I love McMasterdonia

I think he should be allowed to run, and have the voters be the ultimate decider. It is a pitiable argument to say that it would discourage people from running for elected office. Those are not people I would want to be in control of the Delegacy anyway. There is nothing punitive associated with running for Delegate or any other position, it is as simple as posting an intention to run. You don't even need to create a thread. Persistence is a potential strategy for winning election, just ask Romanoffia.

As for the stagnation argument, it appears to me that those people are not arguing in good faith, I mean, have you seen our government? It's generally the same group of people over and over and over. We already have the stagnation, may as well remove this restriction.

Hmmm, that makes me think. Should I introduce a proposal to apply term limits to all government positions? Because you know, stagnation and the intimidation of incumbency... :unsure:
 
Kiwi:
Interestingly, I'm curious to see how harshly DD is judged for his use of the veto power
Click to expand...
I hate to disappoint, but I doubt that I will be judged harshly by anyone but my already well established detractors. People who would never vote for me, regardless of my performance in a position. :)
 
Democratic Donkeys:
I think he should be allowed to run, and have the voters be the ultimate decider. It is a pitiable argument to say that it would discourage people from running for elected office. Those are not people I would want to be in control of the Delegacy anyway. There is nothing punitive associated with running for Delegate or any other position, it is as simple as posting an intention to run. You don't even need to create a thread. Persistence is a potential strategy for winning election, just ask Romanoffia.

As for the stagnation argument, it appears to me that those people are not arguing in good faith, I mean, have you seen our government? It's generally the same group of people over and over and over. We already have the stagnation, may as well remove this restriction.

Hmmm, that makes me think. Should I introduce a proposal to apply term limits to all government positions? Because you know, stagnation and the intimidation of incumbency... :unsure:
Click to expand...
It's not our job to argue for "in good faith" we have to consider the environment of the position over that of the good will of the candidate. Even though mcm is a great delegate and has proved that he is capable of doing a good job as delegate he is still held in the same light as every other position of ultimate authority. The position of delegate should remain in such restrictions to ensure the continued freedom and liberty of our region. It's not just a negative block for our grand delegates as it appears you are presenting it as. TNP is not going to die without one specific delegate for four months.
 
Jamison Rex:
he is still held in the same light as every other position of ultimate authority.
Click to expand...
No, he isn't.

In TNP the office of delegate is the only one for which we have term limits. Justices (who, remember, can issue legal rulings overruling the delegate) can go on forever.

In other regions of NS there are hundreds of regions, perhaps a majority, which do not have delegate term limits.

In the real world, while America has term limits there are many countries which do not. In the UK, for example, the Prime Minister can serve until he is removed by his party or voted out by the electorate. India, Australia, Canada, Peru, Venezuela, Uruguay, Switzerland, Russia, Singapore and many other nations do not have term limits.
 
Note to DD: Perhaps this needs to be brought to vote soon, to have a hope of being passed before the next election starts.
 
Mall:
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*
Click to expand...
Thanks, I was suddenly feeling TP has been forgotten...

---------------

I would just like to add this...

TNP glorifies to be one of the longest standing democracies in this cyberverse. Democracies are usually characterized by equality and freedom. This equality is not born out of the previous life of the citizen, but on citizenship on itself. Had a man be a murderer, a rapist, a saint, a humble leader, of a tyrannical idiot, he is still to be considered equal to his peers and subject to the same laws. When you prevent someone from running for a position based on his previous positions, he is not being treated equal to others. And hence, one of the main tenets of democracy is violated for the sake of democracy...

I know this is somehow basic, and some may even say is a simplistic approach, but is one I truly believe in when considering democracies. The voters should all have the same right of choice, and the citizens all the same right of running, regardless of previous positions or experience. Exception to this is criminal prosecution, when one CAN actually loose rights for previously having violated the law, rights that would technically recover once a punishment or sentence has been served.
 
flemingovia:
Jamison Rex:
he is still held in the same light as every other position of ultimate authority.
Click to expand...
No, he isn't.

In TNP the office of delegate is the only one for which we have term limits. Justices (who, remember, can issue legal rulings overruling the delegate) can go on forever.

