Total Term Limits Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
abc

abc

Duck
TNP Nation
ABC
Discord
abc#8265
Constitution of The North Pacific:
Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate

1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
4. When a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law is passed, the Speaker shall promptly present it to the Delegate, and it shall take effect immediately upon their signature.
5. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
6. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote, which shall cause a proposal to take immediate effect.
7. If a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law has not been signed or vetoed by the Delegate, it shall take effect seven days after being passed.
8. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
9. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law.
10.. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.
11. In the case of a vacancy or absence in the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the vacated position. If a member of the line of succession assumes the duties of either position while serving in, or having assumed the duties of, any other constitutionally-mandated elected office, they will be considered absent from that office.
12. 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 election cycles.
Click to expand...

Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate

1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
4. When a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law is passed, the Speaker shall promptly present it to the Delegate, and it shall take effect immediately upon their signature.
5. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
6. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote, which shall cause a proposal to take immediate effect.
7. If a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law has not been signed or vetoed by the Delegate, it shall take effect seven days after being passed.
8. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
9. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law.
10.. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.
11. In the case of a vacancy or absence in the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the vacated position. If a member of the line of succession assumes the duties of either position while serving in, or having assumed the duties of, any other constitutionally-mandated elected office, they will be considered absent from that office.
12. 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.

This is long overdue; a simple amendment changing our term limits for Delegate from consecutive to both consecutive and non-consecutive. While I understand that we have had great Delegates who have served in a manner that would be inconsistent with this amendment, such as our current Delegate, I believe that only by truly limiting the number of terms a person can serve in the position can we allow and encourage newer players to run for this office. The problem with our current system is that it is possible for just two or three players to rotate in and out of the Delegacy, making it more difficult for a newcomer to become Delegate. Only by limiting the total number of terms a person can serve as Delegate, can you actually ensure that newcomers will at a regular interval assume the position; bringing fresh ideas and policies with them.

I am open to any suggestions you may have; in particular I am curious as to whether the number of terms should be higher or lower and if there should be separate requirements for consecutive terms and total terms.
 
I do not agree with this and see no reason to support this. I see this as an unnecessary restriction on those who seek to run for delegacy.
 
Non-Starter. Competency and trustworthiness are the two most critical traits needed in a Delegate, and I do not want to see someone win the delegacy by biding their time until their competition can't run.
 
I anticipated that there would be opposition to this and I acknowledge what you have said. I do think it's going a bit far to call this 'horrific' though :P

Sil - I acknowledge your legitimate concerns about this. However, I would like to make a point of saying that this is a massive region and there will almost always be competition in seeking the Delegacy. Supposing you had 2 experienced members who each served 3 terms as Delegate, 1.5 years would pass, which is plenty of time for newcomers to get involved in this community and gain experience. Heck, some of our best leaders have been newcomers. Experience is certainly important and that is why this amendment still allows a Delegate to serve up to 3 terms. If you think they should be allowed more, please tell me that and how many. I know you have differing views with me on this, but there's no need to call this 'non-starter'. The number of terms can always be changed and as I suggested, the consecutive and non-consecutive term limits can differ.
 
You mention that our current system would allow the same people to run over and over again, and at the same time state that some of our best leaders have been new comers. This would suggest that our current system is working as intended. We the people vote for the delegate, we choose who we want to lead us. If we want a new comer who shows promise and the ability to lead, we will vote them in. If we do not want the new player, but think that our best option is the proven path, then it is our right to choose. Imposing total term limits would unnecessary restrict us at a time when it is not necessary.

With total term limits we can quickly drain our pool of delegates and by simple attrition end up with a delegate who can do great harm to our region. We are a large region, but we do not have a large group of players who are interested in regional government to support this measure.
 
Even if legal framework works under current circumstances, it is also necessary that it anticipates possible outcomes.

I find it strange that so many suggest that limiting a Delegate to 3 terms would do so much harm. In the past, we have had extended periods of time where that has been the case, even without there being a law requiring that and this region has remained stable and even prospered.

In proposing this amendment; I also considered the very real life examples of this in practice. This is the case, for example, in the United States, France, and South Korea. All three countries have non-consecutive term limits because of the belief that leadership must change in order to prevent a leader from effectively becoming a 'King' and growing their influence so great to the point that it is near-impossible to surmount. The only major country that has recently abolished its term limits law was China - this was met with broad criticism from around the world because of its clear implication of reducing what little democracy the country had left.
 
While I think that this is in good faith, I also think it's unnecessary to impose this restriction in TNP. NationStates doesn't have that many people that are interested in or competent enough to run such a demanding office. My fear is that forcing term limits would eventually make an inexperienced Delegate into the seat and hurt the region.
 
Artemis:
Not the best of decorum in the Regional Assembly.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for Bob, obviously, but I am not referring to ABC. That would be low of me. :P

The resolution is quite clearly stupid and unnecessary; not much more really needs to be said about it. I'm not alone in that sentiment either:
St George:
Horrific suggestion.
Click to expand...
Hope this clarifies.
 
Last edited:
Sanjurika - While I understand your concerns, I must dispute this. In all 3 past elections, almost all Delegate candidates were Ministers or other government officials who would not be impacted by this sort of amendment. In addition, it's important to note that we'd likely get even more candidates with the implementation of such an amendment as people who otherwise wouldn't run might consider running because they wouldn't be facing someone who had the 'incumbent advantage'. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, when this has actually happened in practice, The North Pacific hasn't fallen into tyranny or instability; it has done just fine.

I found an interesting article that while not quite pertaining to our specific circumstances, does a good job of explaining the benefits of such term limits.
 
