How could a lack of term limits lead to a “dictatorship?”Why do countries have term limits on Presidents and Prime Ministers?Can the current President of the United States block the transfer of their office to the next elected president?

Where to refill my bottle in India?

How did the USSR manage to innovate in an environment characterized by government censorship and high bureaucracy?

Why doesn't a const reference extend the life of a temporary object passed via a function?

Doomsday-clock for my fantasy planet

What to wear for invited talk in Canada

LWC and complex parameters

COUNT(*) or MAX(id) - which is faster?

Is a vector space a subspace of itself?

How to deal with fear of taking dependencies

Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?

What is GPS' 19 year rollover and does it present a cybersecurity issue?

Pristine Bit Checking

Is domain driven design an anti-SQL pattern?

What do the Banks children have against barley water?

If a centaur druid Wild Shapes into a Giant Elk, do their Charge features stack?

What is the command to reset a PC without deleting any files

Why airport relocation isn't done gradually?

A poker game description that does not feel gimmicky

How to manage monthly salary

Re-submission of rejected manuscript without informing co-authors

Domain expired, GoDaddy holds it and is asking more money

Why do we use polarized capacitors?

Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?

Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?



How could a lack of term limits lead to a “dictatorship?”


Why do countries have term limits on Presidents and Prime Ministers?Can the current President of the United States block the transfer of their office to the next elected president?













2















I read this question on why countries impose term limits on leaders, but it seems that the answer is not what I wanted.



The reason is basically "to prevent a dictatorship." The only issue is, the public would still be voting every so often on the new president, so he/she could only abuse their power for the same amount of time an ordinary one could. Also, if a leader were to be an exceptionally good president/prime minister, it doesn't make much sense to keep them from being reelected.



I am aware that there was a custom in the US far before an actual constitutional reason keeping presidents from running for president more than twice, but this seems odd, too. There's not much of a reason for it.



One reason one could think of is to let new people be elected, if one person has been consistently reelected for the past few terms. But if they have, they are probably good enough at their job to deserve it.



I know there are several similar questions (like the one linked above), but I do not believe this to be a duplicate. It is instead expanding on a certain point made in it, which seems unaddressed in responses to comments and seems worthy of a separate question.










share|improve this question







New contributor




Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
























    2















    I read this question on why countries impose term limits on leaders, but it seems that the answer is not what I wanted.



    The reason is basically "to prevent a dictatorship." The only issue is, the public would still be voting every so often on the new president, so he/she could only abuse their power for the same amount of time an ordinary one could. Also, if a leader were to be an exceptionally good president/prime minister, it doesn't make much sense to keep them from being reelected.



    I am aware that there was a custom in the US far before an actual constitutional reason keeping presidents from running for president more than twice, but this seems odd, too. There's not much of a reason for it.



    One reason one could think of is to let new people be elected, if one person has been consistently reelected for the past few terms. But if they have, they are probably good enough at their job to deserve it.



    I know there are several similar questions (like the one linked above), but I do not believe this to be a duplicate. It is instead expanding on a certain point made in it, which seems unaddressed in responses to comments and seems worthy of a separate question.










    share|improve this question







    New contributor




    Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






















      2












      2








      2








      I read this question on why countries impose term limits on leaders, but it seems that the answer is not what I wanted.



      The reason is basically "to prevent a dictatorship." The only issue is, the public would still be voting every so often on the new president, so he/she could only abuse their power for the same amount of time an ordinary one could. Also, if a leader were to be an exceptionally good president/prime minister, it doesn't make much sense to keep them from being reelected.



      I am aware that there was a custom in the US far before an actual constitutional reason keeping presidents from running for president more than twice, but this seems odd, too. There's not much of a reason for it.



      One reason one could think of is to let new people be elected, if one person has been consistently reelected for the past few terms. But if they have, they are probably good enough at their job to deserve it.



      I know there are several similar questions (like the one linked above), but I do not believe this to be a duplicate. It is instead expanding on a certain point made in it, which seems unaddressed in responses to comments and seems worthy of a separate question.










      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.












      I read this question on why countries impose term limits on leaders, but it seems that the answer is not what I wanted.



      The reason is basically "to prevent a dictatorship." The only issue is, the public would still be voting every so often on the new president, so he/she could only abuse their power for the same amount of time an ordinary one could. Also, if a leader were to be an exceptionally good president/prime minister, it doesn't make much sense to keep them from being reelected.



      I am aware that there was a custom in the US far before an actual constitutional reason keeping presidents from running for president more than twice, but this seems odd, too. There's not much of a reason for it.



      One reason one could think of is to let new people be elected, if one person has been consistently reelected for the past few terms. But if they have, they are probably good enough at their job to deserve it.



