But what if he's awesome?
As I understand it, the US President can only serve for a maximum of two terms. Something like that, anyway.
I've never seen the point of this. The only argument I've heard for it is to stop someone abusing power for decades by starting illegal wars (for example) and other distasteful stuff. But surely if someone did that you'd just exercise your right to vote for the other guy, wouldn't you? If the guy in charge was invading countries like it was going out of style and introducing policies you didn't like then you'd elect his rival. He couldn't be worse, could he?
Surely one of the advantages of a democracy is that it should keep the leader honest because otherwise he might not be the leader for much longer...
But anyway, back to the point: US President term limit.
What I think would be much better would be 3 major candidates in each election, not just two: a new Republican candidate, a new Democrat candidate, and the existing President defending himself*. That way if the President is amazing and is bringing about World Peace, ending hunger, and recycling as much rubbish as he can get his hands on then the people can keep him for as long as they want. On the other hand, if he's utter crap and a moron then the people can vote for a new President while still voting for their party of choice.
I can't see any problems with that plan, but I can see many advantages...
* "Himself" purely because all the past Presidents have been men; I see no reason why a woman couldn't be President.