wizardofoz01
TNPer
Proposed by Polts:
Formal Discussion on Term Limits
- Thread starter wizardofoz01
- Start date
I'm not going to vote in favor of this with that particular change. I think its a good thing for two-time Ministers to sit out a term, as it encourages newer nations to step up into leadership roles. The two term limit will prevent a small group from passing around ministry positions among themselves.
However, I do believe the region is better served with an experienced nation as PM, and a trusted nation as Delegate. I would support a system that allows a Minister who has served two consecutive terms to be eligible for those positions.
However, I do believe the region is better served with an experienced nation as PM, and a trusted nation as Delegate. I would support a system that allows a Minister who has served two consecutive terms to be eligible for those positions.
Forgive me, but Poltsamaa has sneaked in a second change there.
Look at the red section of section 2. By Poltsamaa's ammendment Ministers are actually no longer subject to any sort of term limitation at all.
wizardofoz01
TNPer
Hm.. The new changes regarding 2-term limitations are a good improvement over the original version.
On an administrative note, this of course has three weeks to be scheduled for a formal vote as with any other formal discussion. Hopefully the impending holiday season doesn't put too much of a damper on participation (although it probably will ha!).
On an administrative note, this of course has three weeks to be scheduled for a formal vote as with any other formal discussion. Hopefully the impending holiday season doesn't put too much of a damper on participation (although it probably will ha!).
Fedele
TNPer
I think that's a great idea. I think we are hurting ourselves by not letting experienced government officials life up to their full potential in serving our region. This should fix that.
Ator People
TNPer
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
How about: "1) No person, through one or more Nations, may hold any particular Cabinet-level position for more than two consecutive terms."
Romanoffia
freedom and pride
TNPer
i AGREE
Nobody has quite explained to me why this is an improvement on what is already in force. THe orgiginal clause was written in to encourage new blood into government and to prevent any player(s) gaining a stranglehold on the region, creating an oligarchy (something the NPD/G often accused the NP of being).
I agree that last time we had trouble finding people to fill cabinet positions, but that should be a challenge to us to encourage new players into the community, rather than altering the system to potentially allow a few players to pass round cabinet posts ad nauseam. You will know as well as I that an existing minister will tend to be re-elected over a challenger.
Personally, I see no problem with officers taking a sabbatical after six months in the cabinet - whether in the same position or not. Six months is a long, long time in Nationstates. I can see an argument for exempting deputies from the term limitation, but I still reagard teh principle of term limits as a good thing.
I agree that last time we had trouble finding people to fill cabinet positions, but that should be a challenge to us to encourage new players into the community, rather than altering the system to potentially allow a few players to pass round cabinet posts ad nauseam. You will know as well as I that an existing minister will tend to be re-elected over a challenger.
Personally, I see no problem with officers taking a sabbatical after six months in the cabinet - whether in the same position or not. Six months is a long, long time in Nationstates. I can see an argument for exempting deputies from the term limitation, but I still reagard teh principle of term limits as a good thing.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
Removing competition is not good for anything!! The term limits in conjunction with a small pool of interested candidates means that it will be more like "taking turns" than actually working and earning a place in government!!
The number of uncontested elections both in the first lot back in August and the last elections highlights a serious problwem in the region!! If we disqualify people from running for fear they'll be re-elected then is what we have truly democracy?!
If people want to rise through the ranks, become a deputy and when the chance comes, take it!!
6 months is a long time in NS and people are more than able to decide against seekign re-election if they have had enough of the job!! If people feel they have something to offer, they should be given the opportunity!!
This legislation removes the undemocratic sections of the law and promotes true competition in the regional political scene!! If people want to seek election to a different office after two consecutive terms in another office then they should be free to!! There is no guarantee they'll win and they'll have to compete with an incumbent minister for the office!!
I understand the reasoning for the term limits, I just feel they are too much and go too far in the direction of stifling competition in the region!!
The number of uncontested elections both in the first lot back in August and the last elections highlights a serious problwem in the region!! If we disqualify people from running for fear they'll be re-elected then is what we have truly democracy?!
If people want to rise through the ranks, become a deputy and when the chance comes, take it!!
6 months is a long time in NS and people are more than able to decide against seekign re-election if they have had enough of the job!! If people feel they have something to offer, they should be given the opportunity!!
This legislation removes the undemocratic sections of the law and promotes true competition in the regional political scene!! If people want to seek election to a different office after two consecutive terms in another office then they should be free to!! There is no guarantee they'll win and they'll have to compete with an incumbent minister for the office!!
I understand the reasoning for the term limits, I just feel they are too much and go too far in the direction of stifling competition in the region!!
It isn't a matter of someone being "correct" for the job. There are many nations in the region who could fulfill the duties of office admirably. The political reality is that it is much more difficult for a challenger to defeat an incumbent in an election. The presence of term limits was instituted to provide a balance.
As a feeder region, I believe it is the responsibility of the leadership to encourage participation from newer nations.... to raise up new leaders, as it were. Not to constantly hold office for themselves.
The argument regarding the lack of participation fails to get at the causes. I believe if the root of the problem is adequately addressed, then the numbers will follow. For example, if the MoIIA office works to actively recruit regional members to the forum, we will find there is a return on that effort.
As a feeder region, I believe it is the responsibility of the leadership to encourage participation from newer nations.... to raise up new leaders, as it were. Not to constantly hold office for themselves.