In other regions of NS there are hundreds of regions, perhaps a majority, which do not have delegate term limits.

In the real world, while America has term limits there are many countries which do not. In the UK, for example, the Prime Minister can serve until he is removed by his party or voted out by the electorate. India, Australia, Canada, Peru, Venezuela, Uruguay, Switzerland, Russia, Singapore and many other nations do not have term limits.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly you were stating early that we need not follow the legal limits similar to the United States as it pertains to the real world. How is it necessary to cite the United Kingdom's legal perimeters surrounding the executive branch's head? I don't believe that it is necessarily WRONG to work this bill, however it is not beneficial to have this part of our legal foundation amended at this time so close to elections.
 
flemingovia:
Note to DD: Perhaps this needs to be brought to vote soon, to have a hope of being passed before the next election starts.
Click to expand...
As soon as possible, I'd say... Please :)
 
Jamison Rex:
flemingovia:
Jamison Rex:
he is still held in the same light as every other position of ultimate authority.
Click to expand...
No, he isn't.

In TNP the office of delegate is the only one for which we have term limits. Justices (who, remember, can issue legal rulings overruling the delegate) can go on forever.

In other regions of NS there are hundreds of regions, perhaps a majority, which do not have delegate term limits.

In the real world, while America has term limits there are many countries which do not. In the UK, for example, the Prime Minister can serve until he is removed by his party or voted out by the electorate. India, Australia, Canada, Peru, Venezuela, Uruguay, Switzerland, Russia, Singapore and many other nations do not have term limits.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly you were stating early that we need not follow the legal limits similar to the United States as it pertains to the real world. How is it necessary to cite the United Kingdom's legal perimeters surrounding the executive branch's head? I don't believe that it is necessarily WRONG to work this bill, however it is not beneficial to have this part of our legal foundation amended at this time so close to elections.
Click to expand...
I was only citing the UK and other countries to point out the factual error in your earlier statement.
 
May I make a motion to merge the two bills bareing McMs name. Instead of a yearly observence of McMasterdonian day. When the I love McMasterdonia Constitutional amendment to end term limits passes; may we have a 1 time McMasterdonian Celebration?!!!? I feel that would appease everybody.
 
Elegarth:
I know this is somehow basic, and some may even say is a simplistic approach, but is one I truly believe in when considering democracies.
Click to expand...
It's not basic or simplistic, it is fundamental to the nature of democracy. Everyone is treated equally, or so we would hope.
 
Pasargad:
For those mentioning india , uk and other countries I would like to add examples of zimbawe , Venezuela , Russia.....
Click to expand...
There is nothing that can stop a tyranny from being born out of any form of government where those rules forget that theirs is the power.

Hence, why I admit your example shows how not limiting can be abused, there is also a lot behind those abuses and how they come be in the real world that would not apply here
 
And we're back...

I love McM too, but I don't believe he should be delegate for life. I also know, relatively speaking, McM is a newbie. He joined in 2012. I think our term limits allow for someone like McM to rise through the ranks and have an opportunity to become delegate. I'd rather not relax those limits for fear that we won't find the next McM.
 
The amendment does not ask to continue the reign of McMasterdonia, it merely eliminates a term limit for the Delegacy. Whether McMasterdonia is elected again or not would be up the electorate. I heartily encourage people who are against this proposal to still vote "Aye", and then exercise your personal principles with your vote. If you don't like the idea of voting someone in for a third term then you can vote for someone else in the election.
 
I'm struggling with the concept of allowing someone to be elected three times. I do like the turnover we have. I think an McM delegacy has been great, but I really enjoy the turnover. I will likely vote against this for those reasons.
 
I'm struggling with the concept of allowing someone to be elected three times.
Click to expand...

I know it can be a struggle to overcome conventional wisdom, but please do try. :P

Before FDR, there was the cultural practice of people not electing a President to a third term because of Washington. The electorate enforced implicit standards without the need for legislation. Could that sort of informed practice be instilled here in the people who want to keep this amendment, while those of us who feel that a candidate is worthy of a third term be allowed the option to vote for them?

