Removal of Term Limits for the Delegate

St George

St George

RolePlay Moderator
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him, They/Them
I speak of Article 3 Section 7 of the Constitution:

9. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person may serve more than two consecutive terms as Delegate.
Click to expand...

I can, if I squint a bit, see the point of term limits. They combat apathy and ensure newer people get a chance. In theory. In practice, at least 3 of our last 6 delegates were on their second non-consecutive term.

Not only that, but TNP is an active political community so apathy isn't a concern.

For those two reasons alone we should get rid of term limits, however removing that requirement also brings some benefits, such as not losing talented and able delegates to be replaced by... well not so talented and able delegates.
 
There's a fundamental difference between running against an incumbent delegate and running when the seat is open. When the seat is open, you only have to prove that you have more potential than all the other candidates. But when you run against an incumbent, you have to demonstrate that your potential outweighs their four, eight, or under your proposal, potentially more months of experience. That's hard to do. I think the removal of term limits could lead to a less democratic delegacy.

EDIT: Although I'll note that you haven't actually made a proposal yet.
 
COE is right. Despite the hullabaloo of our infamous rogues, TNP has had some excellent Delegates. Some of them could be said to be unbeatable in an election. I'm sure that the presence of a really strong incumbent can discourage folks from even trying.

The number one reason for term limits is so that newer players can have a shot at the Big Seat. To me, that is a cornerstone of what makes TNP a land of opportunity. Overall, the percentage of nations that get to be Delegate in a GCR is pretty small. Being the Delegate here is grand. It is a goal that LOTS of players should have. I like encouraging people to go for it. I think it's good to have a law in place that puts a check on us old-timers monopolizing everything.
 
Great Bights Mum:
COE is right. Despite the hullabaloo of our infamous rogues, TNP has had some excellent Delegates. Some of them could be said to be unbeatable in an election. I'm sure that the presence of a really strong incumbent can discourage folks from even trying.

The number one reason for term limits is so that newer players can have a shot at the Big Seat. To me, that is a cornerstone of what makes TNP a land of opportunity. Overall, the percentage of nations that get to be Delegate in a GCR is pretty small. Being the Delegate here is grand. It is a goal that LOTS of players should have. I like encouraging people to go for it. I think it's good to have a law in place that puts a check on us old-timers monopolizing everything.
Click to expand...
Aside from Mcm, how many of our recent delegates were 'newer players'?

Blackshear: 2006.
Blue Wolf II: 2005.
Dali: 2005.
Eluvatar: 2006.
Grosseschnauzer: 2005.

That doesn't exactly scream 'open to newer players' to me.
 
I don't like this at all. TNP has a strong tradition of elections and very competitive races. I think that removing this clause will take away from that.
 
I like this. It is close to one of the central tenets of the Flemingovian Constitution and is therefore to be applauded.
 
Yes, let's just elect Flem Delegate for Life :flemingovia2:

The reality is, without term limits a really good delegate, Flem for example, could hold the seat for as long as he chooses. Then no one would get a chance. I think that would be discouraging for players who might like to give it a shot.

All the list of earlier Delegates proves is that it is hard to beat candidates who have been around awhile and are more well known. The trust factor is pretty heavily weighted here.

Yet McMasterdonia's success points to the truth that it can be achieved. Wouldn't it have been harder if he had to go up against Flem running for a 6th term?
 
Blackshear is actually from January 2004, and Grosseschnauzer is from December 2004.

However, I was first elected TNP Delegate in June 2008 and Blackshear first became TNP Delegate in April 2004.

If anything, we should extend term limits to cover non-consecutive terms as well.
 
I do not agree with extending term limits >_>

Despite being the current Delegate, I agree that incumbency has it's advantages. However, I don't much like the fact that a good Delegate is forced to step aside, and the region must then choose who puts their name forward. I also think, that elections would still be competitive and require people to put more thought into their campaign if they intend to beat an incumbent, none of this three sentence (or non-existent) platform.
 
I don't support any change currently. I think everyone should have a go at being Delegate, assuming they have the support of the region.
 
King Durk the Awesome:
Remove term limits = McM 4 life

Look at TWP to see where no term limits gets you.
Click to expand...
Actually, the term is a year in TWP and someone running for a 2nd term probably would be revolted against by the guardians who don't really like for unending reign like TP, for instance.

And in TNP, I think term limit maybe a misnomer. Because a delegate just can't continue his/her reign ad nauseum. Doesn't mean they can have two terms and then come back at a later date. That certainly has happened.
 
I disagree with term limits on principle, because to me, anyone whom the people choose should be delegate, whether the people like the 2-year incumbent or a challenger. If there's fair and open elections, then won't the best candidate win?

However, I see no pressing need to repeal it, but I do offer my tentative support to a repeal effort.
 