      I know there are several similar questions (like the one linked above), but I do not believe this to be a duplicate. It is instead expanding on a certain point made in it, which seems unaddressed in responses to comments and seems worthy of a separate question.







      presidential-term






      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question







      New contributor




      Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question






      New contributor




      Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 8 hours ago









      Redwolf ProgramsRedwolf Programs

      25725




      25725




      New contributor




      Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Redwolf Programs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6














          As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.



          This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.



          Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.



          This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.



          If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.



          There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.



          Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.



          As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.






          share|improve this answer

























          • And don't forget that the longer someone is in power, the more time and incentive they have to rig the system to make it favour themselves and their chosen (political) heirs. Thus we have for example McCain being replaced by his own daughter without elections. And we see the same elsewhere, both also for non-political appointees (town I lived in had the head of building permits replaced by his own son, after tweaking the hiring rules to mean he could hire anyone without going through the official open application process for example).

            – jwenting
            1 hour ago


















          3














          Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".



          There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to criticise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.



          We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.



          The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)



          The drafters of the amendment to the constitution felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.






          share|improve this answer

























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "475"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );






            Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40377%2fhow-could-a-lack-of-term-limits-lead-to-a-dictatorship%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            6














            As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.



            This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.



            Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.



            This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.



            If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.



            There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.



            Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.



            As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.






            share|improve this answer

























            • And don't forget that the longer someone is in power, the more time and incentive they have to rig the system to make it favour themselves and their chosen (political) heirs. Thus we have for example McCain being replaced by his own daughter without elections. And we see the same elsewhere, both also for non-political appointees (town I lived in had the head of building permits replaced by his own son, after tweaking the hiring rules to mean he could hire anyone without going through the official open application process for example).

              – jwenting
              1 hour ago















            6














            As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.



            This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.



            Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.



            This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.



            If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.



            There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.



            Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.



            As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.






            share|improve this answer

























            • And don't forget that the longer someone is in power, the more time and incentive they have to rig the system to make it favour themselves and their chosen (political) heirs. Thus we have for example McCain being replaced by his own daughter without elections. And we see the same elsewhere, both also for non-political appointees (town I lived in had the head of building permits replaced by his own son, after tweaking the hiring rules to mean he could hire anyone without going through the official open application process for example).

              – jwenting
              1 hour ago













            6












            6








            6







            As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.



            This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.



            Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.



            This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.



            If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.



            There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.



            Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.



            As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.






            share|improve this answer















            As an empirical fact, the very same person is much more likely to win an election if that person in an incumbent than if that person is not and there is an open race, or a candidate is challenging an incumbent.



            This is because, among other things, an incumbent has better name recognition, challenges to an incumbent from a member of the same political party are strongly disfavored (even though that party is likely to be the one preferred by most voters in that politician's district), an incumbent doesn't need to spend time engaged in non-political work for economic self-support, and an incumbent can't manipulate the levers of government to make the incumbent appear desirable in superficial ways that don't reflect the bigger issues that really matter in governing a political unit.



            Term limits periodically wipe out incumbency advantages so that the vote of the people reflects an unbiased view of their wishes prospectively rather than being influenced by the mere fact that someone has previously held the same post.



            This keeps elected officials in line with the wishes of the people, and also prevents incumbency advantages (like gerrymandered districts that put strong opponents in the same district while leaving incumbents in districts that lack strong challengers) from further accumulating over time, which may create an environment akin to a dominant party system, where there is a legal opposition but it has no realistic prospects of winning important political prizes in the near term.



            If an elected official is very hard to remove despite the formal electoral process due to incumbency advantages, at some point the elected official can effectively ignore the public and rule as he or she sees fit at whim, must like a dictator. This isn't an absolute freedom and an extreme act could get an opposition figure elected (if those in charge don't change the election laws to prevent that), but even a dictator still needs to maintain a basis of support and legitimacy to rule.



            There are many examples in newer democracies of Presidents or other leaders improperly manipulating, greatly postponing or even entirely dispensing with elections creating a one party state or a publicly acknowledge dictatorship. The threat is not hypothetical.



            Regular shifts in who holds political office through an electoral process (which may include term limits) is necessary, as an empirical matter, for a democratic electoral system to be healthy and functional.



            As one empirical example, jurisdictions with term limits tend to have more women, and generally more diverse groups of elected officials and the lagging indicator influences of incumbency are overcome.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 7 hours ago

























            answered 7 hours ago









            ohwillekeohwilleke

            22.5k35495




            22.5k35495












            • And don't forget that the longer someone is in power, the more time and incentive they have to rig the system to make it favour themselves and their chosen (political) heirs. Thus we have for example McCain being replaced by his own daughter without elections. And we see the same elsewhere, both also for non-political appointees (town I lived in had the head of building permits replaced by his own son, after tweaking the hiring rules to mean he could hire anyone without going through the official open application process for example).