Strike this amendment from the Constitution, and we can give it a try.
 
To be honest, I fear a situation where new players don't get opportunities to rise through the ranks. FDR probably would have been reelected until he died (hmm...he was). I just don't think I can support a wide open era, but I'll keep following the conversation.
 
punk d:
To be honest, I fear a situation where new players don't get opportunities to rise through the ranks. FDR probably would have been reelected until he died (hmm...he was). I just don't think I can support a wide open era, but I'll keep following the conversation.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to make you afraid, but an examination of the line of TNP delegates leads one to some fearful conclusions...
 
Democratic Donkeys:
I heartily encourage people who are against this proposal to still vote "Aye", and then exercise your personal principles with your vote.
Click to expand...
Those who are against the proposal will not vote for the proposal.
 
Jamison Rex:
Democratic Donkeys:
I heartily encourage people who are against this proposal to still vote "Aye", and then exercise your personal principles with your vote.
Click to expand...
Those who are against the proposal will not vote for the proposal.
Click to expand...
There just aren't words.... :tb2:
 
Just curious what is MCM's views regarding this and why he is not participating in the debates and people asking for mcm day and end to term limits do they have mcm's support on this issue?
 
I think McM is on record as saying he does not want McMDay to become a holiday, but he would like the chance to serve one more term as delegate.
 
Pasargad:
Just curious what is MCM's views regarding this and why he is not participating in the debates and people asking for mcm day and end to term limits do they have mcm's support on this issue?
Click to expand...
McM day definitely does not have my support and I don't wish to be associated with it.

On this matter, I've said that I would probably run again if I had that option. I've had several members approach me and express their desire that I run for a third term for various reasons. Obviously this was not possible without constitutional amendment.

I can understand the concerns about this, but I also understand the arguments in favour of it. SillyStrings argument that it is okay to have a Delegate that is not as popular or as whatever (in comparison to the previous Delegate) is true. It is also true that it can cause a resurgence in activity due to the discontent or the adjustment that a transition will bring. However it could have the opposite effect as well.

The region has changed a lot since I first joined. I feel that the community has matured and that we all have a healthy respect and attitude towards one another - at least most of the time. Go archive diving through the threads of 2012 if you want a laugh.

I appreciated the opportunity and support I was given in my initial run for Delegate. That opportunity and support could still exist for another candidate regardless of term limits, but it is up to the community to provide those opportunities and to provide that support. I have done what I can for various aspiring and ambitious players in this region and I intend to continue to do that.

It was a difficult adjustment when I stepped down as Delegate last time. Sanctaria and I did the best we could to support the new Delegate and to help him develop in that role. At times it was a struggle and at times the regional community wasn't as understanding or supportive as we may have liked. His style and approach was different, but being Delegate can sometimes mean that you jump from the frying pan into the fire in an instant. Not everyone is able to handle those situations and it ultimately can result in a disconnect between the Delegate and the community (or their critics).

Tl;dr: If you want me to be able to run in the next Delegate election this amendment will need to be passed. You will need to keep in mind that this amendment will affect all future Delegates (unless it is amended again).

If you do not feel that a Delegate should serve for more than two consecutive terms then you will need to vote this down.

It is as simple as that. However you vote on this, I will not take it as a negative view on my Delegacy or on me personally. Democracy in action.

I would really prefer to not have to say more than that. I will abstain from voting on this matter.
 
I'm in the same boat as COE with this one.

On one hand, if an incumbent can do a better job than all the prospective successors, then it is irrational not to allow them to run for another term. Furthermore, term limits arguably contradict democratic principles, overriding popular choice.

On the other hand, there are risks that term limits attempt to ameliorate, and based on empirical evidence from other regions the risks are plausible. There is an acknowledged incumbency boost in elections, and very frequently this boost comes for reasons unrelated to the incumbent's merit relative to the other contenders. It can be for reasons of familiarity, complacency, or just a sense of entitlement created for the incumbent. This can result in a virtual autocracy, even if that is not the intention of the incumbent, and stagnation. It can also mean that, when the incumbent does eventually retire, there will be noone prepared or willing to step up to replace them. In a region with an engaged electorate, such as TNP, these risks are somewhat remote, but if they do happen they will be considerably harmful.