Term limits are a curb on the potential for monopoly. It seems to me an important feature of democratic systems. You can go without it, but then it is a different kind of system.

Removing term limits would be a similar move to adopting the Flemstitution - in that to try it out we would have to discard the current system.

Against.
 
allowing a sitting delegate to serve more than 2 consecutive terms ,will only harm democracy and reduce voter apathy and participation in regional politics.
 
I don't support the removal of term limits at this time. They work for TNP and aid in getting new faces in the Delegate seat.
 
Pasargad:
allowing a sitting delegate to serve more than 2 consecutive terms ,will only harm democracy and reduce voter apathy and participation in regional politics.
Click to expand...
Not letting the people vote to keep in a popular delegate doesn't seem very democratic to me...

Hileville:
I don't support the removal of term limits at this time. They work for TNP and aid in getting new faces in the Delegate seat.
Click to expand...

Not only have 3 of our last 6 delegates held the delegacy before, aside from Mcm, the latest any one of them joined these forums was 2006. That doesn't exactly say 'new faces'...
 
True, I may have not been a new face, but I do believe as late as 2009 I was probably tops on the candidate list of "TNPers who will never be delegate" and number one on the list of "TNPer who will be delegate over Tresville's rotten corpse".

That said, I don't see how abolishing term limitations will force voters to elect newer members or encourage newer members to run. If anything it will have the opposite effect on both accounts.
 
Blue Wolf II:
...I don't see how abolishing term limitations will force voters to elect newer members or encourage newer members to run. If anything it will have the opposite effect on both accounts.
Click to expand...
Yes, abolishing term limitations will not force voters to elect newer members, nor encourage newer members to run. The purpose of abolishing term limits is to keep a delegate in power.
 
Look, dudes, let's cut to the chase. I know you all* want me to be delegate for life, but what about McM? Has nobody thought about his feelings in all this? It's no fun to be thrown on the scrap heap partway through your second term. I mean, I know you feel stongly about this, and eventually you will get your will eventually and the Flemingovian Constitution will be the rule in TNP. But for now, won't someone thingk about McM?

*except Eleuvatar and Grosse.
 
COE and GBM are absolutely right!

I'm strongly against George's proposition. Maybe he will abolish term limits in Osiris and become the Pharaoh for life but here the democratic tradition is stronger. Plus it's not Russia with all that Putin's terms circus :P
Let's be real, abolishing terms would allow the "elite" to get cosy positions for a very long time, practically reducing chances of other (not only newer) people to achieve something.
 
This is a difficult issue. On one hand, we have the activity gap and the possibility of a Delegate-for-life. On the other hand, no one has actually pointed out that a Delegate-for-life can easily become a Delegate-for-limited-time if the voters DON'T VOTE FOR HIM.

I think the problem is people are taking this like abolishing term limits means abolishing the election of the Delegate in general. I have no problem with a good Delegate sitting. The problem comes when the Delegate uses that giant ball of power to his advantage, and/or not to TNP's.

That said, I'm neither against nor for at this point. Just reminding y'all, and I'm interested to see how this turns out.
 
Alicia DiLaurentis:
COE and GBM are absolutely right!

I'm strongly against George's proposition. Maybe he will abolish term limits in Osiris and become the Pharaoh for life but here the democratic tradition is stronger. Plus it's not Russia with all that Putin's terms circus :P
Let's be real, abolishing terms would allow the "elite" to get cosy positions for a very long time, practically reducing chances of other (not only newer) people to achieve something.
Click to expand...
1. Osiris doesn't have term limits.

2. It's more democrat not to limit the voters choice in who they want as delegate. Anyone who is a member of the RA or a citizen of TNP should be eligible to run for delegate.

3. I disagree. TNP has an active vibrant political community. The chances that we'd allow people 'to get cosy positions for a very long time' are slim to none.

4. COE and GBM aren't right actually. Both have wrongly claimed term limits help newer people get into the delegacy. I've proven that isn't happening at all. Both claimed it reduces voter apathy, and I agree, but again, TNP is a political community, which makes voter apathy not a problem at all really.
 
I think it's good as is, personally. I don't see a problem that needs solving here.
 
madjack:
Alicia DiLaurentis:
COE and GBM are absolutely right!

I'm strongly against George's proposition. Maybe he will abolish term limits in Osiris and become the Pharaoh for life but here the democratic tradition is stronger. Plus it's not Russia with all that Putin's terms circus :P
Let's be real, abolishing terms would allow the "elite" to get cosy positions for a very long time, practically reducing chances of other (not only newer) people to achieve something.
Click to expand...
1. Osiris doesn't have term limits.

2. It's more democrat not to limit the voters choice in who they want as delegate. Anyone who is a member of the RA or a citizen of TNP should be eligible to run for delegate.

3. I disagree. TNP has an active vibrant political community. The chances that we'd allow people 'to get cosy positions for a very long time' are slim to none.

