Term Limit Removal Bill
- Thread starter Pallaith
- Start date
- TNP Nation
- Castle in Confidence
- Discord
- .wonderess
Why were the original limits instituted?
Originally term limits were instituted so more people would have a chance to be WAD. There was a very short list of nations that were arguably unbeatable in an election. The incumbency hurdle was then, and still is, a factor in our elections. Having term limits offsets the hurdle and provides a more level playing field.
I want to thank Ghost for bringing this forward, and also for doing the research on GCR delegates. These types of things need to be reviewed from time to time. He has some very persuasive arguments, and I was considering the merits of his position when I re-read the "I Love McMasterdonia" thread cited above. I found I still believed the things I said then.
I want to thank Ghost for bringing this forward, and also for doing the research on GCR delegates. These types of things need to be reviewed from time to time. He has some very persuasive arguments, and I was considering the merits of his position when I re-read the "I Love McMasterdonia" thread cited above. I found I still believed the things I said then.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I haven't had time yet to give a more meaningful contribution to this thread (thanks, unexpected / long overdue claims on my time), but I want to point out that I don't like this sort of argument. First, I think it's inappropriate to demean any of our fellow citizens. Second, I think it's senseless to see Siwale as some kind of follower: I've always respected his willingness to have his own opinions and stand by them. Third, if you're going to express dissatisfaction, directly say what you mean and who it's about!
I intend to debate in this thread, in a manner befitting the dignity of the Regional Assembly of The North Pacific. I will support a case based on the best interests of our democracy, and there will be no need to denigrate, deride, or dissemble. But apparently there is need for discipline: let's be a healthy legislature, and respect each other and each other's respect for the region. And if we can't do it by our own volition, maybe we need a Speaker prepared to do their duty as presiding officer over this body and make us clean up our act.
First, as COE said above, the other three offices are completely incomparable in power to the delegate. The delegate enacts policies that can affect every aspect of an ordinary's citizen's life in TNP, no matter what they are interested in: from posting on the RMB to voting in the WA, from participating in the NPA to joining any ministry, from trading cards to roleplaying on the forum or RMB. The delegate is also the only official that can represent the region as a whole abroad. And, as I said above, it is primarily thanks to the policies of the delegate's government that the region continues to evolve and improve. No other office has the same reach, no other office comes anywhere close to so holistically affecting the region. And that is why we need special safeguards for this office and not for the others.
Second, while the RA will remain supreme, the RA and all of our democratic institutions and culture need strong structural support in order to function effectively. That's why we have an entrenched constitution, putting in place certain safeguards, and we do not just rely that the RA will deal with everything. If the RA alone could be expected to preserve our democratic culture, then we would not have a need for the Bill of Rights, a court, or any of the other safeguards the constitution provides for --- safeguards that, wisely, include the term limits. We would just trust the RA to enforce these things.
And third, even if losing candidates are brought into the cabinet, there is simple no comparison between what you describe and the mandate and freedom a winning candidate gets in enacting their policies, especially if these policies include far-sweeping reform. In fact, historically, when there are serious policy differences between delegate candidates, we actually only see a modicum, if any part at all, of the losing candidate's policies make it into the winning candidate's eventual enacted policies.
It is only natural for people to not want to fight battles they will most likely lose. And, when they go against seasoned delegates that come out of one or (if this amendment passes) several completed terms, chances are they will lose. You say "you have to fight for it", but against an incumbent, and especially the kind of multi-term incumbent repealing this amendment would allow for, it is an uneven fight.
Term limits help ensure that, at least every second election, the chances will be more even, and people will put in the effort and take the risk to run.
Additionally, you say you wish more people would decide to go for it and run, even if they were going to lose. The reason why this does not happen is unrelated to term limits. It has more to do with a lack of mechanisms for encouraging citizens, and especially newer citizens, to pick up the mantle and run against incumbents. We need more effective such mechanisms --- for example, senior members of the region can mentor newer members into putting up serious campaigns against incumbents, explaining to them that they can benefit from them even if they lose.
Term limits are not the cause of the problem you describe. If anything, they are a partial solution: they help ensure that, even in the absence of the encouragement and mentoring mechanisms I describe, new candidates will get a chance to run --- and win. Repealing the term limits, without the region at large doing a proper job mentoring newer citizens into getting involved in electoral politics, would simply make the problem worse: these same newer citizens would now just wait a lot longer before there is an opportunity where they can confidently enter the race. Term limits ensure that, at the very least, they won't have to wait for more than eight months.
