The original proposal for the presidency of the United States in the constitutional convention was to have Congress elect presidents for 1 non renewable 7 year term, what do you think about this idea?
December 15, 2025
The original proposal for the presidency of the United States in the constitutional convention was to have Congress elect presidents for 1 non renewable 7 year term, what do you think about this idea?
30 comments
Even dumber than the Electoral College.
It makes the president more beholden to Congress. This makes some things better, and other things worse. There’s not a clear right and wrong on a question this technical.
The confederacy actually tried this, it didn’t work for them.
If the president turns out to be a dunce, 4 years is more than enough. If he does ok , give him another term.
A lot of early government proposals for how the US government should functionally work naively assumed political parties wouldn’t be a thing.
Implementing any version of this in modern American politics would essentially remove the check and balance between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the government.
As useless as Congress is today, no thanks
I don’t like the idea of the president not being directly elected. I mean I know the president is not directly elected in our present setup but this is worse. I don’t really have an objection to a single seven year term though, that seems fine. Not any better or worse than what we have now anyway.
I really do think our current presidential system is fine. But Senators and Representatives being in place for 30+ years is actually insane. That is the real tyranny on display.
I want more direct democracy not less.
Personally, I think all US Presidential, Senatorial, and Representative roles should be limited to one, six-year term. While in office, they should earn a salary commensurate with the average salary of their constituency, be subject to all the same taxes and limitations, and have to enroll in their own health insurance plans. If they are currently employed when they are elected, the company they work for should be required to reinstate their position once their term is served, and they should go back to work like the rest of us.
It will never, ever happen, but a girl can dream.
It’s not the worst idea to prevent extremism but I think it would have suffered in an early republic as the executive would effectively be a puppet branch of the legislative. Also during crises like the Civil War, I worry that a president who is overly focused on Congress would end up losing the war.
That’s just more power going to the government. Do you really want rich old people to have the power of choosing the next rich old person to have the most powerful position in the US? I think legislative branch should have term limits though
If Congress wasn’t capped by the 1929 apportionment act it might be considered more representative for the main party candidates but effectively eliminate any 3rd party run. Pairing that with the congressional 2 year cycle you’d run into instances of people having no effective voice in the executive. The Congress vote would trend towards who will vote for your guy rather than who can be an effective congressperson
Seven years is a ***long*** time.
If there was a way to end a presidency early that was easier to achieve than the current impeachment process (closer to a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system), a longer term might be adequate but still not great.
I like the idea of Term Limits, but I don’t like the idea of Congress electing the president.
I don’t thing the longer term is better. At four years it’s easier to make a correction or affirmation with a second term. The senate being six years has always seemed a little iffy while the house at 2 years is much too short.
So a prime minister.
I get why this was a consideration with the means of the time but it was definitely better we went with what we did
This idea is literally just
“The Speaker of the House is president”
No that sounds terrible
7 years is too long to not have the ability to vote them out.
Congress hasn’t shown they are able to accomplish a whole lot, and they aren’t that good at electing their own leadership, so I don’t think that’s a responsibility I want in their hands.
This was also tied with the state legislators electing their senators. Only members of the House were directly elected. It was a compromise between those who trusted the will of the people and those who did not. The House direct election was demanded by the “borderlanders” of Appalachia, who founded Kentucky and Tennessee later, according to what I’ve read. They did not trust the elites at all, and this is where that thread in American culture comes from.
I think there are pros and cons for each, but over the centuries the direct voting for senators and the president won out.
Bad idea
Maybe not 7 years but yes. The presidential election has taken over the entire country. And until recently the presidents decisions have had very little influence on individual citizens lives. The focus on the president has shifted the focus from local government and officials which actually do really affect people day to day. Focusing the entire country on one person and one election has definitely helped lead to the tribalism we see now. Congress has ceded all their power to the president and focusing on national politics has provided cover for the takeover of state politics
It’s too late now but I think it would have been better if the president was more removed and then people could focus more on their state representatives and senators
Presidents should be elected by popular vote.
Each congressional representative should represent the same number of people.
DC should have representation in the House and Senate.
I don’t like removing the President from the people with that extra layer where Congress is electing them. That means to get elected President you need to only appeal to them and not appeal to most people. It’s also almost certainly going to be a vote along party lines which I think is already a problem that this would make worse. And it secures that this person will be almost guaranteed to be a washington insider or someone popular with the party. And I don’t really care at all who is popular with the party and good at making connections within the party organization. I care who has good ideas and good leadership skills (as well as other experience needed) to implement those ideas.
