Term Limits

Haor Chall

Haor Chall

The Power of the Dark Side
TNP Nation
Haor Chall
I was thinking that it may be wise to have another look at term limits now, considering the turn out at the last election (as far as candiates go) and looking at how even more limited we're going to be from next couple of terms onwards with the amount of people who won't be able to run whether we should consider relaxing the current restrictions.

Personally, I think the best and simplest method is to allow people to remain in any cabinet level office for a maximum of two terms out of every three (consecutive or not) -rather than the current 2 terms in a year, 3 in every 2 years.

Thoughts?
 
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.
Click to expand...

It's a maximum of four terms over a two year period.
 
2 terms out of 3 still equals to 4 for every 6. In other words 4 terms per 2 years. (Correct me if my math has really deterioted that badly) Nothing's really changed...
 
Haor Chall:
I was thinking that it may be wise to have another look at term limits now, considering the turn out at the last election (as far as candiates go) and looking at how even more limited we're going to be from next couple of terms onwards with the amount of people who won't be able to run whether we should consider relaxing the current restrictions.

Personally, I think the best and simplest method is to allow people to remain in any cabinet level office for a maximum of two terms out of every three (consecutive or not) -rather than the current 2 terms in a year, 3 in every 2 years.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I suggested the two consecutive term limit a while back and met with opposition. I support your simple solution to this issue!
 
That was Roman's suggestion, not mine. I've not suggested anything yet. All I did was point out that one of the secondary limits (4 terms in two years) means four out of the eight terms that take place over a two year period.

Others are saying that is the same as four out of six or two out of three, and they're not the same thing.

Maybe what we need to do, so we're not making unnecessary assumptions about how term limits have impacted things is to compile a list of those who have held office for a term (or majority of a term) in the offices subjected to term limits, see how many terms they have held in any elected term-limited office. and get a real idea of who's been affected and who hasn't, beyond the two consecutive terms limitation.

It might well be worth it to see how much impact the term limits have had. Then we can look at the actual patterns that have accumulated since the first set of elections (April 05) and the four subsequent elections under the constitution since the constitutional convention (August 05, November 05, February 06, and May 06).

Another point to keep in mind that overall, the opportunity to hold a term-limited office has been spread around as a result of term limits; since one of the objectives of term limits was to spread around the opportunity to hold elected offices, and prevent a small group from always being elected, that is a factor that also needs to be considered.

And with the changes in NS, this might be a time to discuss whether the term limitations should work differently for the Delegate/Vice Delegate, and whether to seriously consider a permanent Delegate that would pass from elected officeholder to elected officerhold. (One reason is that Tresville currently owns the name "Magicality City" and I seriously think that would be the perfect name for a "permanent UN puppet" as Delegate.
 
4 terms in two years - that's almost more liberal that two consecutive terms. In fact, it's just about the same thing less 30%.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
And with the changes in NS, this might be a time to discuss whether the term limitations should work differently for the Delegate/Vice Delegate, and whether to seriously consider a permanent Delegate that would pass from elected officeholder to elected officerhold. (One reason is that Tresville currently owns the name "Magicality City" and I seriously think that would be the perfect name for a "permanent UN puppet" as Delegate.
Click to expand...
I wholehearted support this but think this should be seperate from this amendment, in which finding an agreement will be hard enough...
 
I think a placeholder delegate nation is potentially what Poltsy called it.
 
I compiled this for the Cabinet's discussion about a replacement for Tresville due to his unexpected retirement from the game. I raised the need for this compilation earlier in this thread, so I will post it here as well.




AlHoma (Feb 06 MoAE)(May 06 MoAE)
Ator People Ator People (Aug 05 MoCE)(Feb 06 MoC)
Baribeau (Aug 05 MoIIA)
Blackshear (Aug 05 MoEA)
Dalimbar (Feb 06 MoD)(May 06 MoEA)
Darth Mathius (Nov 05 MoJ)
Deikuria (Nov 05 MIIA)
Democratic Donkeys (Nov 05 MoAE)(Aug 05MoAE)
Fedele (May 06 MoCE)
Flemingovia (Apr 05 MIIA)(Aug 05 Del)(Feb 06 PM)
Former English Colony (Nov 05 Del)
Free4All (Apr 05 MoD)
goalVA GoalVA (Apr 05 MoEA) (Nov 05 MoEA) Resigned 11th Jan 2006 )
Great Bights Mum (Aug 05 MoJ)
Grimtash (Aug 05 MoD)
Grosseschnauzer (Apr 05 MoJ)
Heft (Apr 05 MoCE)(Nov 05 MoD)
Hersfold (Feb 06 MoIIA)
Haor Chall (MoEA mid term Aug 05) (Feb 06 MoEA)(May 06 MoD)
Honeysheep (Nov 05 MoCE) (Feb 06 Del)
James2spooky (Apr 05 MoAE)
Mr Sniffles (Feb 06 MoJ)(May 06 MoJ)
Namyeknom (Nov 05 MoEA Jan-Feb06* does not count as term)
north harmoneia (May 06 MoIIA)
OPArsenal (Aug 05 MoC)
Poltsamaa (Nov 05 PM)
Romanoffia (Apr 05MoC) (Nov 05 Acting MoJ midterm Nov 05?)
Tresville (Apr 05 PM)(Aug 05 PM)(May 06 PM)
WishyWashyWonder (Nov 05 MoC)
 