Last edited:
I wholeheartedly oppose this amendment to the furthest degree possible and see absolutely no reason as to why this is necessary or warranted
 
While I understand the point of this proposal, I can't support it. I don't really think we need to restrict the amount of times someone can hold the delegacy. If someone wants to run, then they should be allowed to run, no matter how many times they led the region in the past. Besides we know it's possible for any hardworking, trustworthy, capable citizen to defeat a former delegate seeking re-election, and become delegate. So I don't really see the need of such restriction.

By all means, we must encourage new players to run, but don't leave the "veterans" out.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry abc, but I can't get behind this. @Dreadton put it best, if we want a newcomer who has a vision we can get behind we'll elect a newcomer. If we want to elect a tried and tested Delegate, we should be able to do so. Our current system allows for everyone to be a delegate, what you're proposing would exclude a good chunk of long-time members of this community from being delegate again.
 
I don't believe the US government is something we want to emulate here.

That being said, there currently is not enough competition in our Delegate elections. Let's not reduce it any further.
 
I agree with nearly every sentiment expressed above.

In most instances, I would support restrictions on how long or how many times an elected official can hold office, and I understand where this is coming from. However, I simply can't see this working with how many people we have in the region who want to run for delegate (competent and able people that is).
 
@Dreadton brought up a very good point: We here in the North Pacific cherish our democracy and in a democratic setting if a candidate who you’d prefer not be elected to office runs then they do so on their own merits and by no means must they be elected provided the citizenry doesn’t vote for them. If a Delegate of the past who served the region well during their previous tenure would like another term then it’s up to the citizenry to decide if they ought to be afforded that opportunity again. That isn’t something we have to legislate, and it certainly isn’t something that should prohibit competent and capable North Pacificans from seeking high public office ever again.

Don’t like it? Don’t vote for it.
 
Last edited:
abc:
Sanjurika - While I understand your concerns, I must dispute this. In all 3 past elections, almost all Delegate candidates were Ministers or other government officials who would not be impacted by this sort of amendment. In addition, it's important to note that we'd likely get even more candidates with the implementation of such an amendment as people who otherwise wouldn't run might consider running because they wouldn't be facing someone who had the 'incumbent advantage'. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, when this has actually happened in practice, The North Pacific hasn't fallen into tyranny or instability; it has done just fine.

I found an interesting article that while not quite pertaining to our specific circumstances, does a good job of explaining the benefits of such term limits.
Click to expand...
Except for me running last election. There was also almost five years since my last term in office.

I would remind you that other than me, the only other person to be elected to a third non-consecutive term recently was Ghost. Otherwise everyone else in the last few years has been elected for the first time (or second time in terms of a second term of office).

ps is this the “I Hate Mcm” Bill?
 
Last edited:
Well, this got a lot of replies.

Praetor - I knew someone would talk about the US not being something we want to emulate, which is why I included two other countries :P

McM - no lol I didn't really want to exclude you; I was actually thinking of expanding this to 3 consecutive terms and 5 non consecutive ones.

That being said, I can clearly see that the general sentiment is against this bill. Looking back at the article I shared, I find that a lot of the best arguments for term limits simply don't apply to us. I would therefore like to withdraw this bill from consideration.
 
Against. One of the reasons TNP works is that during inactive periods, there's always a trusted veteran that has done the job many times ready to step up and lead the region through it. Term limits like this set up a scenario of an election where no one wants to run and someone willing to step up can't.
 
As much as I understand where this is coming from, as a relatively new player myself, I in no way support this bill. I would support, however, adding term limits to the Vice Delegate to match that of the Delegate, but other than that, no.

Plus, @mcmasterdonia is amazing! #McM4Delegate
 
Angshire:
As much as I understand where this is coming from, as a relatively new player myself, I in no way support this bill. I would support, however, adding term limits to the Vice Delegate to match that of the Delegate, but other than that, no.

Plus, @mcmasterdonia is amazing! #McM4Delegate
Click to expand...
Pallaith:
Why?
Click to expand...
Yeah, why? It's a completely different job. In the event the Delegate leaves or is removed, the VD holds the delegacy long enough for a special election. It doesn't finish the Delegate's term, unless we're within that special window where it says not to hold a special election.
 
Last edited:
Pallaith:
Why?
Click to expand...
Sil Dorsett:
Yeah, why? It's a completely different job. In the event the Delegate leaves or is removed, the VD holds the delegacy long enough for a special election. It doesn't finish the Delegate's term, unless we're within that special window where it says not to hold a special election.
Click to expand...

I mean, while it is true VD is an entirely different job with different responsibilities, it's hard to ignore the fact that theoretically someone could run an unlimited number of times and win and unlimited number of times. Don't take my word for it though, I was just rambling.

Regarding abc's suggestion though, that basically disqualifies veterans from getting a chance to be delegate. Not a good suggestion, against.
 
Last edited:
Our system is pretty similar to Russia’s, but quite frankly I don’t see a problem with it. Besides, experience in the Delegacy is good for a candidate.
 
I oppose this ammendment. However, I do think it was needed to be bought up to discussion.

But still, No.
 
mcmasterdonia:
How is it similar to Russia? Not sure I really like that comparison :O
Click to expand...
Technically speaking, the Russian constitution allows only 2 consecutive terms, but nothing about non-consecutive terms. Which is why Putin was both the 2nd and 4th President of Russia.
 
Last edited:
This thread has been closed as the motion has been withdrawn. Should the proposer wish to reopen the discussion, please contact the Speakers Office.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top