The argument regarding the lack of participation fails to get at the causes. I believe if the root of the problem is adequately addressed, then the numbers will follow. For example, if the MoIIA office works to actively recruit regional members to the forum, we will find there is a return on that effort.
GoalVA
TNPer
This proposal will not leave us with an issue of incumbents staying any longer than they already did. What it does give an option is for an outgoing minister to run for a new position.
In regards to recruitment, I know that Eras is personally telegramming a lot of our nations and that Myself and a few others spend usually about an hour a day on the RMB trying to recruit like that. You can see for yourself the fruits of our efforts...
We cannot shoot ourselves in the foot out of fear of creating another clique. The fact that we have uncontested elections in a Feeder is appalling; if the recruitment drive does not pick up soon, we shall have the same situation at the next one with even fewer candidates able to run.
In regards to recruitment, I know that Eras is personally telegramming a lot of our nations and that Myself and a few others spend usually about an hour a day on the RMB trying to recruit like that. You can see for yourself the fruits of our efforts...
We cannot shoot ourselves in the foot out of fear of creating another clique. The fact that we have uncontested elections in a Feeder is appalling; if the recruitment drive does not pick up soon, we shall have the same situation at the next one with even fewer candidates able to run.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
Indeed!! This proposal reinstates the right of people to run for another office after their 2 consecutive terms are served in a different office!! In that situation, they will be a challenger!! It also stops the unreasonable blocking of Deputies from serving 2 full terms if subsequently elected after filling the breach of an absent or inactive minister!!
This proposal provides more interaction and more opportunities to get involved int he region!!
This proposal provides more interaction and more opportunities to get involved int he region!!
I am in agreement with the proposed change as it applies to Deputies. The problem I forsee would be with allowing two-term Ministers to swap positions. You may refer to them as "challengers" since it is a different position, but the reality is, a newcomer to the field would have a very hard time going up against a former Minister.
If the leadership continues to perform as admirably as it has during the current term, Polts can expect to have the next cabinet comprised of exactly the same nations next term. His successor can lead with the same team, too.
Now, you may say, since it is such an excellent team, why force players to sit out a term? Look at the Pacific. They have had the same core leadership for over a year. The Delegate and Senate is comprised of a fantastic group of nations, they have stability, and everything runs smoothly.
That's fine for them, but I say it isn't the vision we have for TNP. We crave a society where even the most lowly of backwater nations has an opportunity to achieve its highest potential. I see the proposed change as an erosion of that opportunity.
If the leadership continues to perform as admirably as it has during the current term, Polts can expect to have the next cabinet comprised of exactly the same nations next term. His successor can lead with the same team, too.
Now, you may say, since it is such an excellent team, why force players to sit out a term? Look at the Pacific. They have had the same core leadership for over a year. The Delegate and Senate is comprised of a fantastic group of nations, they have stability, and everything runs smoothly.
That's fine for them, but I say it isn't the vision we have for TNP. We crave a society where even the most lowly of backwater nations has an opportunity to achieve its highest potential. I see the proposed change as an erosion of that opportunity.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
I think there is a difference between opportunity and people being "given" positions in office because there is nobody eligible and willing to run against them!! The vast majority of elections in TNP have been uncontested so I do not think the problem is lack of opportunity for new nations!!
In fact, being a deputy can truly be a learning exercise now that it will not count against them if they do win office at the following election!! We need to encourage participation, but not at the expense of competition!! Handing out positions in government like a charity is not helping the region nor the recipients of office via this mechanism!!
If we want our region to move forward and be successful, then we need the best possible candidates in office after each election!! This proposal will enable that to happen, the current system does not!!
And in answer to the reference to the current Cabinet...thank you for the support!! However, if Flemingovia, Erastide or someone elese from the "old guard" seeks election to the office of Prime Minister next election I cannot see myself being re-elected regardless of the results this government achieves!! Thats the way it is in politics!!
In fact, being a deputy can truly be a learning exercise now that it will not count against them if they do win office at the following election!! We need to encourage participation, but not at the expense of competition!! Handing out positions in government like a charity is not helping the region nor the recipients of office via this mechanism!!
If we want our region to move forward and be successful, then we need the best possible candidates in office after each election!! This proposal will enable that to happen, the current system does not!!
And in answer to the reference to the current Cabinet...thank you for the support!! However, if Flemingovia, Erastide or someone elese from the "old guard" seeks election to the office of Prime Minister next election I cannot see myself being re-elected regardless of the results this government achieves!! Thats the way it is in politics!!
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
After careful consideration of this issue, I have recalled an interesting point. It seems to me that some of the proponents of elimination of term limitations were the prime movers in complaints about the existance of a constant persistance of 'old guard' control of the cabinet positions.
On one hand, I think there are negatives to term limitations in that it could produce a possible situation of there not being enough constitutionally qualified candidates.
On the other hand, I'd rather not run the risk of the same people occupying the same offices forever.
Both being considered, I would rather see a rotation of people in key positions.
All things being considered, and as a mild change in my stance on term limitations in general, I think the best idea would be to have a limitation of two consecutive terms in a cabinet level position, after which one term out of a cabinet level position before being able to run again for a cabinet level position. That way, no one can complain about a good old boy network developing.
The potential that ministers may 'swap' positions and facilitate a static power core has led me to change my stance to support a two consecutive term limit for cabient level positions.
Regards,
Romanoffia
On one hand, I think there are negatives to term limitations in that it could produce a possible situation of there not being enough constitutionally qualified candidates.
