest to understand if you look at electoral votes as points. Basically, if a candidate wins the race in a state, he get the "points" that the state is worth. The points are worth the number of congressional seats that state has which is based on population.

    When Bush won Alabama, he received Alabama's 7 electoral votes.

    The Electoral College was established way back years ago because that was the easiest way to have a Presidential election. The States would have the elections and then delegates would go to the Electoral College convention at the capital then cast their votes based on who had won their respective state. We must remember that this was the late 1700's and communications were not all that great and roads were few and far between. That is why they had the college vote set a few months after the national election.
     
  14. Quillin

    Quillin New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ghent, Belgium
    via TanksinWW2
    I just follow it on the Belgian television (mostly i see small parts of a speech of Bush, how the Democrates won the congress, Rumsfeld got fired, Blitz visits to iraq, etc.)
     
  15. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    IIRC the 2-term limit was an unofficial rule - more of a tradition actually - that came about after George Washington refused to serve more than two terms. How true that is I'm not sure... :wink:

    Everything else seems to have ben covered, so I'll be on my way...
     
  16. lynn1212

    lynn1212 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2005
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    upstate NY USA
    via TanksinWW2
    it was a tradition based on GW's belief that 2 was enough. it became law with the passage of an amnendment to the consistution in the early 50s in response to FDR. it limits one man to ten years in the office.
     
  17. majorwoody10

    majorwoody10 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    ca.usa
    via TanksinWW2
    i belive there is an exception to the two term rule in time of war..fdr was a sitting president when pearl harbour brought the us into ww2 ,this being of course an actual DECLARED war ...viet nam ,korea ,iraq would not count....
     
  18. canambridge

    canambridge Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Likes Received:
    6
    via TanksinWW2
    There is no exception, wartime or otherwise. The two term tradition was started by Washingotn, who felt that no one should control that kind of power for too long, good idea in my opinion. Up until 1940 it was merely tradition, when FDR decided to run a third time a popular slogamn was: "Washington wouldn't, Grant couldn't and Roosevelt shouldn't (run for a third term). it is now part of the US constitution, amendment XXII
    (http://www.constitution.org/afterte_.htm).
    The electoral college system was to 1) account for slow pace 18th century communications the possibilty of no candidate winning a majority by direct vote, and 2) an attempt provide the small (population) states with some political equality with the large states. The framers of the constitution were continulally worried that the small states would be at the mercy of the large states, somewhat missing the point that regionalism was a bigger threat to the natinal fabric.
     
  19. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    No offense, but it may be you that is missing the point. The framers were wary of too much centralized power and many Americans still share that wariness. The US was formed to be a union of states that allowed a federal government to oversee the union and mediate between them but not a federal government that held ultimate power and deigned to share a small amount of power with the states.
    It's true that the aftermath of the Civil War (and Lincoln) led to a stronger federal government and weaker states than was originally intended however states rights are still something that is taken more seriously(and is provided for in the Constitution) than in other countries that have political subdivisions (counties, provinces etc) that are totally subordinate to the central government.
     
  20. majorwoody10

    majorwoody10 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    ca.usa
    via TanksinWW2
    yup ...thats why its called the united STATES ...and not the republic of washington dc
     

Share This Page