I love McMasterdonia

D

Democratic Donkeys

TNPer
I propose a Constitutional Amendment to Article 3 Section 9 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 shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...

I love what McMasterdonia has done with the regional government, and his friendliness as Delegate. It is an honor to serve in his Government, and I want him to be able to run again. I'm not asking for him to be delegate for life, but merely be given the chance to run again through the normal democratic means. Why have term limits anyway? Just another vestige of real world government that found its way here, in my opinion.

McMasterdonia, May 2014! Four more months, four more months!
 
They have term limits in Kentucky, therefore we must have them here.

I think term limits were put in to stop us having a delegate for life. But I do not personally see the point. If this passes, we may just see ourselves proposing a five term limit in a few months.

I propose an amendment:

9. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in four consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...
 
I support Flemingovia's amendment. Saves us having the exact same discussion a few months down the line.
 
You're right, but I wanted to present an incremental change so it wouldn't shatter the worldview of the small-minded. ;)

I am happy to incorporate the suggested change, and will edit my post accordingly.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
I propose a Constitutional Amendment to Article 3 Section 9 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 shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...

I love what McMasterdonia has done with the regional government, and his friendliness as Delegate. It is an honor to serve in his Government, and I want him to be able to run again. I'm not asking for him to be delegate for life, but merely be given the chance to run again through the normal democratic means. Why have term limits anyway? Just another vestige of real world government that found its way here, in my opinion.

McMasterdonia, May 2014! Four more months, four more months!
Click to expand...
I support this movement. I also love McMasterdonia.
 
I Love McMasterdonia, too! :tb2: :tb2: :tb2:
We will be hard-pressed to find another who can fill his shoes.

But, at the risk of being painted "small-minded" by DD, I am not going to support this proposal.

This is why. There are different ways of playing ns, and different goals a nation can have at various times. One goal for some may be to one day become Delegate. Now, I know from experience that being Delegate in TNP is a very fine thing. It is good to have, and it is good to aspire to have. After 10 years, the list of nations who have gotten to be delegate in a feeder is still a very short one.

It's because McM is so good that we need term limits. He is unbeatable in an election. Do you think that other good nations who may aspire to the delegacy are going to bother running against him? I wouldn't. Having the term limit allows others to have a shot at the big seat. Consider this: It also keeps them from taking their aspirations elsewhere.
 
As a new member to the region, in regards to many others, but not a new player, I must say that good leaders are hard to come by. Allowing someone as McM to be re-elected seems reasonable on the fact that he has been good and efficient in his job, and as such, a benefit to TNP.

I also agree that GBM rises legitimate concerns, as a good leader who gets elected and re-elected may also shadow or diminish the chance for new leaders to make their way up, which COULD be detrimental to the future... But then again, there is where the electors need to responsibly exercise their power...

I like the proposal honestly.
 
McM leadership, kindness and ethics are amazing. GBM is right, and I usually don't like extra terms in politics (both in RW and in NS) but this is not even about the game, it's about love. An extra term would be awesome.

This is true to such an extent that I would present my campaign to be a candidate in the same spirit, and a continuation of his work; he is such an inspiration. And we need that spirit of honour and stability in this time of uncertainty.
 
I liked Mcmasterdonia work he has done the region and he has tremendous feats, but I agree with GBM. We need to give other nations a chance and this will create new energy within TNP.
 
Democratic Donkeys:
I propose a Constitutional Amendment to Article 3 Section 9 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 shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...

I love what McMasterdonia has done with the regional government, and his friendliness as Delegate. It is an honor to serve in his Government, and I want him to be able to run again. I'm not asking for him to be delegate for life, but merely be given the chance to run again through the normal democratic means. Why have term limits anyway? Just another vestige of real world government that found its way here, in my opinion.

McMasterdonia, May 2014! Four more months, four more months!
Click to expand...
I propose the following change.
9. The Delegate will be McMasterdonia for the duration of the existence of The North Pacific, and the Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.
Click to expand...
 
Nothing goes on forever. Every gcr delegate in the history of the game has either lost popularity or lost interest.

