Formal Discussion on Term Limits

Fulhead Land:
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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand what I am proposing:

I'm talking about eliminating the one year rule and replacing it with a simple two consecutive term limit which only requires someone sit out one term (election cycle).

OK, let me put this in what I hope is a totally clear structure:

You can serve as many terms in cabinet as you can but no more than two consecutive terms at one time.


or in other words:

A two consecutive term limitation in a cabinet position after which one must sit out one election cycle before being qualifed to serve in a cabinet position again.


The one year rule is abolished by this.


Make sense now?
 
Hmm... I would like for our ministers to be able to run for other positions if they choose, but if this is a comprimise that everyone is happy with then I'd be happy to support it.

Anything that can prevent the situation we had at the last elections would be wonderful.
 
I am beginning to see both sides of the argument and I think there is some legitimacy to wanting to keep one person from having too much power. A person being elected as (for example) MoJ for two terms then going on to be PM for two then going on to be delegate or some other high position would be suspicious...

However, I have always been a firm believer in, if democracy is attempted, very little restraint on democracy. For example, if 30 nations were to come here, become RVs/RAs and vote to turn TNP into a dictatorship run entirely by whatever mood the delegate is in, then that is completely legitimate (however regrettable it may be). In other words, the will of the people can not be over-ruled.

To put it simply, I'm torn between the two options here.
 
Being newly a member of the Regional Assembly I have come rather late to this discussion, so my apologies if I have missed anything in my read through of this thread.

My own position is generally in favour of relaxation to the restrictions. However, I have been thinking about some of the statements made.

Overall the assumption has been that an incumbent is favoured in elections. I believe this is generally true in real world politics. But I can't actually think of an election in TNP where an incumbent has been in contest with a challenger.

Has this happened? And are we sure that the same general rule applies?

My other thoughts are generally concerning the retention of 'talent' versus the promotion of diversity and new nations being encouraged to be in government.

Would a possibility be to specify that deputy ministers may not have held Cabinet level position for x number of terms?

Again I'm not sure how often it has happened anyway but this would hoepfully promote the appointment of relatively less experienced nations into Deputy positions which would work both to increase their knowledge of what was expected of the Minister in that position and also presumably help their chances if indeed incumbents tend to be favoured.

Just some thoughts...
 
Interesting idea about the deputies, Cathyy.

I don't agree though, restricting Deputies would be (in my eyes) as bad as the current restriction on ministers. Obviously though, one would hope that new blood would show itself through the deputies.
 
To address Roman's core issue..if it takes 4 people to hold a majority in the Cabinet, what is to stop a cliche of 8 people rotating through on a two term basis?! However many restrictions you place on the process, there is always a way around it if people seek to exploit it!!

So, rather than make the law more punitive to cover all aspects of the process, I would prefer that some faith was placed in the voters and to allow them to vote in the people they want in office!!

I understand the concerns people have raised but I think it is time to stop running the region while looking over our shoulders and to place some faith in the voters of the region to make an informed decision come election time!!

If this region is truly to be democratic, then why the need to hinder the process and manufacture results?! How many more uncontested elections do we need to have before the government in this region crumbles?!

As to Cathyy's suggestion regarding deputies, I quite like it!! Perhaps it does not need to be made law but would be encouraged to take on deputies who are active and interested to give them some experience and a chance to show what they can do with a view to them running fro election in the near future!! We cannot afford to have an entire government made up of inexperienced people and the wholesale changes of government that will evetuate under the current law and the amendment proposaed by Grosseschnauzer will produce inexperienced government!!
 
At the heart of the differences expressed here lies separate ideas about what constitutes good government. Poltsamaa has, in the past, supported 6-month terms and an appointed Cabinet rather than an elected one. The vision he expresses is for a strong, centralized government. That style of government can work, but I personally don't support it. Not in a feeder region, where new nations are born.

The change proposed by Poltsamaa, allowing nations to serve in the Cabinet indefinitely, will move the region closer to his ideal of a centralized system.

I view some relaxation of the term limits currently in place to be appropriate, but to open the door for the rotation of offices by a few does not encourage diversity or provide opportunity for newer nations to serve the region.
 
Great Bights Mum:
The vision he expresses is for a strong, centralized government. That style of government can work, but I personally don't support it. Not in a feeder region, where new nations are born.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't a strong centralised government be preferable in a feeder?

I'm curious to see why you don't think so :) (Slightly off topic I know, but it might help me understand your viewpoint)
 
I don't think my proposal moves the region closer to a more centralised government!! What it does do is give the voters of the region more choice with regards to electing people to office!! Ultimately, the system does not change, just more people can nominate therefore allowing the voters the right to choose who they want in office from all candidates willing to run for office!!