On the other hand, I'd rather not run the risk of the same people occupying the same offices forever.
Both being considered, I would rather see a rotation of people in key positions.
All things being considered, and as a mild change in my stance on term limitations in general, I think the best idea would be to have a limitation of two consecutive terms in a cabinet level position, after which one term out of a cabinet level position before being able to run again for a cabinet level position. That way, no one can complain about a good old boy network developing.
The potential that ministers may 'swap' positions and facilitate a static power core has led me to change my stance to support a two consecutive term limit for cabient level positions.
Regards,
Romanoffia
wizardofoz01
TNPer
I personally would not oppose even a radical abolishing of term limits due to the reality of the political scenario here. However, it would not make me the most comfortable TNP member on these forums.
The fact of the matter is that we should not be AFRAID of our ideals. Our ideals are to pull as many people into this process as possible. We should not shirk the responsibility of exhorting to the best of our ability in order to push nations to participate on this forum. Although we have to look at political reality, we cannot use that as an excuse to not try.
Having said that, I propose that ANY deviations from the current term-limit law be written with an expiration date. That is to say, any law that is passed must be renewed every X number of political cycles. That way, the region has a means to evaluate whether participation has reached a high enough mark that we can truly have free exchange of dialogue between many different voices.
The fact of the matter is that we should not be AFRAID of our ideals. Our ideals are to pull as many people into this process as possible. We should not shirk the responsibility of exhorting to the best of our ability in order to push nations to participate on this forum. Although we have to look at political reality, we cannot use that as an excuse to not try.
Having said that, I propose that ANY deviations from the current term-limit law be written with an expiration date. That is to say, any law that is passed must be renewed every X number of political cycles. That way, the region has a means to evaluate whether participation has reached a high enough mark that we can truly have free exchange of dialogue between many different voices.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I could support a proposal along the lines of the following:
Given the wide range of views on the specifics of a revision of the term limitation provisions, wouldn't a ad hoc committee of the regional assembly be appropriate to work out the differences?
Given the wide range of views on the specifics of a revision of the term limitation provisions, wouldn't a ad hoc committee of the regional assembly be appropriate to work out the differences?
Fulhead Land
TNPer
off topic a bit, but cool!
Poltsamaa
TNPer
Those changes are pointless and I do not accept them, Grosseschnauzer!! My proposal remains as per the amendment I posted earlier with regards to the permission to run for another office after 2 terms in a different office!!
Your changes do nothing to promote the idea of Deputies as a lead in to a ministerial postion, it still punishes people for stepping up as a Deputy to replace an inactive or absent minister!! Therefore, it solves none of the problems I sought to rectify with this proposal!!
Your changes do nothing to promote the idea of Deputies as a lead in to a ministerial postion, it still punishes people for stepping up as a Deputy to replace an inactive or absent minister!! Therefore, it solves none of the problems I sought to rectify with this proposal!!
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Excellent proposal, Gross!
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Only if the Deputy serves more than 50% of a minister's term.
Two consecutive terms and one out before being elegible to run again is a good rule, IMHO. The whole idea is to prevent a solidification of a power core that is unchanging. If there is a problem with not having enough people to fill those positions it only means that we are not recruiting enough new people into the RV ranks.
I just worry that with no term limitations we would be opening up the door for all manner of problems. If the door is there, sooner or later someone will try to use it. It's human nature.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
So, yes, the propsal in the form Grosseschnauzer wants it does punish Deputies for stepping up and taking over from absent or inactive ministers!! Thank you for confirming that!!
Also, you will notice that the 2 term limit remains in my proposal, the only variation being that people who have served two terms consecutively in one office may seek election in another!!
I believe restricting people from runnign for office any further than the proposal I made is a violation of their rights in the region and also a violation of the people's rights to elect the best possbile candidate for each office!!
Also, you will notice that the 2 term limit remains in my proposal, the only variation being that people who have served two terms consecutively in one office may seek election in another!!
I believe restricting people from runnign for office any further than the proposal I made is a violation of their rights in the region and also a violation of the people's rights to elect the best possbile candidate for each office!!
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
I wouldn't call it punishment as per deputies serving more than a half of a term and thus considering more than half of a term a full term in relation to term limitations.
Initially I wasn't averse to keeping the term limitations to a specific office, but the potential for perpetual cabinet members regardless of position would be just too tempting for the more unrestrained person. It also assures that a good old boy network isn't given the opportunity to come to fruition.
I also would say that term limitations are not a violations of anyone's rights. Unlimited terms would tend to promote and environment where rights would end up being violated were an opportunist with the wrong intents would surely take advantage.
I'm not convinced of the argument that term limitations would a violation of anyone's rights because it prevents people from voting for whomever they want. It would, however, be a violation of rights if the same group of voters continuously voted the same people into office over and over again. In that instance, it would be not neccessarily a violation of rights, but a damnable travesty that other individuals would be denied their right to be elected to a cabinet level position were there no term limitations as are in place now.
Term limitations also prevent a permanent siezure of power by a specific bloc of voters or individuals, or at least put a major stumbling block in the way of it. How much would having the same people playing musical chairs with cabinet positions and the Delegacy damage the desire newcomers might have for even getting involved?
I am of the opinion that any system that could facilitate the deveopment of a 'ruling clique' would destabilize the region by creating a class of essentially disenfranchied people. To not limit terms would also tend to deny a lot of talent out there because they would never be able to overcome the ruling clique who constantly got elected to cabinet positions in perpetuity.