This proposal retains elections every few months which keeps the delegate accountable, and gives them an honourable exit clause from the delegacy when they have had enough.

If the region wants a particular individual to be delegate, and that person wants to stand, then vox populi vox seculari - the voice of the people is the voice of secular. Artificial rules should not stand in the way.

The rules were created in an era when TNP was paranoid about giving a delegate too much power. I think we have gone a little beyond that now and can start looking at our laws in a more balanced light.

Term limits are great and proper in the real world, with party machineries and populations in millions. This is not Kentucky, and it is time we realised it.
 
Lennart:
McM leadership, kindness and ethics are amazing. GBM is right, and I usually don't like extra terms in politics (both in RW and in NS) but this is not even about the game, it's about love. An extra term would be awesome.

This is true to such an extent that I would present my campaign to be a candidate in the same spirit, and a continuation of his work; he is such an inspiration. And we need that spirit of honour and stability in this time of uncertainty.
Click to expand...
I am really feeling the love in this thread <3 Especially from the above, Lennart that was very kind of you.

I would probably run for another term if I had the option, just so that is clear. I can understand the concerns about their being no challengers if I was to run again, but that is up to our region mates to decide that.
 
What an unusual turn of events! Usually (at least from my point of view) I go into a thread with an almost set view of my own although I do keep an open mind, of course! Sometimes what someone says or the combined arguments of several people sway my view.

In this instance I have swayed back in forth whilst reading. I find myself agreeing with both GBM and Flem.

I'll add that a long serving Delegate is always going to have a leg up as he or she has done the job before and unless they've done something pretty awful, they will retain their seat against a newcomer. Interestingly, I'm curious to see how harshly DD is judged for his use of the veto power and whether this amounts to something of such a scale.

That said, I would love to see McM in the delegacy for as long as he chooses to be there.

Keep one thing in mind though. I cannot conceive a time when I will run against McM for delegate. I don't have the support or the connections to trump him and I wouldn't try to. So, I guess my point is keep in mind that bringing this change in is likely to limit the pool of potential delegates unless someone willingly steps down. Take from that what you will.

Should this come to a vote, I will be voting in favour.

Long live the delegate; long may he rein.
 
I agree with Mum.

I like a restriction on term limits for its philosophical not just its practical value. To me, personally, it means no matter how great you are, there is an idea greater which is that the region ought to be free of tyranny, and that power does not rightly belong to any meritorious nation but to all nations. The democratic process elevates good delegates, but an overly successful delegate inhibits the will of the people to choose a new government for themselves.

I know that people will disagree with me, and that's okay. I can admit there are benefits to having a president for life. Flemingovia raises an interesting point:
flemingovia:
The rules were created in an era when TNP was paranoid about giving a delegate too much power. I think we have gone a little beyond that now and can start looking at our laws in a more balanced light.
Click to expand...
I think it would ignorant of me to give the impression that the ideals and mood that persisted in the 2005 era is eternal and unchangeable. A lot of the people who fought to overthrow pixiedance are not around now. There is a noticeable qualitative shift, between a system that categorically prevents the delegate holding onto power, and a system that prevents it when it's convenient to do so or hazardous not to.

Those who know McMasterdonia are well aware he shuns deceit and blackmail. It's a different ball game if the delegate is somebody who will mercilessly manipulate the community in order to stay in control1. It's for the RA to decide if that's a game that TNP can always win.

1I think we are fortunate we don't have any people like that.
 
To me, personally, it means no matter how great you are, there is an idea greater which is that the region ought to be free of tyranny,
Click to expand...

A lengthy office does not necessarily mean tyranny.

As I look around NS feeders I cannot see a single one which has the same delegate it had even one year ago. Unless you are a rarity like Kanadarin, delegacies have a natural shelf life. Eventually it becomes wearisome and you step down. But the point is that this is a natural shelf life, not an artificial one created by the American lawmakers and grafted on to nationstates.

McM thinks he has one more term left in him. I think our region would be stupid to let that pass us by.
 
