@ISIDEWITHQuestionselections9yrs ago

Should term limits be set for the role of Prime Minister?

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 487k Canada voters.

65%
Yes
35%
No
60%
Yes
26%
No
3%
Yes, and limited to two terms
9%
No, voters should decide how long they stay in office
2%
Yes, and limited to three terms
0%
Yes, and limited to one term

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 487k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 487k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Canada voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @4QRZFWSfrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

If the pm is doing very well serving his/her countrymen. Why give a limit. Good governance shouldn't be stop by "politics".

 @4WKHTLWfrom Alberta  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes and because they are supposed to be representing Canada and All Canadians they should be able to be fired & be held legally responsible if at any time they don't represent all Canadians equally ...

 @44NDCMPfrom Alberta  answered…4yrs4Y

Only for the Liberals because they have no idea how to run a country other then into the ground, and no way in Hell should Quebec-qua be able to run in Federal politics unless they have a party in every province.

 @B3PTXTYfrom Alberta  answered…3 days3D

No, Canada has never had term limits before and they shouldn’t start now either, just because of the USA fumbling the ball does not mean we should get scared and act to change the charter of right and freedoms

 @B3LWBZVfrom Newfoundland  answered…6 days6D

If a systematic guarantee that absolute despotic power could not be gained by a recurring candidate, I think they should be able to serve for more than two terms

 @B3HJK9Rfrom Manitoba  answered…1wk1W

Yes, limited to three terms under our current system since Ontario and Quebec voters have the most power in determining the outcome of the election. If under a proportional or instant runoff system, then no.

 @B2BM93Xfrom Ontario  answered…2mos2MO

Limited to two terms every 20 years. So you can be Prime Minister for 8 years in a row, and must wait 12 years. Or do 4 years, lose an election or two, do another 4, and wait until 20 years from your first election to be able to run again.

 @8VJH255from Alberta  answered…3yrs3Y

If we switch to proportional representation then no

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4mos4MO

House Democrats Filibuster Flip-Flop: Keep It When the GOP’s in Charge, Kill It When We Are

Filibuster for me, but not for thee. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), an outspoken critic of the Senate filibuster, indicated Monday that she will not support axing the procedural hurdle as long as Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. “Am I championing getting rid of the filibuster now when the Senate has the trifecta? No,” the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. “But had we had the trifecta, I would have been, because we have to show that government can deliver,” Jayapal added. The Senate filibuster rule, which requires a 60-vote threshold to end debate and pass most types of legislation in the upper chamber, is seen as the best chance Democrats have at blocking the adoption of President-elect Donald Trump agenda – with Republicans taking a 53-47 seat advantage in the Senate and expected to retain a slim majority in the House. Jayapal, as recently as September, was pushing to “abolish” what she called the “Jim Crow filibuster.” “The filibuster was originally created *by mistake* in 1806,” she wrote on X. “Every day we don’t abolish it is just as big a mistake.”The Washington Democrat dislikes that the procedural tool makes it difficult for progressives to ram their agenda through Congress. “It’s the filibuster OR an assault weapons ban. It’s the filibuster OR codified abortion access. It’s the filibuster OR raising the minimum wage. It’s the filibuster OR protecting voting rights. The choice is clear. Abolish the Jim Crow filibuster,” Jayapal tweeted. The progressive rep argued Monday that passing a liberal agenda would’ve “built some trust with the American people.”“If we had had control of the trifecta and gotten rid of the filibuster to pass minimum wage, to pass paid sick leave, to pass many of these things that are passing – abortion access – that are passing on ballot measures that are so popular … then I think we would have built some trust with the American people,” Jayapal argued.

▲  226 replies