The single 7 year term has pluses and minuses. It does mean the President can theoretically focus on doing the job the best way they can, and not have to raise money for reelection, or appeal to special interests. So there is some benefit to that. It also means if they make a bad choice they either have to do something so terrible they can be impeached or we are stuck with them for 7 years instead of 4. That’s a pretty big negative. And you have a lot of trust in that person then since you’ve lost some of the accountability of a President who will want to get reelected having to be accountable to people. That one I’m a bit more mixed on as I think both sides of that have benefits and drawbacks.
7 years is way too long. It makes the government a bit too inflexible. Right now is at a nice balance. 4 year terms is fine.
The main concern then was that the president would be campaigning for reelection and therefore beholden to Congress, which was planned to elect the president, and seen as the more powerful branch based on the recent Confederation Period experience. It is ironic that today Trump has managed to completely whip Congress (especially House) simply by threatening to endorse a primary challenge to any dissenters.
Electors were supposed to be a minor substitution, numbering the same as Representatives+Senators (the two houses would have voted as one pool) but electors not allowed to be the people serving in Congress. The method of selection of electors was not debated at length so does not appear to be a deliberate decision to empower states, as some portray it today.
The most powerful effect of the elector method was unstated and completely unanticipated: each state voting all its electors as a single bloc in order to maximize the state’s influence. This form of “empowering states” was not intended.
Small states having more electors per population was also an accidental consequence of the switch from election by joint session of Congress, and far less unequal and consequential than the Senate apportionment it stemmed from. The “flat two” electors have hardly ever swung presidential elections.
In summary the main impression is how accidental it all was. The Federal Convention spent most of its debate worrying about issues that later turned out to be nonissues, and did not anticipate many of the most important later consequences. On top of that, today’s partisans never read Madison’s convention debate notes, but inaccurately cherry-pick and repeat hearsay to paint a picture supporting their current partisanship.
There is little chance now of an amendment going back to the 7 years and election by Congress proposal. Currently, 3 more years of Trump with no prospect of removal is bad enough.
I don’t feel like many Congress persons are representing their constituents or country well. I think it would be a terrible idea to let them elect the president.
President Gerald Ford had supported a single six-year term (like Mexico) but changed his mind because he thought Jimmy Carter was a bad president and shouldn’t have gotten more time.
7 years is a long time for a bad president.
At least now if the president is truly bad and the voters see that they are gone after 4
30 comments
Even dumber than the Electoral College.
It makes the president more beholden to Congress. This makes some things better, and other things worse. There’s not a clear right and wrong on a question this technical.
The confederacy actually tried this, it didn’t work for them.
If the president turns out to be a dunce, 4 years is more than enough. If he does ok , give him another term.
A lot of early government proposals for how the US government should functionally work naively assumed political parties wouldn’t be a thing.
Implementing any version of this in modern American politics would essentially remove the check and balance between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the government.
As useless as Congress is today, no thanks
I don’t like the idea of the president not being directly elected. I mean I know the president is not directly elected in our present setup but this is worse. I don’t really have an objection to a single seven year term though, that seems fine. Not any better or worse than what we have now anyway.
I really do think our current presidential system is fine. But Senators and Representatives being in place for 30+ years is actually insane. That is the real tyranny on display.
I want more direct democracy not less.
Personally, I think all US Presidential, Senatorial, and Representative roles should be limited to one, six-year term. While in office, they should earn a salary commensurate with the average salary of their constituency, be subject to all the same taxes and limitations, and have to enroll in their own health insurance plans. If they are currently employed when they are elected, the company they work for should be required to reinstate their position once their term is served, and they should go back to work like the rest of us.
It will never, ever happen, but a girl can dream.
It’s not the worst idea to prevent extremism but I think it would have suffered in an early republic as the executive would effectively be a puppet branch of the legislative. Also during crises like the Civil War, I worry that a president who is overly focused on Congress would end up losing the war.
That’s just more power going to the government. Do you really want rich old people to have the power of choosing the next rich old person to have the most powerful position in the US? I think legislative branch should have term limits though
If Congress wasn’t capped by the 1929 apportionment act it might be considered more representative for the main party candidates but effectively eliminate any 3rd party run. Pairing that with the congressional 2 year cycle you’d run into instances of people having no effective voice in the executive. The Congress vote would trend towards who will vote for your guy rather than who can be an effective congressperson
Seven years is a ***long*** time.
If there was a way to end a presidency early that was easier to achieve than the current impeachment process (closer to a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system), a longer term might be adequate but still not great.