Oh, hell, if we are going to go this route, why not just amend the Constitution to say this:


9.The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles. McMasterdonia shall now be known as "McMasterdonia I, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Pacifics".
Click to expand...

Autocracies have their advantages too - no pesky constitutions or legal codes because you can just make things up as you go along! We could issue titles of nobility and reduce everyone with nations that have below 10 billion population to the position of serfs.

The only complication of such a system is that GBM would have to change her name to The Dowager Empress Mum and Flemingovia would have to grow a long beard and change his name to Rasputinovia. :lol:
 
Romanoffia:
Oh, hell, if we are going to go this route, why not just amend the Constitution to say this:


9.The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles. McMasterdonia shall now be known as "McMasterdonia I, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Pacifics".
Click to expand...

Autocracies have their advantages too - no pesky constitutions or legal codes because you can just make things up as you go along! We could issue titles of nobility and reduce everyone with nations that have below 10 billion population to the position of serfs.

The only complication of such a system is that GBM would have to change her name to The Dowager Empress Mum and Flemingovia would have to grow a long beard and change his name to Rasputinovia. :lol:
Click to expand...
I could seriously imagine Flemingovia taking on a Rasputinovia role. Who will be the young Anastasia? Lennart possibly.
 
I believe that removing the bar on how many consecutive terms a delegate can hold puts the threat of stagnation into the government. In a region prized for it's democratic values I do not believe this is the proper step. Being a new member to this assembly I feel compelled to comment on how it appears to new coming members who essentially see an "old guard" firm with such bills.
 
flemingovia:
To me, personally, it means no matter how great you are, there is an idea greater which is that the region ought to be free of tyranny,
Click to expand...

A lengthy office does not necessarily mean tyranny.

As I look around NS feeders I cannot see a single one which has the same delegate it had even one year ago. Unless you are a rarity like Kanadarin, delegacies have a natural shelf life. Eventually it becomes wearisome and you step down. But the point is that this is a natural shelf life, not an artificial one created by the American lawmakers and grafted on to nationstates.

McM thinks he has one more term left in him. I think our region would be stupid to let that pass us by.
Click to expand...
*looks at the Pacific*
 
Romanoffia:
Oh, hell, if we are going to go this route, why not just amend the Constitution to say this:


9.The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles. McMasterdonia shall now be known as "McMasterdonia I, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Pacifics".
Click to expand...

Autocracies have their advantages too - no pesky constitutions or legal codes because you can just make things up as you go along! We could issue titles of nobility and reduce everyone with nations that have below 10 billion population to the position of serfs.

The only complication of such a system is that GBM would have to change her name to The Dowager Empress Mum and Flemingovia would have to grow a long beard and change his name to Rasputinovia. :lol:
Click to expand...
I would remind folks that this amendment does not do away with elections.

I think some folks underestimate the perception and intellect of the Regional Assembly. If our delegate gets too big for their boots, or the government is stagnating, then the RA is perfectly capable of electing someone else.

Half the problems in this region stem from the fact that we trust and venerate a written code far more than we trust people.
 
I'm quite conflicted on this one. My impulse when I saw this thread was to write up an argument similar to the one GBM posted, but I found that I didn't really believe it as strongly as I thought, and figured that someone else would probably do a better job than I would of contributing that side of the debate. I was right - Mum's post is very persuasive. At the same time, I agree on principle with Flem's argument as well. It's times like these I wish Elu were here - I'd like to hear what he would have to say on the subject.

I really don't know how I'll be voting if this goes to the floor. It's possible I will abstain.
 
The arguments seem to be this;

in favour of term limits
America has term limits. America = good, and Americans are more comfortable with them.
Term limits allows the delegacy to be shared around more.
Dammit, I want to be delegate - and if we remove term limits I may not get a chance.
If the delegacy is not shared around, some players might leave.
It stops a popular but idle leader from stagnating the region.
New delegates mean new energy.
It is traditional.
McM is popular, so we need a law to make sure a less popular candidate gets a shot.
It's safer. Stops us descending down the slippery slope to autocracy.


in favour of not having term limit
There are many Real life governments that do not have term limits, and they do not descend into dictatorship.
The pool of trusted, delegate-capable players is very small and it seems absurd to stop one of them standing.
Democracy is preserved by, effectively, having a regular referendum on how the delegate is going.
Most feeder delegates run out of steam eventually, so a delegacy would come to an end naturally, when the player or the community is ready for it.
Sooner or later we may get an election where the sitting delegate is great, but the field of candidates are either poor or untrustworthy. Do we really want rules to prevent the best person from getting the job?
It's safer. Stops up descending down the slippery slope to betrayal.
 