The problem you describe has a solution, which is unrelated to term limits. Repealing term limits, without solving the problem the right way, would just make it a lot worse.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
- Pronouns
- He/Him, They/Them
Before you lecture anyone about duty, take a moment to reflect at how often you replied to admin pings on discord when I requested the attention or help of the admin team when I led RP, and maybe reflect on how, more than a year after people donated money for the upkeep and upgrade of the forum, you still haven't upgraded the forum.
So perhaps instead of barging in here lecturing anyone about decorum or dignity and threatening to recall the speaker, maybe do your own role a bit better, because frankly, you've been deficient.
Last edited:
I'm laughing my butt off at this
This ad homenin would work a lot better if r3n wasn't a competent, long-time contributor and innovator and guardian to TNP.
the same goes for McM, who is often agreed with.
(and right now it seems they're at opposite opinions.)
So yeah, you just described the majority of TNP. (Since either stance agrees with either one.)
-trailing behind their penguin savior (r3n)
-trailing behind Melania Trump (McM)
----
Sorry for the side comment
I'm mostly just amused. I'm going to give my two cents about the topic shortly.
I too wish McM was delegate again it's been one of the amazing delegacy we I've ever seen on NS , he'd be even better if Mods/Admins actually listened to him or MJ (about forum upgrades) I feel he was robbed :c
I would love if McM got a longer term. this has been well, I feel I haven't seen enough of it (not only because I'm just busy but because I want more)
I can list a bunch of work he's done off the top of my head that I can see he has ideas as to how to improve, and what he's already improved for TNP. Come on please give him more time XD
I understand r3n's point about wanting elections to increase competition but aggggh
No competition will match up to the past two terms
Think of this as an unfinished project 2/3 terms completed
I think people are just worried that eventually someone other than McM will end up delegate for life once this limit is removed.
Can we just expand the term limit to 3 terms then...?
We've never had a situation like this one before, where a Delegate has done so spectacular their work, and started a project that, we want to give him more term limits to complete it.
McM is unprecedented lol
but I really don't see myself wanting to see any other delegate for longer than 2 terms so I understand other citizens' concerns. I'd full support if it's three or four terms.
if that can't happen then , well I'd support this but want this reversible if he retires.
Tl;dr I feel support for this motion if McM plans to run for delegacy again, but feel some worries about what if someone other than McM end up the delegate?
That would become a real security issue.
Incumbents often win re-election, including that do less than 1/100th the work McM do, imagine one of those as life delegates
then he goes crazy and boots people out on his 3rd year as soon as people get tired of him and elect someone else and welp, he's got three years to raise his endos.
Sighhhh
Oh right the flip side of that is TNP will be even more WA voter-powerful and influential in the WA affairs of McM is given more time to raise his endorsements
because TNP delegate endorsements while being highest on NS could go even higher and has only reached half potential because of delegate transitions in which the incumbent delegate has to work to actively lose endorsements for the new delegate.
I would also be more inclined to recruit people to endorse TNP delegate because I know this won't go away in a term or two.
Thanks for reading
My post seems to support both sides
I would love if McM got a longer term. this has been well, I feel I haven't seen enough of it (not only because I'm just busy but because I want more)
I can list a bunch of work he's done off the top of my head that I can see he has ideas as to how to improve, and what he's already improved for TNP. Come on please give him more time XD
I understand r3n's point about wanting elections to increase competition but aggggh
No competition will match up to the past two terms
Think of this as an unfinished project 2/3 terms completed
I think people are just worried that eventually someone other than McM will end up delegate for life once this limit is removed.
Can we just expand the term limit to 3 terms then...?
We've never had a situation like this one before, where a Delegate has done so spectacular their work, and started a project that, we want to give him more term limits to complete it.
McM is unprecedented lol
but I really don't see myself wanting to see any other delegate for longer than 2 terms so I understand other citizens' concerns. I'd full support if it's three or four terms.
if that can't happen then , well I'd support this but want this reversible if he retires.
Tl;dr I feel support for this motion if McM plans to run for delegacy again, but feel some worries about what if someone other than McM end up the delegate?
That would become a real security issue.
Incumbents often win re-election, including that do less than 1/100th the work McM do, imagine one of those as life delegates
then he goes crazy and boots people out on his 3rd year as soon as people get tired of him and elect someone else and welp, he's got three years to raise his endos.
Sighhhh
Oh right the flip side of that is TNP will be even more WA voter-powerful and influential in the WA affairs of McM is given more time to raise his endorsements
because TNP delegate endorsements while being highest on NS could go even higher and has only reached half potential because of delegate transitions in which the incumbent delegate has to work to actively lose endorsements for the new delegate.
I would also be more inclined to recruit people to endorse TNP delegate because I know this won't go away in a term or two.
Thanks for reading
My post seems to support both sides
wow I'm surprised people enjoy the three term idea! Okay I'll vote for that, and see where we are at four months from now.
