Having a set limit on how long a politician reigns in general isn't a great idea, I'd much prefer that we give the people the means to remove any delegate from power at any time, so the threat of being removed motivates them to do a good job

In short there shouldn't be a set limit on how short or long a delegate's reign lasts, other than how well they preform

A good leader should reign for as long as he can deliver, and a bad ruler should be tarred and feather the moment they screw up. This one size fits all approach is completely asinine

Oh I didn't mention I'm filling out an official survey. How should I rate President Trump's performance?
Excellent, good, Fair, poor, other ___?

I was thinking of just going with good.

write in your own answer if you're conflicted

@Foxen (The Centurion) i don't want congress doing anything so i support term limits

Too late I've already submitted it.

it ok they wont listen anyways

One of the problems with the incentives of Congressmen in general are that they are essentially child kings that are largely incapable of ruling without many corrupt advisors

They’re also incentivized to loot other regions and bring back pork for their constituents

Term limits ensure that they can’t understand the game too well (Mitch McConnell) so they don’t do too much damage

However, they’re less capable of creating good, long-term policy

@clossington i'm still waiting for the nojoo policy

How about a term limit of 0 days

And abolishing term limits of the presidency

Making presidency a lifelong thing

And also making it hereditary

and then what if the king dies and the successor is a psychopath?

Rarely ever happens

Bruh, that is the most basic bitch anti-monarchy statment

And if it does those tend to be put into a regency

Or dethroned

Nobody, even in a monarchy, rules alone

Only the mad and "great kings" get in the history books. Most of them were neither

And how good has democracy prevented mad leaders from rising to the top?

Also now we have knowledge of genetics and royals can avoid having as many bad apples in their families by better selecting who they marry

The understanding should be that there can't be a compromise in the quality of royalty

Genetics isn't even needed for this. In the olden times people knew about proper breeding

What happened historically is that diplomacy resulted in all sorts of bad marriages

so weve already established a king can be dethroned, then essentialy what youre advocating is an oligarchy of the people who can dethrone a king they dont see as fit

what im wondering is how you make sure the king controls the lords and corporations and not the other way around

No it's just it becomes pretty obvious in most cases when a ruler turns insane

That's far from an oligarchy

Which you can see in say Qing China or Japan throughout most of its history where the real power usually rested with the regents

It's up to a king to figure out how to effectively enforce his rule

Monarchy is an interesting idea, but I’d say it would be virtually impossible to establish one in America considering the country’s history

It'd still be better than liberal democracy though

It'd be hard to do/envision in any western country but this is making the mistake of assuming you'd just try to restore old monarchy rather than go say the Bonapartist route

It's pretty easy to draw a line from democracy to dictatorship

And from dictatorship to hereditary rule