Contrary to popular opinion around here, I actually like the term limits to the U.S. presidency... I think it's one of the better ideas of the U.S. government. On a side note, Bush won't be president for life if the Democrats actually put up a decent candidate. Instead, they elected Kerry because he was more "electable"... note to Dems: put up someone with conviction and you would be surprised how Americans will vote for a guy who is borderline insane. Ross Perot was fricking crazy, yet he got almost 20% of the popular vote in 1992.
Some may say that it limits true representative democracy. Fair enough. However, the U.S. isn't a direct democracy per say; it's a republic. In addition, it ensures that one man/woman doesn't cling onto power forever. I believe that it keeps the government fresh even though we may not always agree with the change of direction.
In terms of the electoral college (an entirely different issue), supporters of the system do have several valid points. One of the strongest arguments for maintaining the system is ensuring that smaller states have a bigger role to play instead of being automatically ignored in favour of large, populous states like New York or California.
However, I think the Senate negates the utility of the electoral college. Since each state has two elected Senator regardless of population size, I believe the Senate is a sufficient defender of states' rights. Since electing the president is a matter of popular opinion of all Americans, the election system should reflect that.
. I agree with making getting rid of the electoral colledge top priority though.