Personally, I trust everyone who is holding office now but that doesn't mean that I neccessarily would want to see them shuffle around from cabinet level position to cabinet level position for 3 or more terms. Eventually, it would all go wrong should the wrong set of people get in office and stay there.
Also, with term limitations, the 'will to power' for the sake of power tends to be controlled. It tends to be controlled because it would result in instability if only a select few remained in power for multiple terms beyond just two as it would result in a disaffected and disenfranchised group of people who wish to be elected.
Should the constant shuffling around of the same people from position to position become instutionalized, It would be no better than the argument that both you and I put forth against the development/existance of an "old guard/old boys' network".
Initially I wasn't averse to keeping the term limitations to a specific office, but the potential for perpetual cabinet members regardless of position would be just too tempting for the more unrestrained person. It also assures that a good old boy network isn't given the opportunity to come to fruition.
I also would say that term limitations are not a violations of anyone's rights. Unlimited terms would tend to promote and environment where rights would end up being violated were an opportunist with the wrong intents would surely take advantage.
I'm not convinced of the argument that term limitations would a violation of anyone's rights because it prevents people from voting for whomever they want. It would, however, be a violation of rights if the same group of voters continuously voted the same people into office over and over again. In that instance, it would be not neccessarily a violation of rights, but a damnable travesty that other individuals would be denied their right to be elected to a cabinet level position were there no term limitations as are in place now.
Term limitations also prevent a permanent siezure of power by a specific bloc of voters or individuals, or at least put a major stumbling block in the way of it. How much would having the same people playing musical chairs with cabinet positions and the Delegacy damage the desire newcomers might have for even getting involved?
I am of the opinion that any system that could facilitate the deveopment of a 'ruling clique' would destabilize the region by creating a class of essentially disenfranchied people. To not limit terms would also tend to deny a lot of talent out there because they would never be able to overcome the ruling clique who constantly got elected to cabinet positions in perpetuity.
Personally, I trust everyone who is holding office now but that doesn't mean that I neccessarily would want to see them shuffle around from cabinet level position to cabinet level position for 3 or more terms. Eventually, it would all go wrong should the wrong set of people get in office and stay there.
Also, with term limitations, the 'will to power' for the sake of power tends to be controlled. It tends to be controlled because it would result in instability if only a select few remained in power for multiple terms beyond just two as it would result in a disaffected and disenfranchised group of people who wish to be elected.
Should the constant shuffling around of the same people from position to position become instutionalized, It would be no better than the argument that both you and I put forth against the development/existance of an "old guard/old boys' network".
Poltsamaa
TNPer
It does punish them as they cannot complete 2 full terms, whereas someone who does not act as a deputy can!!
If people are willing to run and work in the government and a majority of the voters of the region elect them into office, who are we to tell them that cannot happen?! I'm afraid the thing you are trying to prevent is truly open and democratic elections by supplanting a system on top of it limiting choice and competition!!
It is a violation of rights as people are denied the right to run for offices they feel they can contribute to based on no sound reasoning or security issue!! As for the rest of that paragraph, it makes no sense!! A newly elected unknown who took advantage of there being no other candidate could equally take advantage of the region as much as a seasoned member of the government!!
It is a violation of people's rights as their preferred candidate is not permitted to run to ensure someone elese wins the election!! The situation whereby the same people vote the same person in time and again is called democracy!! Peopel have a choice, is the majority support a candidate, what right do you or I have to deny this from happening?!
Being elected to cabinet is not a right, it is a privelige and one that should be earned via competition, not handed out in charity!!
Doesn't a specific voter bloc hold the power to elect who they like in all democracies?! Isn't that the whole backbone of democratic elections?! How does removing experienced people from government and replacing them with inexperienced people help the region?! Afterall, the greater good of the region is my main motivation for this change!! The last 2 elections have been embarrassing at the lack of candidates so where are all these newcomers who are ready to jump into a role in cabinet?! We have our deputies which is great, unless they have to step into the breach and then lose access to their 2 terms in office!!
What is to stop a ruling cliche forming that has enough people to rotate through the cabinet ministries even with a term on the sidelines?! Afterall, you only need 4 people in cabinet to have a majority of the vote there!! Do we make even stricter limitations on terms in government until we decimate the talent pool of the region?!
If the voters do not want them in office, they will not vote for them, it reall yis that simple!! I find the tendancy of this region to govern for doom to be quite limiting!! If you want democracy, the let us have democracy, not some bastardised politically correct version whereby people who are not ready or incapable are "elected" into office uncontested because of lack of competition!!
If the disenfranchised group was so large they would vote the others out, would they not?! Or are we legislating to appease a small and currently non-existant minority in the off chance they form some time in the future?!
What constant shuffling around?! I would be amazed if it happened because I cannot see many people interested in working in a different office!! Peopel tend to be specialised in NationStates and have a preference when it comes to serving in government!! If people are elected to new office by the voters it is, as I said, the workings of democracy and not somethign we should stifle for our own personal aims in the region!! Every voter has a vote, every candidate is at the mercy of the voters!! To remove competition to facilitate an artificial "changing of the guard" is not democracy at all!!
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
Consitutionally speaking, a deputy serving more than half of a term as a minister is considered as having served a term. I don't think that's unreasonable. In fact, it's downright fair.
