• GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    They should be, they need to be held accountable for their first 4 years to check if they are worthy of another 4.

    • ME5SENGER_24@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hate how when someone gets elected for their first term, the first thing out of everyone’s mouth is: re-election. Bitch, how about you bust your ass for 4 years and everyone will be begging you to stay. Instead its, get elected, work on re-election campaign, build a library. It would be amazing to see my country finally live up to this whole American dream BS that’s been shoved down my throat since birth, yet the only people actually getting richer were already rich to begin with. We talk about $100k salaries like they’re gold yet Elon, Bezos and Bill Gates wipe their asses with larger bills than that. We need a government for the people of the people. Not a bunch of 1%ers mooching off us Poors and writing policies to their benefit distancing themselves and their families from further from the people they claim to represent

      • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        They need to earn their position, if they haven’t spent the prior 4 years earning it they shouldn’t be reelected.

            • knotthatone@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              OP’s not asking about what the incumbent expects. Why would the party itself give voters reasons to vote against their incumbent?

              • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why would the party itself give voters reasons to vote against their incumbent?

                Because thats how democracy is supposed to work. Candidates need to earn everyone’s vote every time theres an election. The purpose of an election is to give the population a chance to approve their reelection, it also holds them accountable. To just assume they are entitled to the full 8 years with no question or accountability is authoritarian.

        • hansl@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a “the system is broken but we have to play with the rules” thing. We can protest/protest/canvas for new voting rules to get third parties more chance to be in congress, but I can’t see the presidency ever changing in a regular setting.

          • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            They designed a system that’s broken for us, works perfectly for them and demand we participate in it

              • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Then democrats better start earning votes instead of demanding them. "We are not them’ isnt good enough.

                • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  In a democracy the citizens aren’t customers that need to be courted (though they often behave that way, to their own detriment). Rather, the citizens are participants. Sometimes, maybe usually, the whole process isn’t fun and enjoyable. Sometimes elections are like root canals: undesirable, but the alternative is a lot more pain and problems down the road.