mr_sniffles:
A placeholder delegate in which the controller is democratically elected and serves at the behest of the citizens not self-appointed and rules with an iron fist.
Click to expand...
You miss the point of my post!! When the NPD resigned it was mentioned by some that a "placeholder" nation be used as Delegate in the manner just suggested here!! People from the NPC/NPU were horrified by the idea and said they could never have their own "Pixiedance"!! Seems now that the concept is a little less horrifying!! ;)

What Eras says does make sense as the longer a nation is Delegate and the more endorsments they gather, the harder they are to dislodge if the decide to travel their own path, government-wise!!
 
The issue of a "placeholder delegate" itself was not the problem in connection with the Pixiedance regime, but rather that the entire process was done in a manner that was anti-democratic and quite the example of authoritarian elitism whidh was profoundly objectionable.

The use of a carefully designed placeholder delegate to which fully and fairly democratically elected terms would apply and which has appropriate security mechanisms is something different. What hasn't been discussed are ways this might be adptable and incorporate adequate security processes to minimize the risk of a rouge delegate.

Am I saying we should go this route? Not yet, but I do think it merits some serious thinking because of the advantages a placeholder delegate would provide under the new NS power/influence system. I have an open mind about it. Maybe this is an instance that "only Nixon could go to China," but so be it.
 
Haor Chall:
Personally, I think the best and simplest method is to allow people to remain in any cabinet level office for a maximum of two terms out of every three (consecutive or not) -rather than the current 2 terms in a year, 3 in every 2 years.
Click to expand...
I agree with this proposal. Do we have some wordsmiths who are willing to craft it as a formal ammendment?

:offtopic: Re: Placeholder Delegate
Why, we don't even need NationStates at all. Let's just go ahead and "play government" without it. ;)
This would have to be a separate proposal, and one to which I would be opposed. In the current structure, the player who serves as Delegate already gives up governmental power.... and does a lot of work to maintain regional security.

How many would be willing to do the endotarting required to maintain the count for a collectively-owned nation? I think it's asking too much.

Edit: sticky "a" key.
 
Great Bights Mum:
Haor Chall:
Personally, I think the best and simplest method is to allow people to remain in any cabinet level office for a maximum of two terms out of every three (consecutive or not) -rather than the current 2 terms in a year, 3 in every 2 years.
Click to expand...
I agree with this proposal. Do we have some wordsmiths who are willing to craft it as a formal ammendment?
Click to expand...
That works for me. The wording would have to specify 'the last three terms' or something to that effect.


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 who has held a Cabinet level position two terms out of the last three terms shall be eligible for election to a Cabinet-level position.
Click to expand...

How's that? There is a grammatical redundancy, but it should not leave any wiggle room for reinterpretation.
 
Given that some cabinet-level offices had uncontested elections, I think it would be appropriate to relax term limits from a max of 50% of terms in office to a max of 67%.

For the topic of Delegate term restrictions, I think that with proper vigilence anyone in the region who has taken the time to accrue the necessary level of endorsements will have enough influence to eject unknown nations coming into the region making their own run at the delegacy. What's actually helpful about the influence scheme is that a rogue delegate (probably?) cannot eject all the nations sitting around in TNP with 100+ endorsements, but could easily eject any one or two. In some period of time, a placeholder delegate would get enough influence to eject anyone else with any significant endorsement level.

It's hard to balance a hypothetical need for a very high level of security with the inability to read a hypothetical someone else's thoughts. I think that being able to show some amount of influence could be an additional requirement for running for Delegate, but installing a placeholder nation to the position would put too much power in a single entity. That's a concern even before I have to wonder who will be Delegate at any given point in the future when this term's election was uncontested.
 
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 who has held a Cabinet level position two terms out of the last three terms shall be eligible for election to a Cabinet-level position.
Click to expand...

This should be "elected" and not held; otherwise it would limit anyone who serves even one day of a term in the event of a vacancy.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
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 who has held a Cabinet level position two terms out of the last three terms shall be eligible for election to a Cabinet-level position.
Click to expand...