I like the idea of Term Limits, but I don’t like the idea of Congress electing the president.
I don’t thing the longer term is better. At four years it’s easier to make a correction or affirmation with a second term. The senate being six years has always seemed a little iffy while the house at 2 years is much too short.
So a prime minister.
I get why this was a consideration with the means of the time but it was definitely better we went with what we did
This idea is literally just
“The Speaker of the House is president”
No that sounds terrible
7 years is too long to not have the ability to vote them out.
Congress hasn’t shown they are able to accomplish a whole lot, and they aren’t that good at electing their own leadership, so I don’t think that’s a responsibility I want in their hands.
This was also tied with the state legislators electing their senators. Only members of the House were directly elected. It was a compromise between those who trusted the will of the people and those who did not. The House direct election was demanded by the “borderlanders” of Appalachia, who founded Kentucky and Tennessee later, according to what I’ve read. They did not trust the elites at all, and this is where that thread in American culture comes from.
I think there are pros and cons for each, but over the centuries the direct voting for senators and the president won out.
Bad idea
Maybe not 7 years but yes. The presidential election has taken over the entire country. And until recently the presidents decisions have had very little influence on individual citizens lives. The focus on the president has shifted the focus from local government and officials which actually do really affect people day to day. Focusing the entire country on one person and one election has definitely helped lead to the tribalism we see now. Congress has ceded all their power to the president and focusing on national politics has provided cover for the takeover of state politics
It’s too late now but I think it would have been better if the president was more removed and then people could focus more on their state representatives and senators
Presidents should be elected by popular vote.
Each congressional representative should represent the same number of people.
DC should have representation in the House and Senate.
I don’t like removing the President from the people with that extra layer where Congress is electing them. That means to get elected President you need to only appeal to them and not appeal to most people. It’s also almost certainly going to be a vote along party lines which I think is already a problem that this would make worse. And it secures that this person will be almost guaranteed to be a washington insider or someone popular with the party. And I don’t really care at all who is popular with the party and good at making connections within the party organization. I care who has good ideas and good leadership skills (as well as other experience needed) to implement those ideas.
The single 7 year term has pluses and minuses. It does mean the President can theoretically focus on doing the job the best way they can, and not have to raise money for reelection, or appeal to special interests. So there is some benefit to that. It also means if they make a bad choice they either have to do something so terrible they can be impeached or we are stuck with them for 7 years instead of 4. That’s a pretty big negative. And you have a lot of trust in that person then since you’ve lost some of the accountability of a President who will want to get reelected having to be accountable to people. That one I’m a bit more mixed on as I think both sides of that have benefits and drawbacks.
7 years is way too long. It makes the government a bit too inflexible. Right now is at a nice balance. 4 year terms is fine.
The main concern then was that the president would be campaigning for reelection and therefore beholden to Congress, which was planned to elect the president, and seen as the more powerful branch based on the recent Confederation Period experience. It is ironic that today Trump has managed to completely whip Congress (especially House) simply by threatening to endorse a primary challenge to any dissenters.
Electors were supposed to be a minor substitution, numbering the same as Representatives+Senators (the two houses would have voted as one pool) but electors not allowed to be the people serving in Congress. The method of selection of electors was not debated at length so does not appear to be a deliberate decision to empower states, as some portray it today.
The most powerful effect of the elector method was unstated and completely unanticipated: each state voting all its electors as a single bloc in order to maximize the state’s influence. This form of “empowering states” was not intended.
Small states having more electors per population was also an accidental consequence of the switch from election by joint session of Congress, and far less unequal and consequential than the Senate apportionment it stemmed from. The “flat two” electors have hardly ever swung presidential elections.
In summary the main impression is how accidental it all was. The Federal Convention spent most of its debate worrying about issues that later turned out to be nonissues, and did not anticipate many of the most important later consequences. On top of that, today’s partisans never read Madison’s convention debate notes, but inaccurately cherry-pick and repeat hearsay to paint a picture supporting their current partisanship.
There is little chance now of an amendment going back to the 7 years and election by Congress proposal. Currently, 3 more years of Trump with no prospect of removal is bad enough.
I don’t feel like many Congress persons are representing their constituents or country well. I think it would be a terrible idea to let them elect the president.
President Gerald Ford had supported a single six-year term (like Mexico) but changed his mind because he thought Jimmy Carter was a bad president and shouldn’t have gotten more time.
7 years is a long time for a bad president.
At least now if the president is truly bad and the voters see that they are gone after 4