              – jwenting
              1 hour ago

















            • And don't forget that the longer someone is in power, the more time and incentive they have to rig the system to make it favour themselves and their chosen (political) heirs. Thus we have for example McCain being replaced by his own daughter without elections. And we see the same elsewhere, both also for non-political appointees (town I lived in had the head of building permits replaced by his own son, after tweaking the hiring rules to mean he could hire anyone without going through the official open application process for example).

              – jwenting
              1 hour ago
















            And don't forget that the longer someone is in power, the more time and incentive they have to rig the system to make it favour themselves and their chosen (political) heirs. Thus we have for example McCain being replaced by his own daughter without elections. And we see the same elsewhere, both also for non-political appointees (town I lived in had the head of building permits replaced by his own son, after tweaking the hiring rules to mean he could hire anyone without going through the official open application process for example).

            – jwenting
            1 hour ago





            And don't forget that the longer someone is in power, the more time and incentive they have to rig the system to make it favour themselves and their chosen (political) heirs. Thus we have for example McCain being replaced by his own daughter without elections. And we see the same elsewhere, both also for non-political appointees (town I lived in had the head of building permits replaced by his own son, after tweaking the hiring rules to mean he could hire anyone without going through the official open application process for example).

            – jwenting
            1 hour ago











            3














            Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".



            There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to criticise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.



            We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.



            The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)



            The drafters of the amendment to the constitution felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.






            share|improve this answer





























              3














              Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".



              There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to criticise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.



              We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.



              The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)



              The drafters of the amendment to the constitution felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.






              share|improve this answer



























                3












                3








                3







                Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".



                There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to criticise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.



                We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.



                The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)



                The drafters of the amendment to the constitution felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.






                share|improve this answer















                Perhaps rather than "dictator", it should be prevention of "monarchy".



                There is an incumbent effect. An incumbent President can act to improve their popularity with the voters. Challengers can only talk to criticise, but since challengers are not in the Presidency they can't do anything. This gives the incumbent an advantage.



                We see in some countries where a President can remain for longer (and especially those in which the President acts more directly to weaken the opposition) a situation developing in which there are no credible challengers. The President in this situation may not be a dictator, but is re-elected by a landslide every 4 years, because there is nobody else who can oppose him.



                The fear of the founding fathers was that a President would use his position to remain in power for the rest of his life, and then use his influence to see that his son became the next president (creating a de-facto monarchy)



                The drafters of the amendment to the constitution felt that FDR had gained too much power, over his 3½ terms, he had been able to pick nearly all the members of the supreme court and massively increased federal budgets in the "new deal". They didn't want another President to stay in power for that long.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 2 hours ago









                Brythan

                70.2k8147237




                70.2k8147237










                answered 8 hours ago









                James KJames K

                36.4k8107155




                36.4k8107155




















                    Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                    Redwolf Programs is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40377%2fhow-could-a-lack-of-term-limits-lead-to-a-dictatorship%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Möglingen Índice Localización Historia Demografía Referencias Enlaces externos Menú de navegación48°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.129166666666748°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.1291666666667Sitio web oficial Mapa de Möglingen«Gemeinden in Deutschland nach Fläche, Bevölkerung und Postleitzahl am 30.09.2016»Möglingen

                    Virtualbox - Configuration error: Querying “UUID” failed (VERR_CFGM_VALUE_NOT_FOUND)“VERR_SUPLIB_WORLD_WRITABLE” error when trying to installing OS in virtualboxVirtual Box Kernel errorFailed to open a seesion for the virtual machineFailed to open a session for the virtual machineUbuntu 14.04 LTS Virtualbox errorcan't use VM VirtualBoxusing virtualboxI can't run Linux-64 Bit on VirtualBoxUnable to insert the virtual optical disk (VBoxguestaddition) in virtual machine for ubuntu server in win 10VirtuaBox in Ubuntu 18.04 Issues with Win10.ISO Installation

                    Torre de la Isleta Índice Véase también Referencias Bibliografía Enlaces externos Menú de navegación38°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.3838888938°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.38388889Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta o Torre Saleta. Base de datos de bienes inmuebles. Patrimonio Cultural. Secretaría de Estado de CulturaFicha BIC Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta. Dirección General de Patrimonio Cultural. Generalitat ValencianaLugares de interés. Ayuntamiento del CampelloTorre de la Isleta en CastillosNet.org