Term Limits

Great Bights Mum

Great Bights Mum

Grande Dame
-
-
-
-
The proposal on term limits may not have received the majority it needed to pass. But the discussions held were productive, and the close (though currently unofficial) vote count shows that there is desire for a change. I would be amenable to a proposal that represents a compromise between what was proposed and what is currently on the books.

I do believe that some sort of term limitations are needed to encourage vitality and diversity in the region. It needs to be what we are about: giving newer nations an opportunity to assume leadership roles. It is so easy for someone with friends and name recognition to win an election here, that without some sort of enforced limitation on terms, the playing field is going to favor the good old boys and girls every time.

Let's rework the idea and come up with something less restrictive than the current law, but not as wide open as the proposal that was submitted for a vote.
 
Well, the vote tally is now official. :P

As far as a compromise goes, what if we have a proposal where we state some broader limits -- for example, no person may serve more than four Cabinet positions in five terms?

That way, we're not legislating that they HAVE to break after two terms -- they could serve 4 consecutive terms if the voters approve, but they will have to break at some point. And of course the 4/5 thing is just an arbitrary number at this point.

Furthermore, we could say that in this same 5-term period (for example), a person may serve no more than two Cabinet posts.
 
Just a technical point. The proposal needed a 2/3rds vote to pass (16 of 23 if my math is right) so the vote was not all that close.
 
:eyeroll:

There number of Ayes and Nays were very close, and I think a proposal somewhere the middle would easily get 2/3 of the vote when you consider what most of those who voted nay said. I favour something simple like, you can only serve a maximum of 2 consecutive terms (miss one and then you could serve 2 again) or 2 of every 3. Possibly 4/5 if people think thats better, considering the relatively short term length we have.
 
How about 3 of 4 to split the difference? :P

I think one issue we can start off with, that's somewhat different than the number of consecutive "administrations" one can be a part of, is this: right now in the Constitution there are limits on how many terms one can serve in a single year, etc.

Are people in favor of keeping that? For example, if we said people could serve only 2 terms out of every 3 and we kept the "1 year rule", that together would essentially be the same thing that we have now. That is, if someone serves two terms, breaks for one term, s/he cannot serve in the last term of that "year" because of the 1-year rule.
 
As a new nation standing against two established nations in his first election, I can see the benefits term limits would have for bringing more people into the political process.

I think this is a good compromise. But from the perspecitive of a newer nations and considering the lengthy time gap between elections, I think 2/3 would be better.
 
Given that there are three terms in a year, a limitation of two terms per year is a good limit.
 
Well, the point was that two terms a year limit is already in place.

So people would either have to be in favor of removing that limit (so someone could serve two consecutive terms, break, then another term in the same "year") AND/OR they would have to be in favor of removing the consecutive term limit (so someone could serve n consecutive terms at one time, whatever we establish n to be).

I mean if we say someone can serve a max of 3 consecutive terms, it's moot to establish a yearly limit since there are only 4 terms in one year.
 
I would be in favor of getting rid of the yearly requirements altogether. Lets simplify matters by making it just two consecutive terms in the Cabinet, then you sit out a term.

I would also be amenable to a proposal that would allow a one term PM or Delegate to run for a second term in that position, even if they had been a Cabinet Minister previously. The rationale behind exempting those two offices is twofold. First off, I'm sure previous PMs can testify, that 3 months is a short time to accomplish one's goals. For the Delegate, it is a lot of work to get all those endorsements and then have to give them up after 12 weeks may not seem to some like its worth it.
Secondly, it allows nations to get their feet wet and be involved in the workings of the Cabinet and still make a bid for the top positions.
After serving two terms as PM or Delegate, they would then have to sit out a term.

Does this sound like an interesting compromise?
 
It seems reasonable, but I'd rather have the limitation on one office, and not on the ability of running altogether.
 
So basically you're saying that no matter what positions they held before, IF you are finishing your first term as PM or Delegate, you're automatically allowed to run again?

Hm.. That might work.

My personal preference would be that a 2-term limit is OK, but should we then allow those people to run for a third "term" if its a different Cabinet position? It might work something like this: there is a 2-term limit for any given Cabinet position, but the ultimate rule is that you can only serve in Cabinets 3 terms out of every 4. In this example, the rule would apply even if someone served 3 different Cabinet positions in 3 different terms. S/he would automatically be forced to sit the next time, even though s/he had only served one term in a given position.
 
Sounds interesting and complicated at the same time. I hope we all look at this objectively and not out of the fear that certain people will try every loophole to stay in the cabinet for some evil scheme. ;)
 
koona, it was a proposal of opening up the limits as you suggested that failed in the RA. The majority did not want to open up an opportunity for Ministry swapping that would make it difficult for others to take leadership roles in government. Now we are kicking around ideas for a compromise proposal that will get the support it needs to pass.

The reason I would support different standards for the PM and Delegate slots is because of the greater skill and experience demanded by those positions. I think it is a natural progression for a Cabinet member to want to strive for a higher position. Also, neither post is one I would entrust to someone not well acquainted with life in TNP.
 
I know that, and the ideeas are more than welcomed I'm sure. I was mostly thinking out loud.

