Term limit straw poll

I voted no.

If good people continue to be motivated to remain in positions they've performed well at, why give them the boot?

For new blood? In my opinion, new blood-types should prove their worth and prove to the electorate that they are better than the status quo.
 
I am a big proponent of term limits. I can give you a list of nations who are pretty much unbeatable in an election. Without term limits, it would be possible for those nations to completely shut out newcomers. I don't agree with the mindset that says, "If they are good at the job, let them have it forever." I think it's more important to have a system that allows everyone a shot.
 
Isn't an election as a term limit enough?
Currently, a minister may hold office two consecutive terms, then must sit out a term. I think the question in the poll seeks to gauge the level of interest in removing the requirement to sit out.

@sniffles: I don't understand what you mean.
 
Isn't an election as a term limit enough?
Currently, a minister may hold office two consecutive terms, then must sit out a term. I think the question in the poll seeks to gauge the level of interest in removing the requirement to sit out.

@sniffles: I don't understand what you mean.
I think what mr.sniffles is alluding to is that if a person is not doing as good a job as they can manage, they might get voted out. If a clique gets lax in its duties, we have a problem. However, if a clique is competent and is loyal and dedicated to the region, we simply are lucky to have such a group of people.

Personally, I voted to set term limits on only the very highest positions, i.e. PM/Del (in an appointed Cabinet system).
 
I would tend to agree with MO, a person is unlikely to continue with the same cabinet role for too long since they are either demanding or if they do a good job they will be voted out, however if they keep getting re-elected, they are most likely doing an excellent job and deserve to stay.
 
Back
Top