What I'm promoting is the prevention of a what could develop into a solidifed core of perpetual rulers. Once that happens, democracy onlybecomes a thin cloak for elitism and consolidation of power into the hands of the few. The major flaw is that if there are no term limits to prevent the same group of people from occupying the entirety of the cabinet by rotating positions it will invite forum crashing and loading of the RV roles every time an election comes around as soon as someone sees that such a flaw can be exploited.
I initially supported the idea of two term limits per individual position. In fact, I might have even been the one who came up with the concept initially. Then I saw the potential for exploitation of such an arrangement.
I have always promoted a non-exclusive open democracy. What I have always sought to prevent is a perpetual set of people occupying positions of authority for indefinite periods of time. Look at term limitations in the US presidency - there's a very good reason why we have term limitations - we don't like monarchies no matter what it is called.
Read my last answer above, but let me continue on the point,
You're answer casts aspersions on someone running for office that is has never held office before. I think it is a violation of the rights of everyone if we facilitate the potential reelection and infinitem and permit a fertile ground for the development of a ruling elite.
There is nothing wrong with asking someone to sit out for a term and let someone else have a chance. The cabinet cannot alter the Constitution as we have checks and balances. We also have a Constitution that prevents anyone from electing a king too. And that's one of the reasons that term limitations were written into the Constitution. I think that there is nothing wrong with requiring someone to sit out one term after having served two consecutive terms. They always have the right to run again for office after they sat out a term. With a term limitation, you increase the voters' choices, not lock them into a potential "minister for life".
The majority might be very happy appointing someone to be King, but what would that mean for the rights of the minority? Term limitations are not designed to assure that someone wins an election, term limitations are meant to assure that there is a fair and equitable distribution of power that changes hands and doesn't remain solidified in the hands of a select group. The Constitution was written to prevent the development of an oligarchy.
Everyone has a right to run for office under the current Constitution, but they have to adhere to the safety clauses we have written into the constitution. No one has the right to prevent others from holding office by perpetually having themselves constantly re-elected to various cabinet position over and over again.
The people only have a choice if there is a choice and having the very same people constantly in power as a result of a popularity contest is no choice at all. And that is what will eventually happen if the Constitution is changed to essentially abolish meaningful and reasonabl term limits.
Being elected, or rather standing for election is a right, not a privilege, provided that one meets the constitutional requirements, including term limitation requirements. If you constantly elect the same people over and over again, you are creating a privileged class who will essentially hold power absolutely. If you permit people to be elected over and over and over you will end up with people who are only interested in holding and consolidating power in perpetuity.
At this point, I believe that having a deputy stepping in would not result in a term limitation as more than 50% of the term has already expired. I'm a deputy minister and I am aware of this. Right now I am function in full as MoJ in the absense of the Minister. I am not the minister, but I am doing what a deputy minister does when the minister isn't around. Were I appointed minister and incurred a term limitation as a result, that's fine with me. I am more than happy to sit out a term or two. In fact, I'm more than happy to not hold a ministerial position at this time.
A specific voter bloc also holds the power to elect a dictator if they want, but the Constitution is arranged to prevent the majority from denying the rights of the minority by limiting terms. Experienced people should have the common sense to allow others the chance to exercize and develop their experience also. The greater good of the region is not served by laying the foundation for a perpetual ruling class.
What worries me is the potential for the development of an elitist systems in which only those already serving in office should be worthy of serving in office. Once you have a situation where the same people constantly hold power you deny the voters a choice and you deny the talent that is there to be held down in obscurity. Elitist systems that promote no change by perpetually electing the same people over and over again only promotes instability and unrest in short order.
If we keep a two consecutive term limit for cabinet level positions, it rotates people out of office quickly enough to assure that the deck is sufficiently shuffled. Yes, you only need four people to have a majority in the cabinet provided that the cabinet actually meets to vote on anything.
With a two consecutive term limit in the cabinet, we don't decimate the talent pool. In fact, we expand that pool by bringing new people into those position to learn to occupy those positions. Had we no term limitations, chance are you would not be Prime Minister now. You have no experience in this government's cabinet as you never held a position in this government's cabinet prior to being elected. Were there no term limitations, Tresville would have assuredly been elected PM if he had chosen to run again - but term limitations prevented that. Eliminating term limitations would have served to keep the very same people in office for a third term and probably a fourth thereafter. And you would have not been elected. Why deny others the opportunity of being where you now are by eliminating term limitations?
And if you get your abolition of term limitations, and then the RA decided to return to the present limitations, would you approve that proposal for a vote?
If people don't like the people that get elected because others couldn't run because they had to sit out for one term, then the people can vote the former people back into office the next election. Term limitations make for a change in who holds power. That is what this current government is the result of. There is no reason to expect that term limitations would result in anything other than what has already happened and that is a smooth and peaceful transition of power. If there is no transition of power it will eventially result in instability.
Having the same people running for office over and over again is a lack of competition. It is not in the best interest of the region to create a system whereby the same people hold power term after term after term.
And who determines who is 'ready' to hold a position? It would be elitist and arrogant to presume that anyone isn't 'ready' because they never had a chance to be elected because of an elitist attitude as to who is worthy or not worthy to be elected. Not giving people a choice by assuring that the same people get re-elected and re-elected is murdering competition and calling it 'democracy'.
The only reason an office is 'uncontested' is because someone out there doesn't want to run for the office. It's also because there would be a prevailing attitude that it is useless to run against someone who already holds the office.