I'm in favour of this and will vote for if brought to the floor.

Though GBM makes very good points, and the issue of stagnation is also a valid one, I find myself convinced by flem. We'll still have elections, we'll still be given the opportunity to boot someone out if the region stagnates. I don't think we're going to descend into a dictatorship whereby elections merely become a rubberstamp exercise - given the personalities in TNP, I don't think there's much chance of that happening.

I also think that when there is a great candidate (in this particular case McMasterdonia) who has to step aside due to term limits, we're often left with lacklustre or second-rate candidates. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here, but I'd rather have a great candidate in for a third or fourth time than be left trying to chose between the lesser of two evils.
 
I think it's worth having weaker candidates every once and awhile in order to give other players a chance to participate.
 
I think Flem missed one:
Some of us (me) really love election season. The campaigning, the debating, the mud-slinging, in short the Competition, is exciting.
Unless he has screwed up royally, the incumbent will always have an advantage. He will have name recognition, he will have already built-up trust, and he will be in a position to help people further their own careers.
When term after term you have a delegate who is a shoe-in, we lose the excitement of the event itself.

I have a couple more positives about term limits, but they aren't so easy to articulate. I guess one reason is tied to my vision of TNP as the land of opportunity. We all know about getting second or third chances here. That's at the one end. But at the other end, there is a real chance to make it big here. I think it motivates people to get involved and show what they can do in every area of TNP life.

Finally, hmmm..... I'll have to think about how to explain it. bbiab.
 
These are the arguments I find persuasive.
flemingovia:
in favour of term limits
Term limits allows the delegacy to be shared around more.
If the delegacy is not shared around, some players might leave.
It stops a popular but idle leader from stagnating the region.
New delegates mean new energy.

in favour of not having term limit
The pool of trusted, delegate-capable players is very small and it seems absurd to stop one of them standing.
Democracy is preserved by, effectively, having a regular referendum on how the delegate is going.
Most feeder delegates run out of steam eventually, so a delegacy would come to an end naturally, when the player or the community is ready for it.
Sooner or later we may get an election where the sitting delegate is great, but the field of candidates are either poor or untrustworthy. Do we really want rules to prevent the best person from getting the job?
Click to expand...

In theory, the arguments against term limits are the most appealing, but I feel like they will not have the desired effect in practice. Unless a delegate is doing a bad job, there is very little motivation to oust them, even if there is a better candidate available. Essentially, it frames the election with the question "do I like the current delegate?" instead of "which of the available candidates is best?"
I think I'm leaning against this bill at the moment.
 
Mall:
I think it's worth having weaker candidates every once and awhile in order to give other players a chance to participate.
Click to expand...
I think I agree with this.

I love mcm. I think he's a phenomenal delegate - better than many. Any change in the delegacy would mean a change in leadership skills, style, and attitude, and that would mean an adjustment. But.. changes in leadership style aren't inherently bad, and it's a good thing to change it up a bit.

Even if mcm is the single best delegate in existence, I'm kind of worried by the sentiment that he's the only one in all of TNP who could do even a tolerable job. I don't think it's the end of the world to have a less successful, less popular, less whatever delegate for a while. That's just part of regional life, and it's something that's going to happen at some point.

I don't have any particular attachment to term limits as such, but I don't think I support this proposal at the moment.
 
Alexandros Rex:
I believe that removing the bar on how many consecutive terms a delegate can hold puts the threat of stagnation into the government. In a region prized for it's democratic values I do not believe this is the proper step. Being a new member to this assembly I feel compelled to comment on how it appears to new coming members who essentially see an "old guard" firm with such bills.
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting anything that would alter our democratic values in a negative way. This bill is in fact a positive for democracy, because it will do away with a needless restriction on who can be a candidate. :)

And "old guard"? If you think this bill is representative of that, then you haven't seen our elections...