I do like the idea of a cabinet team being elected as a group, but am well aware that the region is not ready for this or not willing to entertain the idea at this point in time, if ever!!

What I do want to see is people being able to give as much as they can through service to this region and for the striongest and most able cabinet to be elected each election!! Giving people the choice of all candidates is the way to facilitate this happening!!
 
Great Bights Mum:
At the heart of the differences expressed here lies separate ideas about what constitutes good government. Poltsamaa has, in the past, supported 6-month terms and an appointed Cabinet rather than an elected one. The vision he expresses is for a strong, centralized government. That style of government can work, but I personally don't support it. Not in a feeder region, where new nations are born.

The change proposed by Poltsamaa, allowing nations to serve in the Cabinet indefinitely, will move the region closer to his ideal of a centralized system.

I view some relaxation of the term limits currently in place to be appropriate, but to open the door for the rotation of offices by a few does not encourage diversity or provide opportunity for newer nations to serve the region.
Click to expand...
:iagree:

I absolutely agree.
 
There were several reasons for the current requirement for the application of the term limitation requirements when a deputy serves a majority of an elected minister's term as minister, including the fact that the inclusion of that requirement was seen as an alternative to mid-term elections to fill a vacant elected Cabinet-level position in mid-term. This also has to be viewed in terms of the fact that Deputies are not elected, or subject to any form of voter approval.

I believe that if the requirement for treating a deputy's service for a majority of a term of office to which another person was elected is going to be remove, then we need to revisit the question of elections to fill elected Cabinet vacancies in mid-term. The provisions in the term limitation provisions concerning deputy minister was itseelf a compromise, so if we're going to undo that compromise, we need to take another look at the use of by-elections or special elections to fill vacancies in any elected Cabinet office.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
There were several reasons for the current requirement for the application of the term limitation requirements when a deputy serves a majority of an elected minister's term as minister, including the fact that the inclusion of that requirement was seen as an alternative to mid-term elections to fill a vacant elected Cabinet-level position in mid-term. This also has to be viewed in terms of the fact that Deputies are not elected, or subject to any form of voter approval.

I believe that if the requirement for treating a deputy's service for a majority of a term of office to which another person was elected is going to be remove, then we need to revisit the question of elections to fill elected Cabinet vacancies in mid-term. The provisions in the term limitation provisions concerning deputy minister was itseelf a compromise, so if we're going to undo that compromise, we need to take another look at the use of by-elections or special elections to fill vacancies in any elected Cabinet office.
Click to expand...
Agreed

Note: When Polts is not around, I am Gross' yes-man
 
Then, with all due respect we should split this into two seperate issues.

1. Term Limits
2. Deputies/Mid-term elections.
 
Final version of my propsoal to go to vote is!!

ARTICLE III. Elections and Elected Offices.

Section 3: Term Limitations.

1) No person, through one or more Nations, who has acted in any Cabinet-level position as Delegate, as Prime Minister, or as a particular Cabinet Minister, for more than one half of a term to which some other person was originally elected, shall be subsequently elected to that elected office of the Cabinet more than once, pursuant to this section.
2 1) No person, through one or more Nations, may hold any one Cabinet-level position for more than two consecutive terms.
3) No person, through one or more Nations, may hold any Cabinet-level position for more than two terms within a one year period.
4) No person, through one or more Nations, may hold any Cabinet-level position for more than four terms (consecutive or otherwise) over a two year period.
5) For purposes of this section, service by a person, through one or more Nations, in a Cabinet-level position for more than one half of a term to which some other person was originally elected or appointed, shall be treated as a complete term in that office.
6 2) For purposes of this Constitution, "Cabinet-level position" is construed to refer to the UN Delegate for the Region, any UN Vice Delegate who has acted as UN Delegate for the Region for more than half of an elected term of office, the Prime Minister, any Cabinet Minister of the Regional Government, any deputy Cabinet Minister who has acted as a Minister for more than half of an elected term of office, or the Attorney General.
Click to expand...
 
The final version has been noted.

Before I formally pass this one off to the Cabinet ..

Is the question of when a Deputy fills in for part of a term for a Minister going to be addressed separately?

NOTE: Since s13 was inaccessible for around 5 days, hopefully people will start trickling back within the next couple of days.
 
I think it is all part of the same legislation!! If we are to legislate a more open and free election process then we need to have all the new freedoms in this proposal!!
 
I think that Polsty's revised version is a happily acceptable medium of all the options. As such, I would support it as written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top