The minority of which I speak is not non-existant unless everyone in the region is of exactly the very same opinion about everything. We legislate for the good of the region, or at least that is the intent, which is why we must very carefully evaluate the ramification of any alteration to the term limitation clauses. The problem is that democracy by rule of the majority cannot be given the opportunity to become mob rule that runs over the rights of anyone in the minority. Eliminating term limitations will ultimately result in mob rule without any regards for the rights of those in the minority on any issue.
The disenfranchise could be very easily suppressed with a Constitution that has been sufficiently altered so as to leave the door wide open for elitist rule. I have no doubt of the good intentions of this legislation but one must only be reminded, as it is said, that good intentions pave the road to hell.
If you can't see many people being interested in working in a different office, then they must be more inclined in occupying the same office over and over again. That's even worse than rotating cabinet positions for all to obvious reasons. Perpetual holding of power by the few will result in the death of democracy. If you don't change the wash water every so often, it becomes corrupted regardless of the intention or how much soap you throw in the tub.
Stiffling one's own personal aims in the region is what public service is all about. If one's goal is to assume and possess power indefinitely, then that is a bad aim and eventually, without term limitations, someone like that will eventually come along. And God forbid if someone who seeks only the power ever becomes the Delegate. This is my greatest fear for the region and this fear is the very reason why we cannot even contemplate altering the Constitutuion in any way that may facilitate such fears to become a reality once again. It is true that elected officials are at the mercy of the voters but it also must be remembered that the voters are at the mercy of those they elect.
Don't take what I say as my taking an opposition stance. I'm expressing an opinion which I hope will get people to take a closer look at what they are contemplating doing here and not change the Constitution withouth taking full account of the ramifications. I would rather take my chances with new people holding office than to have the same people hold office forever.
My stance is that there should be a two consecutive term limitation for serving in the cabinet after which those who have served two consecutive terms should sit out one term before running again. In this way only can we prevent permanent ministers and give new blood a chance to develop their abilities. If we don't require an injection of new blood, the government and the region will sooner or later die of blood poisoning.
The passing of long serving officials is generally celebrated and not lamented. Power held for too long by the same people results in stagnation and fossilization. Those who change the system so that they maintain power indefinately soon find themselves on the other side of the fence if they are not careful. Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.
I implore everyone to carefully think about eliminating term limitations and then decide the issue according to one's own conscience and reason.
Poltsamaa
TNPer
So by volunteering to be a Deputy and being called up to take over from a Minister who is absent, you are permitted only to serve 1 and a half terms whereas someone who has not been a deputy can serve 2?! Seems to punish those willing to put in the effort of being a Deputy and taking on the role of the Minister in their absence!! Something that should be rewarded rather than punished, in my opinion!!
Eh?! No term limits will mean our forum will be crashed ans people will stack the RV rolls?! What you have not addressed is the fact that the term limits as it stands does not prevent a cliche from holding power indefinitely!! They just need a couple more people in the cliche to achieve it!! Secondly, RV roll stacking is as much a problem with term limitations as without!!
Democracy itself is open to exploitation, perhaps we have to get rid of the system entirely and just randomly appoint people to office every three months?! Although, we'd have to ensure the random number generator was indeed random or else that may be open to exploitation also!!
What you are proposing and what we have now is exclusive!! It excludes perfectly able people from running for office in the name of....err..non-exclusivity!!
I cast aspersions over no-one!! It is my proposal that places faith in the people of the region and yours that assumes they are all power hungry individuals seeking eternal control of the region!! Allowing all registered voters to run for any office they like is a violation of rights?! Allowing people the choice of all possible candidates is a violation of their rights?!
Indeed, that is why the 2 term limit remains in my proposal for consecutive terms in a single office!! I do not believe I have stated the Cabinet can change the constitution on its own, hence this proposal being made to the RA!!
Again, I reiterate..the two consecutive term limit remains in my proposal!!
No, they have more choices, simply removing a popular politician from the race does not increase voter choice..it actually reduces it!! and again you seem unable or unwilling to acjknowledge that no-one currently, or under the proposed changes I have made, can serve indefinitely in the one office!!
As you said yourself, consttiutionally nobody can be appointed "king" and the cabinet cannot change the constitution without the consent of the RA!! So, this comment is nothing but a strawman designed to exaggerate!!
The term limitations do indeed influence who is elected!! If a candidate is not allowed to run, it influences the result!! If, as you seem to say, the ineligible candidate was certain to retian that office then it does alter who is elected and hence the result!!
No, they don't..people who have served 2 consecutive terms cannot run for office, they are banned from doing so!! Nobody should have the right to deny a person being elected to office if the people of the region wish it!! Cultivating artificial election results does no justice to the region nor the people in it!!
People have a choice at election time..if they choose the same person or people then that is their choice being exercised!! The removal of the choice is what the term limitation legislation we current operate under does!! you seem unable to entertain the idea that people will vote for who they want in office regardless of whether they have served before or which office they have served in!!
So, it is not a right at all, but a conditional right!! anyway, you sidestepped what I actually said, I'm assuming because you agreed with what I said?! Being elected is not a right, it is a privilege and something not to be given out like charity!!
If the people re-elect the same people over and over, is that not their choice to make?! Why the need to artificially implement diversity if the region do not want it?! The side of the argument you do not entertain is that some people actually enjoy serving as a Minister, feel they are good at it and want to serve the region as well as they can for as long as they feel they are of value!! There is no way to assume power in TNP if you operate under the law, so all the scaremongering, like what you did during last election, is nothing but emotive rhetoric with no factual basis!!