Edit: I don't think McMasterdonia is the only one who could execute the position of Delegate, but I want him to have the opportunity to run again if he wants to. It is still up to the electorate to decide if they want to go with someone different.
 
It is up to the electorate to decide if they want to go with someone different, but it changes the nature of the election, turning it into a referendum on an incumbant delegate's performance. Challengers, even those who might be better candidates than a sitting delegate, would need to turn their campaigns into explanations of not only why they would be good delegates, but why they would be a better delegate than the incumbent. It changes the tone of the election, and puts them at a distinct disadvantage. This happens anytime there is an incumbent delegate, of course, which is why delegates who seek a second term usually achieve it, unless they are distinctly unpopular.
 
Mmm... It's pretty hard to run a campaign that says, "I think my opponent has done a fantastic job, I really have very few criticisms, and I'd continue doing pretty similar things with some minor tweaks to account for my own style. You should vote for me, though, and not for them!" For an outgoing officeholder, though, that kind of campaign isn't a death knell.
 
SillyString:
Mall:
I think it's worth having weaker candidates every once and awhile in order to give other players a chance to participate.
Click to expand...
I think I agree with this.
Click to expand...
I would argue that mediocrity may have its place in government and judicial system, but not at the helm.

I want the best person for the job to be there.

It may be a stretch, but one of the principles of TNP law is equal treatment of all (except Govindia). Nobody should be entitled, nobody should be prevented. I think the term limitations abrogates this principle, since it says "Regional Assembly member A may stand for Delegate; regional assembly member B may not."

I agree with CoE when he says that it is up to the RA to decide if they want to go with someone different. But I think the RA is perfectly capable of sensing when a delegacy has run out of steam, and perfectly capable of voting out a sitting delegate.

The RA has made some mind-crushingly stupid decisions in the past. and the weak will always be swayed by persuasive voices, but we tend to get there in the end. I think it is worth trusting the people to exercise their will. If they want the same person to be delegate for more terms, should we really be thwarting their will? Who do we think we are?
 
flemingovia:
SillyString:
Mall:
I think it's worth having weaker candidates every once and awhile in order to give other players a chance to participate.
Click to expand...
I think I agree with this.
Click to expand...
I would argue that mediocrity may have its place in government and judicial system, but not at the helm.

I want the best person for the job to be there.

It may be a stretch, but one of the principles of TNP law is equal treatment of all (except Govindia). Nobody should be entitled, nobody should be prevented. I think the term limitations abrogates this principle, since it says "Regional Assembly member A may stand for Delegate; regional assembly member B may not."

I agree with CoE when he says that it is up to the RA to decide if they want to go with someone different. But I think the RA is perfectly capable of sensing when a delegacy has run out of steam, and perfectly capable of voting out a sitting delegate.

The RA has made some mind-crushingly stupid decisions in the past. and the weak will always be swayed by persuasive voices, but we tend to get there in the end. I think it is worth trusting the people to exercise their will. If they want the same person to be delegate for more terms, should we really be thwarting their will? Who do we think we are?
Click to expand...
The RA keeps making stupid bone headed decisions. I do not even know why we trust the RA to even hold elections in the first place. McMasterdonian Autocracy FTW!
 
As a relative newcomer to the forums, I can't say I know anyone well enough to determine whether they'd be a good candidate for the Delegacy. But to suggest the pool of candidates are 'not as good as McMasterdonia', seems a bit self-serving imo. McM IS a great delegate, that is a given. Having said that, I think that two consecutive terms is an acceptable limit. There may be a better delegate out there. Or not. We should give he/she a chance to prove themselves. The RA may make some 'boneheaded decisions', but that probably won't cease to happen, regardless of who the Delegate is. McM can take 4 months off, and run again if need be. I don't think TNP is in such bad shape that it can't survive a non-McMasterdonian Delegacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top