I will likely abstain when this goes to vote.
 
In case everyone isn't aware, the way the law is currently written McM can have a 3rd or 4th term. He would just have to sit out a term and then run again. Maybe his incumbent opponent would give him a real challenge. See, politics is the competition for scarce resources. In a political game, the thrill is in the competition. It's just more fun that way.

Since I've gone OOC, I may as well explain why I feel so strongly about term limits. When I was in my mid-twenties, I worked my way up in my job and was promoted to a management position. Now don't tell me why a major national corporation would think that just because someone could do one job well, it meant they could do a completely different job - supervising people who were doing the old job - equally well. I had a staff of 20 and not a clue how to get them to do what needed done. In short, I had no experience running anything, and I truly sucked at it.

So what does this have to do with TNP? Well, it's one of the things that I love so much about this game, even after 10 years it keeps me coming back. Getting the chance to run a big region like this is a tremendous opportunity to develop skills like leadership, diplomacy and team-building without the RL consequences of screwing up royally. No one is going to get fired and end up on unemployment. No one is going to lose a big contract over it. I enjoy seeing high school and college students, who have never gotten a chance to be in charge of anything before, get a shot here. Term limits allow more people to try things that most schools don't teach and most workplaces demand. And it's a game. It's fun. Being the Delegate in TNP is grand. Everyone should go for it.
 
Ugh. Time to vote and I am conflicted.

On one hand if Mcm feels he has another term in him I feel we should let him run. On the other hand after reading others compelling arguments I am not at all comfortable with eliminating term limits all together. If this bill stated they could run for no more than 4 terms consecutive I would support it 100%. I feel running 3 four month cycles equivilant of a year is sufficent. Then if they want to run again take a term off and re-run again next time. As it is proposed for voting. I do not feel I can support this. This is not a reflection on McM as I feel he is a great delegate but the possibility of taking away term limits alltogether and we get a delegate who isnt McM in and isnt as "democratic" per say...I don't know. So I feel Mcm should be able to run for at least 1 more consecutive term. So I do not want to vote Nay. But I am uncomfortable about taking away term limits alltogether. So I feel I have to Abstain. And if this does pass, dont be surprised if I support or even sponsor another term limits amendment for no more then three 4 month terms (12 months total) and then they have to take at least 1 term off before trying to re-run. Thanks.
 
My original proposal allowed for a three term limit, but Flemingovia made a good suggestion that I incorporated. There shouldn't be term limits at all.

Edit: This all reminds me of the 2nd question I asked in Treize Dreizehn's Justice campaign thread.
 
In all honesty, I would be very happy to see McM be Delegate for as long as he wants to be Delegate. He has done an outstanding job and would like to see him continue in that job.

However, the objectivity of eliminating term limits for the Delegate is questionable for any number of reasons.

1.) An incumbent generally wins elections which means that eventually a devil will come along and people tend to vote for the devil they know as opposed to the devil they do not.

2.) It allows a for a Delegate with less than honorable goals to consolidate power and to manipulate the democratic process in order to remain in power for as long as possible.

3.) It discourages others who may aspire to be Delegate from staying in a region that limits the potential for achievement.

4.) It promotes an elitist system in which personal achievement is stifled.

5.) It will drive talent from the region by denying and eliminating a certain objective of competition.

6.) It will eventually result in stagnation and ultimately decay of the quality of this region by forcing talent to leave the region for greener pastures, thus weakening the region.

As such, I cannot support the elimination of term limits for Delegate simply because the region has 'changed' or times have 'changed' be cause sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, one day we will regret not having term limits.
 
At some point I would like a I?Democratic Donkeys amendment. Though I don't know what it would say. Maybe just add it on as a rider to name some random legislation thusly.
 
I honestly have more faith in the electorate than you, roman

If we elect the devil, I think people will vote them out, incumbent or not.

As for the "elitist system", I would argue we already have that. There is private discussion before every election to make sure a trusted or safe candidate is on the ballot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top