This should be "elected" and not held; otherwise it would limit anyone who serves even one day of a term in the event of a vacancy.
Click to expand...
OK, that can be corrected -

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 who has been elected to Cabinet level, or served more than one half term in a Cabinet level position, two terms out of the last three terms shall be eligible for election to a Cabinet-level position.
Click to expand...

That should cover all the possibilities including a deputy minister who serves more than 1/2 term as a minister.

Is there a more compact way to word this?
 
Does the final phrase "election to a Cabinet-level position." leave open for interpretation situations in which a Minister is appointed?
 
I accounted for that:

or served more than one half term in a Cabinet level position
Click to expand...

I added a phrase so that anyone appointed to a cabinet position who serves half of a term plus one day more is essentially considered as having served a term.

R
 
I don't have the handy browser tabs available, so someone else can do this if they might, but can we put the proposal in the context of the remainder of the Term Limitations section in the Constitution?
I think the latest version of the change may have a duplication as to service as a Minister by players not elected to the office.
 
As this currently stands it seems that anyone elected to office who serves even one day would constitute having served one of their allowed terms, whereas those appointed could serve half a term and it not count.

That seems quite a marked change to the current constitution which sets the level at half a term for both elected and appointed cabinet.
 
Cathyy:
As this currently stands it seems that anyone elected to office who serves even one day would constitute having served one of their allowed terms, whereas those appointed could serve half a term and it not count.

That seems quite a marked change to the current constitution which sets the level at half a term for both elected and appointed cabinet.
Click to expand...
That's why we need a carefully worded term limitation clause that essentially defines a 'term' (50% + one day) and an exclusion of those who have served two 'terms' out of the past three prior to an election as a minister.

That's what I like about you Cath - you point out the legalistic loopholes that most of us never notice! :hug:

R
 
Romanoffia:
That's what I like about you Cath - you point out the legalistic loopholes that most of us never notice! :hug:

R
Click to expand...
Most kind. I have an eye for detail...you can call it a blessing or a curse...I call it both in equal measure.
 
Not to blow this wide open but I have a question.

Why have term limits at all? With the current system we have like 2 or 3 groups of "government" officials, just passing the government back and forth.

We want real competition, yes. Real competition is a good thing. It makes people hold up their campaign promises, it gives them the impending "sword of damoclees" just dangling and wating to be released on them.
 
AlHoma:
Not to blow this wide open but I have a question.

Why have term limits at all? With the current system we have like 2 or 3 groups of "government" officials, just passing the government back and forth.

We want real competition, yes. Real competition is a good thing. It makes people hold up their campaign promises, it gives them the impending "sword of damoclees" just dangling and wating to be released on them.
Click to expand...
:clap:

All you need are 2 people for key positions and you could hold the government in the ruling class indefinitely. And wouldn't that just be loverly? ;)
 
AlHoma:
Why have term limits at all?
Click to expand...
They are already in existence. Modifying the current standards beyond what HC has proposed here was previously attempted and the measure failed. I do not think the political climate has warmed up to the notion of liberalizing it much farther than this.
 
I agree. Term limits are a good idea as they help to prevent a ruling class by promoting a good mix of political styles at any given time.
 
But look at our current situation. A few governments (team) are currently on the back burner while the current government is doing the ruling. It's essentially an oligarchy. Just passing the positions around over and over again. If we want people to get involved they need to be able to have the same oppurtunity to run. Yes I know that busting the term limits will make the people who are in government tend to stay in government, but at least the government knows that they can be replaced by someone as equally qualified.
 
Romanoffia:
I agree. Term limits are a good idea as they help to prevent a ruling class by promoting a good mix of political styles at any given time.
Click to expand...
Prevent a ruling class? Really? I think it's more that there's a more benevolent ruling class, that's about it. Or rather, that there are the people that do government and that switch the jobs around and around. We're developing a pretty solid government group of people that can be trusted in any of the positions. It's not a ruling class with a solidified goal, but it is essentially the ruling government.

I think most people involved in candidacy this past election were quite aware of the shuffling of people to make sure everyone was spread out across positions. People ran to prevent others from taking office and dropped out when favored candidates decided to run. I *know* some people didn't run for delegate because they knew I was going to.
 
I personally have always favored term limits, but I'm not sure whether it will remove what FEC and Roman are talking about -- specifically, the "ruling class" tendency..

Term limits are good in principle to keep people from dominating certain offices, but it won't necessarily mean more people will offer themselves as alternate candidates. Someone may sit out one term, and then continue for a couple of more terms. I think the "ruling class" tendency is not ideal, but it's what reality is.. No one likes it when a group of people are always up for the same jobs, but in the absence of anyone else stepping forward, then I'd prefer those same group of people over anarchy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top