What would be best change for USPresidency? ( Archived) (2)

I won't because I am not American, however I have a few thoughts.

1/ 6yr2tm - Provides the President with greater power to make decisions that he/she thinks are good for the nation in the long term, although mid-terms could still stuff that up.
2 terms maximum is logical if you really are desperate for a cap as a good leader can use their skills as long as they are useful, however a cap is probably pointless with 6 year terms as not many leaders would still be interested after 12 years in the job given that most would be close to retirement or even over retirement age and would face upward pressure to retire. Perhaps replace the 2 term max with a compulsory retirement age of 70, 75 or 80 so that a really good leader can do a third term if the public vote for it.

2/ 6yr1tm - Also provides the President with greater power to make decisions that he/she are good for the nation in the long term, however I would not recommend having only a single term. It would just be a potential waste of an excellent leader (be they Republican or Democrat). Many democratic nations have leaders who serve longer than 6 years and they don't suddenly become Kings. Do you really believe the US military would just allow a President to rock up one day and say "Hey - I'm the King!".

3/ 2yr6tm - Are you referring to Presidential elections at midterms as well? That would not work. How can a President follow the mandate they were given if the first time they make a change the unhappy people vote him/her out of office. Secondly you would not see Presidents making long term decisions because they would be afraid of losing office. I think this option would see the beginnings of a weakening of the office of President and a simultaneous growth in power of the sitting leader of the major party in congress. If you were to do that you may as well go the whole hog and make the President a puppet or make the sitting leader of the party in control of congress automatically the President. Essentially for the 2yr6tm option to work with the current government structure you would need to increase the number of people voting to stop disgruntled people changing the leadership every two years. That would require manditory voting with fines for not voting.

4/ 4yr3tm I think thats the best option. That way the President can implement their mandate and if they are an excellent leader their talents are not wasted after two terms. An option here that you have not addressed is the possibility of replacing midterms with minimum 2 year terms, so that the President can call an early election if they choose, but must wait no longer than four years. Quite a lot of nations do that and while some say it benefits the party in power it can also work against them. More often than not they call an early election to cut their losses. I personally prefer set terms.

5/ Apolitical President - Wasn't that the original plan? I doubt you could enforce it without a complete transfer of executive power to a cabinet style ruling body within congress and having your leader of the party in majority as the equivalent of a Prime Minister. Maybe call them the Secretary General or something like that, although in truth they would be just like any other Prime Minister with a different role. The positives - you can choose a President who really embodies the spirit of the American people. Someone to look up to regardless of political party. I just don't see how you could have an apolitical President and have them retain their power. As I heard an American political commentator say at your last Presidential election; the President in power chooses leaders across the board, then slowly disenfranchises the ones from the other party until they only have leaders from their own in prominent places. (He gave examples but I can't remember which).