4. COE and GBM aren't right actually. Both have wrongly claimed term limits help newer people get into the delegacy. I've proven that isn't happening at all. Both claimed it reduces voter apathy, and I agree, but again, TNP is a political community, which makes voter apathy not a problem at all really.
Click to expand...
1. No comment.

2. RL examples of where term limits have been relaxed are New York City for Michael Bloomberg (to more than two consecutive terms) and Russia for Vladimir Putin (to more than two terms but not more than two terms consecutively).

Do you believe New York City and Russia became (i) more democratic (ii) better as a result?

3. I disagree with you, we could allow a popular leader to stay there for a long time, and that is still bad for democracy.

4. Voter apathy is always a problem, even in The North Pacific. It would be worse if we could just keep the same delegate as long as they remain popular.
 
best Real Life example that this is going to lead to power grab is Venezuela ,Chavez is dyeing from cancer no one can dare to remove him from power, even in Russia there is a term limit Putin waited 4 years to become president again, if a delegate with huge numbers of endorsement numbers stays in power for a very long time it will take a huge effort to remove him from power in case he loses an election and decides to hang on to delegate seat.
 
madjack:
Alicia DiLaurentis:
COE and GBM are absolutely right!

I'm strongly against George's proposition. Maybe he will abolish term limits in Osiris and become the Pharaoh for life but here the democratic tradition is stronger. Plus it's not Russia with all that Putin's terms circus :P
Let's be real, abolishing terms would allow the "elite" to get cosy positions for a very long time, practically reducing chances of other (not only newer) people to achieve something.
Click to expand...
1. Osiris doesn't have term limits.

2. It's more democrat not to limit the voters choice in who they want as delegate. Anyone who is a member of the RA or a citizen of TNP should be eligible to run for delegate.

3. I disagree. TNP has an active vibrant political community. The chances that we'd allow people 'to get cosy positions for a very long time' are slim to none.

4. COE and GBM aren't right actually. Both have wrongly claimed term limits help newer people get into the delegacy. I've proven that isn't happening at all. Both claimed it reduces voter apathy, and I agree, but again, TNP is a political community, which makes voter apathy not a problem at all really.
Click to expand...
Lol seems I missed so much what happened in Osiris because of my rl matters... Firstly the Empire thing, later coup, now no term limits. Funny stuff I must say. Congratulations! :P

You forget that TNP can easily become less politically active in the future, the current situation won't last forever. Besides, some kind of influential and power hungry demagogue might happen here and use those lax rules for his own advantage. Maybe I exaggerate but I look at pessimistic outcome, contrary to your hyper-optimistic attitude which isn't so realistic at all. Anyway, you must be really bored to propose such nonsense. I love McMaster too, he does a great job, so I would agree for giving him another extra term. But after all the region can't rely only on one person all the time and abolishing terms is a dangerous extreme. Which would bring less citizen activity and more power to an official.
It's my final statement on this matter (I think you are happy now).
 
, if a delegate with huge numbers of endorsement numbers stays in power for a very long time it will take a huge effort to remove him from power in case he loses an election and decides to hang on to delegate seat.
Click to expand...

Couldn't that happen after a four month term?
 
I don't think so, McM because 4 months isn't a very long time in NS game time terms. Krull's reign would be considered a long time.
 
I mean, that it would still be a big effort trying to get someone out of the Delegates seat if they didn't want to cede power. The obvious difference is a Delegate who has served longer would have more influence, but then the SC has an incredible amount of influence to counter that.
 
Unequivocally the answer to this proposal is... no.

4 months is a long enough period for people to get settled in, enjoy themselves, and if they enjoy it, (as people have pointed out) continue on for another 4 months. Beyond that it starts to feel too much like one person's government and one person's way of thinking.

If someone is such a good delegate, then they can be delegate again after a 4 month waiting period. And perhaps that is *why* old time people become delegate again and again, because they are GOOD at it. But there are also old time people that *don't* become delegate again and again. Case in point, special election in which M&M won. Romanoffia and BW both ran. They are old timers, how come they didn't win?
 
We must begin to think outside of the box, my friends.
The Delegate shall be elected by a random lottery; the candidates in the lottery shall be all females whose name starts with the letter A, then all males whose name starts with the letter B, etc. After all 26 letters have been used, it shall start again at the letter a, except this time with all males.
The length of a term shall be 37 days.
Every 5th term I shall be Delegate, and every 11th term we shall permanently ban a random nation that has not been elected Delegate.
 
Initially I was for this, but reading the replies you've all managed to persuade me. Given that people can still run for non-consecutive Delegacies if they wish, and given that there's a tradition of relative newcomers doing well in elections, and given that the very nature of a long-serving Delegate, however democratic they are, would be very imposing to campaign against, I'm against this should it come to vote anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top