Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the potential consequences of allowing a president to serve more than two terms?
Executive summary
Allowing a president to serve more than two terms has historical roots in the pre‑1951 U.S. practice (no constitutional limit) and prompted the Twenty‑Second Amendment after FDR’s four terms; the Amendment now bars election to the presidency more than twice (ratified 1951) [1] [2]. Scholars and comparative studies suggest consequences range from weakened democratic competition and risks of entrenched power to possible continuity in crisis; outcomes vary by political context and whether institutional checks endure [3] [4].
1. The American legal baseline: what the Constitution now says
The Twenty‑Second Amendment, ratified in 1951, expressly prohibits a person from being elected president more than twice and constrains those who succeed to unexpired terms; Congress’s annotated history notes the amendment bars only election (not every possible route to the presidency) and was a direct reaction to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four elected terms [2] [5] [1].
2. Historical context: why the two‑term norm emerged
Before the amendment, presidents were limited only by political norms—George Washington’s voluntary two‑term retirement set an informal precedent that held until FDR. That precedent collapsed when Roosevelt won four elections during the Depression and World War II, prompting Congress and the states to write formal limits into the Constitution [6] [7].
3. Argument for allowing more terms: continuity and voter choice
Proponents of longer tenure argue that extending or removing limits can preserve policy continuity and let voters keep a popular, effective leader in office—an argument implicit in earlier debates against term limits and visible in later calls to repeal the 22nd Amendment (e.g., Ronald Reagan’s reported interest) [8] [9]. Available sources do not quantify net policy gains from additional presidential terms in the U.S.; comparative studies cited focus on other countries [3].
4. Argument against more terms: risks of entrenchment and weakened competition
Scholars and advocacy voices warn that removing limits risks turning popular incumbency into prolonged rule, reducing electoral competition and enabling constitutional circumvention. Academic work on global cases finds that presidents who seek to contravene term limits often succeed where competitive institutions are weak: some abolish limits outright, others obtain one‑term extensions, and many efforts hinge on partisan control of legislatures and pliant courts [4] [3].
5. Comparative evidence: what other countries show
Studies of term‑limit changes abroad show mixed outcomes: in some post‑Soviet and developing democracies leaders reset or removed limits (Russia, Belarus, parts of Latin America) and thereby extended rule; in other places attempts failed or only achieved a one‑term extension. Researchers conclude the key factor is institutional competitiveness—where elections are noncompetitive, abolishing limits is likelier [3] [4].
6. Institutional safeguards matter more than rules alone
The literature emphasizes that the formal rule (a constitutional limit) is necessary but not sufficient; enforcement depends on political competition, an independent judiciary, and legislative checks. The same academic account that tallies contraventions shows where institutions are weaker, leaders more often sidestep term limits—suggesting retention or abolition of limits has different consequences depending on broader institutional strength [4].
7. Democratic legitimacy versus “elective monarchy” concerns
Debates that produced the 22nd Amendment explicitly feared an “elective monarchy” if presidents could remain indefinitely—a concern recorded in historical commentary at the time. Opponents of limits have countered that limits can frustrate voter will by preventing a popular leader’s return; historical records show both arguments shaped the amendment’s adoption and later discussion [10] [7].
8. Practical tradeoffs for the United States today
In the U.S. context, removing the two‑term cap would reopen contested questions about succession, vice‑presidential roles, and the Twelfth Amendment’s interaction with eligibility—issues explored by constitutional scholars who note the 22nd Amendment bars election but leaves some interpretive edges [5] [11]. Empirical projections of outcomes are not provided in the available sources; comparative evidence indicates effects would hinge on partisan dynamics and institutional resilience [4] [3].
9. Bottom line for decision‑makers and voters
Allowing more than two terms trades off potential benefits of continuity and voter choice against significant risks of power entrenchment and weakened competition; comparative scholarship shows those risks materialize most readily where other democratic checks are eroded. Any reform debate must therefore weigh constitutional text, historical caution about “elective monarchy,” and the present strength of U.S. institutions [1] [10] [4].
Limitations: reporting and scholarship cited here outline history, text, and comparative patterns but do not offer a definitive empirical forecast for the U.S. if the 22nd Amendment were repealed; available sources do not provide a quantified projection of likely policy or democratic outcomes for a hypothetical U.S. scenario [3] [4].