I personaly like Wiz's ideea.
 
Heft:
Aren't there four terms a year? Three months a term, 12 months a year.
Click to expand...
Yes, there is. I just had mathematically impared brain-fart moment.

How about this - maximum two consecutive terms in a cabinet level position after which you must sit out for at least one term (my original idea way-back-when).
 
Well Roman's idea of two consecutive terms max but no year limit is fundamentally the same as saying "only 2 terms out of every 3".
 
Exactly. It's not a complicated scheme and it allows for a continual pool of 'talent' to exist.
 
It's simple and to the point and totally uncomplicated!
 
Maybe there is a different way of dealing with this.

What if terms were extended to 4 months instead of three? Then two in three within a 12 month period would make sense. The question still remains about whether this is just in the same office, or in any elected Cabinet Office? And would there be support to delay the effctiveness of changing both so it would not benefit current officeholders who were elected under a specific set of terms and term limits? (In real life, by example, check the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution.)

The idea of requiring prior service in other offices might make sense for Prime Minister, Delegate and Vice Delegate.

Whether I could support any change in term limits still depends on what the final product looks like, and whether it addresses the concern that brought about term limits in the first place -- the fear that a small group could indefinitely occupy the elected offices to the exclusion of others.
 
I would rather keep the current 3-month term. Expanding the term length has potential downsides, among them a greater probability that a Minister will be absent for any length of time, etc etc.
 
Public Relations HQ:
How about a 70-day term? :shifty:
Click to expand...
Ok. Have fun setting the dates for elections. <_< Changing term lengths isn't the way to go. We'd have to reset all the schedules, and things would be either too long or too short to deal with.

I like Roman's idea of "maximum two consecutive terms in a cabinet level position after which you must sit out for at least one term". It allows some new blood to get in there and have a chance at the "incumbent benefit", but doesn't lock out those of us who are established and good at whatever job.

Edit: Just for clarification, would that plan apply for all offices? For example, are you allowed to run two terms as PM, then switch to Delegate for a term, then go back to PM?
 
Hers, that's the second issue I was mentioning -- whether we want to say its 2 consecutive terms max for ONE office or for ANY office in the Cabinet.
 
I think that if the idea is to provide the opportunity to have new blood in the Cabinet, then the limit as to more than two consecutive terms has to be as to all Cabinet positions. Otherwise a small group could turn themselves into a clique with the ability to control all of the machinery of government and prevent anyone else from ever being in office or having the chance to lead a ministry.

Another question that still has to be addressed is the treatment of a deputy minister who become Minister when at least half of the term remains. It is in the constitution now, and I strongly believe it should be retained. I could support an amendment that contains both of these elements.

Once there is a consensus about the general bill, then we might want to address whether to add a qualification for the elected Delegate, and for Prime Minister about prior service in office and how much. We akready have a pool of players resident in the region who have held an elected office under the constitution, so introducing that now would not be a barrier to having qualified candidates.
 
Public Relations HQ:
How about a 100 day term?
Click to expand...
We've already moved past the term length question, and I believe we have decided to remain with the three-month term. Anything not set by months would be disastorous in terms of how the election schedules would be set. Kindly make useful comments that actually pertain to the current debate, please.

Now then.

I agree with Schnauzer. If the restriction does not apply to all terms, the government will just play musical offices every third term and avoid the term limits.

With the Deputy issue, all someone would need to do to get around the term limits would be to find a good friend of theirs willing to run for them. When the friend gets elected, they appoint the deputy and then promptly resign.

Your requirement for PM and Delegate isn't a bad idea either. It would help keep a complete noob that knows nothing about the region from trying to run, anyway. Maybe one term in elected office?
 
I'm uneasy about that part.. What if someone comes in, spends a few months in TNP, and feels he can lead the region? AND he has office experience (maybe even PM or equivalent experience) in another region?


I believe that less than half a term should not count against a deputy when assuming a Minister's vacancy as well.
 
wizardofoz01:
I'm uneasy about that part.. What if someone comes in, spends a few months in TNP, and feels he can lead the region? AND he has office experience (maybe even PM or equivalent experience) in another region?


I believe that less than half a term should not count against a deputy when assuming a Minister's vacancy as well.
Click to expand...
He'd need office experience here... experience in another region wouldn't count.
 
wizardofoz01:
I believe that less than half a term should not count against a deputy when assuming a Minister's vacancy as well.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. The definition of a term (being more than 50% of a term) is convered in the Consitution and should be kept in tact.
 
Hersfold:
He'd need office experience here... experience in another region wouldn't count.
Click to expand...
I think that maybe we should consider experience in other regions for a few reasons.

First of all, we DO want to increase participation. And a successful term or two in another region definitely means one has the inner capacity to do the job.

Secondly, many candidates past and present have mentioned their experience in other regions as reasons that the RV's should elect them.

Thirdly, even though experience in another region doesn't prepare them EXACTLY for being a Minister in TNP, I think that having some experience is wholly different than a newbie coming in here for the first time.
 
Hmm... I still stand my ground. They'd need some experience of how we run things, and our internal policies before attempting to come run our region.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top