That is your personal viewpoint!! What you choose to do and what you are happy with your business!! If people feel they want to run for a different ministry after serving 2 terms in another office, should they not be free to exercise their wants as you are exercising yours?! If people do not want them in office, they will not vote for them!!
Not sure how a dictator would be elected other than a rogue delegate as essentially, the Delegate can eject a "dictator" from the region and a new minster elected!! People should earn their chance in office, not expect is as a right of passage!! That is why I want Deputies to be an "apprenticeship" whereby the deputy would be a new nation learnign the ropes with a view to running for office down the track!! If they assume a ministerial role then thats all part of it and they can then run for office with 2 terms available to them if the people wish it!!
Again, it is the voters that elect the ministers, that is their choice!! Saying that the voters re-electing the same peopel is limiting choice is preposterous as the choice is given prior to anyone assuming office!!
Why does it need shuffling?! More accurately, why does it need to be artificially shuffled?! Why shouldn't able people with the time to commit be able to run for office in the manner I have proposed?! If people want a change, they can vote for it by electing someone else!!
And is that such a bad thing..afterall..so many abstentions last election!! Was this a protest at the decimated talent pool for elections?! I think it was!! We do not expand the talent pool by enforcing term limits!! We artificially promote people by removing true competition!! People should learn as a deputy and then seek election afterwards!!
The more you post the more you support my argument!! I would have much rather Tresville ran against us last election!! According to what people were saying, we were two terrible candidates that nobody trukly wanted as PM!! A real slight on our political system in TNP!! There is no glory in a hollow victory Roman, but we operate under the laws we have and seek to change those that hold us back!! If I lose next election to Tresville or anyone else then that is the will of the people and I accept it!! removing good competition in the name of diversity does nobody justice, least of all the "winner" of the manufactured election!!
i'm not denying anybody an opportunity, you are!! The term limits prevent someone from running for another office after serving 2 terms in a different office!! That is denying opportunity that I am trying to reinstate!! If peopel want to be PM, then they should have to beat the best candidates!!
Of course, it up to the peopel to decide these things!! If people vote for these changes and then decide to change back, that is their decision to make!!
so we have to endure a term of incompetence in the name of diversity?! This is what I'm gettign at as far as putting the region first!!
Artificial changes on power...if that is the right word..I don't see too much power as PM but if thats what you want to call it, then fine!!
A peaceful transition to an incompetent cabinet will not see much peace, in my opinion!!I don;t believe certain people running for office denies the right of others to do so!! In fact it generates true competition, not artificially adjusted competition!! you continued assertion that the same people will be re-elected over and over tends to speak poorly of the voters and their collective intelligence!! If people do a good job, then they'll get re-elected, if not, they'll get the boot!! Just as it should be!!
The voters!! Just they actually have to have someone runnign against them to truly guage that!!
doesn't everyone make assumptions of rediness amongst other things when contemplating electing someone to office?! It is not arrogant or elitist, it is normal and a prudent thing to do!! The voters as a group will decide the readiness of a candidate but as I said that can only be truly assessed if they are runnign against someone else!!
Or that someone who does want to run is not permitted to!!
If peopel are intimidated by others and decide not to run, then perhaps they are not ready for office?! The way I see it is you have to be in it to win it, if you don't run you certainly will not win, if you do run, you may win, you may lose..but at least you have a chance!!Mob rule is what the people wanted when making this constitution and ratifying it!! It is what the people wanted to drive the unwanted from out RV rolls, it is what was wanted when we decide our foreign policy!! This is the framework that was created...direct democracy to elect our officials!! Democracy rule by the majority is mob rule, only people do not refer to it as that unless the result of said democracy is not as they had hoped!!
Currently, people are being suppressed by being denied the right to run for office..under my proposal, those restrictions are lossened to enable more competition and open elections!! This does not suppress anyone that would not be currently suppressed as their voice is not loud enough to outweigh the those that see things differently to them!!
They cannot serve more than 2 consecutive terms in the one office, just as they cannot under the current law, so your argument is baseless!!
Indeed they are, but the cabinet cannot change the constitution without RA consent so your agument is again flawed!! If we get a rogue Delegate, I do not see what the term limitation will do to prevent that as it only takes 5 minutes to dispose of the consttiutino and take over the region!! Again, a flawed argument designed to scaremonger rather than debate the realities of the proposal!!
Well, it is an oppostion stance and you are entitled to your opinoon!! I have no problem with you expressing it!!
i think i'm well aware of your position!!
i just think the person involved or the electorate should decide when people move on, not the law!!
Indeed!!
GoalVA
TNPer
I'm not sure why we do not trust our Electorate.
Perhaps if someone could explain why the constitution assumes the electorate are idiots that need guiding, then I can better understand that viewpoint.
I, personally, put a lot of stock in the voice of the people and am more than happy to allow them to vote for who they wish.
Perhaps if someone could explain why the constitution assumes the electorate are idiots that need guiding, then I can better understand that viewpoint.
I, personally, put a lot of stock in the voice of the people and am more than happy to allow them to vote for who they wish.
R
Romanoffia (Guest)
Guest
To address Polstamaa's point (and not to belabor others by re-hashing them to death) and to address the very core issue:
I'll try to keep this as brief as possible because reading obscenely long posts can be a bore (and I don't want to victimize anyone with my long posts
)Here's the nuts and bolts of my argument:
First, it takes 4 people to hold a majority in the cabinet. If those 4 people keep rotating cabinet level position for a string of terms they are in fact a rulin clique, something that you spoke out against for the last 6 months.
