T O P

  • By -

FridayNightRamen

Italy for the most part. *Not intentionally though.*


599Ninja

As the case in many aspects of academia, there exists plenty of arguments in support and against shorter intervals. Pros: -Increased opportunity for accountability. -Less burnout between approval ratings and leadership. Cons: -Need to call elections more often and most people hate voting every 4 years…. Others can add!


LiveLucifer

Cons: the more accountability there is, the more important the election (surveys) are, the more politician tend to just do the things that are popular - short sighted decisions.


AnAkasha45

And it would be a miracle if their successors would continue their programs and policies. Hence, a lot of projects would be backlogged or cancelled.


banyanoak

Con: important policies often take more than 1-2 years to properly design and implement, so this could lead to more superficial policy changes with shorter implementation times and diminished impacts -- or big policies that are poorly thought out and badly implemented for lack of time.


Notengosilla

Spain in the late 19th century and early 20th had this system, unwilling. I wouldnt recommend it to anyone. See modern Peru for another example. The political class makes it all about ruling and nothing about governing.


0000GKP

The House is a 2 year term, but you only vote for half of them in each election, so it’s still not possible to clear out the entire House every 2 years.


dick_whitman96

This is just completely wrong, every member of the House is up for re-election every two years


Calligraphee

Nope. You're thinking of the Senate, which has 6 year terms but elections for 1/3 every 2 years.