Second, changing term limits so that the same people can sotate cabinet level positions will only attract a party of individuals who will constantly assure that their candidates maintain power and control over that branch of the government.
Third, even if the RV list gets stacked with one particular party, it prevent's the same individuals from being reelected forever to the cabinet. Sure, you could argue that an an RV controlled by one party would just put dupes in the cabinet to over ride the constitution, but having term limits for the cabinet slows down that process if not stops it altogether.
Fourth, I'm not entirely opposed to your proposed amendment, but I do have issues with it on certain points. I am entirely in favor of keeping an existing talent pool accessible, but not so accessible that we have always have the same people in the cabinet for years on end. Whether or not having the same people in office all the time results in a benevalent government is not the point. The point is that having the same people in the cabinet time and time again will result in a ruling clique and that will foster a sense of helplessness amonst the electorate by preventing the equitable distribution of power.
I hear talk about not trusting the electorate, but not trusting the electorate to produce good new leaders on a regular basis is elitists and reflective of an emerging nanny-state where those in power decide who is capable enough to be elected to office and not the electorate.
Having the same people in office forever because of potential one party domination of the RV is no more representative of the electorate than a monarchy thinly veiled as a democracy.
I can think of no more moderate and centrist position to take than to make changes gradually and only if needed. To change the term limitations as radically as you suggest in your proposal may be going to far. I am in favor of a more gradual change so that we have a small number of problems to contend with rather than a whole pile of them should such problems arise as a result of radical change.
If given the choice of changing those limitations radically as you suggest or leaving them as they now are, I would choose to leave them as they are. Given the choice of modifying them to comprise of a two consecutive term limit in the cabinet and then making people sit out one term or leaving things as they now are, I would chose the two consecutive term limit.
This is about as much of a centrist position that can be taken. It is half way between leaving things as they are and changing them as much as you want.
That would be essentially the case if you permitted a Prime Minister to appoint the cabinet based upon party lines. I think that a two consecutive term limit will increase the voters' choices by providing them with a changing slate to pick from.
Sure democracy has it's defects and exploits, but that doesn't mean we should diminish it by altering the Constitution to facilitate a limitation of choice for the voter. Personally, I put my faith in the fact that new leaders will arise and that having power change hands regularly will prevent any one party of individuals from holding power for the sake of power, which is a potential problem here.
As written, I cannot throw my support to the bill as long as it has a per-position clause in it. I can, however support a two consecutive term limit for cabinet positions as a whole.
The reason I support this is that it would tend to prevent people from using cabinet participation for the sole sake of obtaining the position of Delegate and potentially rotating the same party of people in and out of the Delegate position. Such stepping stone arrangements will assuredly attract power-seekers, but not if their march to power is occasionally stopped. It gives the electorate pause for thought if candidates have the brakes put on them from time to time.
GoalVa said:
It's not a matter of trust in the electorate. I trust the electorate and I trust them to see the virtue of assuring that the same people don't rule in perpetuity.
The Constitution doesn't assume that the electorate are idiots as you say. It assumes that the electorate is completely capable of knowing what limits must be put on government. That is why the electorate wrote the Constitution as it stands. People create constitutions to limit the authority and intrusiveness of governments and in doing so, the people have put certain limits upon who governs them - we call that reasonable term limits. There might come a day that the electorate wants to elect a King or Dictator, but would that be wise? Radical change under normal and stable conditions can only cause instability when no instability exists.
So far, this government is so much more stable than any TNP government before it. Why radically tamper with the Consitution as per term limitations when what we have works so well as it stands? That's like fixing a machine before it becomes obvious that it is about to break. A less radical change like a two consecutive term limit in cabinet level positions is more like a tune-up. It loosens up the limitations enough, but not too much.
I would rather hold a flexible position and compromise rather than to accept either extreme of this issue as being unmovable positions. Bills upon which there is no compromise between the opposite ends of the spectrum tend to die on the vine. There are obviously two competing position on term limits. The middle path should be taken or no progress or compromise will result.
Given the concerns about trusting the electorate you have voiced, I think that any such constitutional change should be given the constitutional path of a general referendum in which the whole of the RV votes and not just the RA. That way, we would be placing our trust in the whole electorate and not just a few that participate in the RA.
Promoting a structure in which the same people are given the tools to stay in power forever will lead to and smacks of elitism and cannot serve to promote the equitable distribution of power. I trust the electorate to provide new and capable candidates for office, but I do not trust career politicians to represent any position but their own personal aspirations if they remain in power for too long. Term limitations do not limit the rights of the electorate - it limits the potential for powermongers to consolidate their authority should they ever seek to decieve the electorate.
Governments should serve the people. If you have the same people in government all the time the natural result is that the people end up serving the government. The greatest tool in preventing autocracy and elitism is to have at least a two consecutive term limitation in place. Face it, no cabinet position is so complex that anyone cannot perform that position with ease. To think otherwise is placing great mistrust in the intelligence of the electorate.
I'll take the middle ground and support a two consecutive term limit for cabinet positions.
Fulhead Land
TNPer
Roman: The bill doesnt stop people being votexd out! it just means we wont get the situation in 2 months where half our cabinet are unable to run again for a year! where will we get new ministers from! It makes sense Roman, trust the voters to make a decision