(I did run TEP as a TEP Delegate for 3 terms before retiring after all, it was the perfect length to reform the region into success. (Sadly, the successor who replaced me, failed all my expectations and reversed all my work *stick tongue out* (no offense Fedele but u sucked) )
(I did run TEP as a TEP Delegate for 3 terms before retiring after all, it was the perfect length to reform the region into success. (Sadly, the successor who replaced me, failed all my expectations and reversed all my work *stick tongue out* (no offense Fedele but u sucked) )
From my understanding, one of the main arguments made in favor of this bill is that the citizenry should be able to decide when a Delegate's term is up on a case-by-case basis. This does nothing to address this. What it does do is encourage a cultural shift to a new norm of 1 year long Delegate terms leading to decreased leadership turnover and a deficit in new ideas and styles. This is a classic situation you see with compromises - all parties suffer.
To reiterate, 3 terms is a good compromise between the two possibilities laid out in the debate in attempt to resolve the question of term limits, but I could not definitively say that I think pushing it back to 3 terms will solve anything, or make any improvements. To state that, we would need to try it for a few years and see how things go. I'm just not sure how ready the community is to try, or how quickly we could realize if making the compromise did indeed cause all parties to suffer.
It's worth a try. There is still the problem, however, of exceptional Delegates being unable to continue serving as leader of the region beyond a certain number of terms. Could we offer Delegates who are stepping down from office a position in the government as an advisor, allowing them to offer invaluable wisdom and experience while serving in a less stressful position?
The law as it is currently written allows term-limited Delegates to run again after at least one term has passed. Delegates are only term-limited after two consecutive terms, and cannot serve a third consecutive term.
Extending the term limit to three terms is the worst solution out of all three. It neither alleviates the problem suggested by the proposers, nor have the benefits of term limits argued by the opponents.
Sorry to disappoint the compromise crowd, but a change to a 3 term limit would defeat the purpose of this bill. I appreciate that some may consider it to be a soft version of removing term limits, since it's unlikely anyone would go beyond three if term limits were removed, and it probably wouldn't be as common as Siwale suggests for us to end up with 3 term delegates (however, it does make the barrier to doing that from a cultural perspective much lower and it would probably happen a few times). If you're really serious about pleading a case for such a thing, feel free to propose your own amendment. It will not have my support, but you do what you got to do.
I really appreciate the points made by some of our long-time and respected TNPers. A term limit forces an open election after two cycles, this is true. We have already explored whether that makes a difference (sometimes old incumbents come back anyway, sometimes the talent available isn't very...talented), but the fact remains, it does force a change at least every 8 months. I think all of us, proponents of this bill and opponents of the bill, can agree that we want our culture of fresh faces and regular turnover to continue. We do not want the same person to be delegate forever (well, maybe some of us do, and I appreciate their candor in coming out and saying so). We are suspicious of anything that strips our democracy away. We differ on our assumptions and beliefs about what a world without this term limit looks like. It is easy to imagine everything r3n said coming true. It is just as easy for me to imagine my vision of competitive elections every cycle coming true. It depends on what all of us are willing to do. It depends on us being careful, thoughtful, and most importantly, accountable. We have to be willing to be tough but fair, we have to be prepared to be brutally honest if it comes to it, if a delegate wants to keep serving and asks us to sacrifice the kind of fresh renewal a term limit can offer us. I believe in the culture of TNP, and I believe that it can adapt to a world without a term limit. But I do not say that idly, I know that it will be more work than a lot of people may be appreciating. Making this change is placing a large bet on who we are as participants in TNP's democracy, and whether we really believe all that nice stuff we say about looking forward and renewing our government and looking out for the best people for the job and protecting those democratic and egalitarian values we're supposed to have. It isn't enough just to remove term limits to prove that all of that is true.
If you want more exciting elections, more meaningful elections, you have to be braver as potential candidates and more critical as voters. That will be even more true without a term limit than it is with one. I wish we could be those kinds of voters now, but I do believe term limits provide a great deal of complacency. I am fully aware that removing this bumper from the bowling lane of politics means that if the right candidate and the right run of bad luck comes along, we could fail a critical test, and we can throw the TNP's democracy straight into the gutter. But TNP has played it safe as long as I have been in this region. I was inspired by the strong response to abc's term limit bill, I believed that this region has loud and tough voices that will not fail to meet the challenges a world without a term limit will provide. But that kind of faith is scary. We don't know what will happen, and we don't know if we will live up to our best potential. There is a responsibility that we have to take seriously if we do this. So I really do appreciate the support this bill has received, I believe that the support proves my instincts right, but I want all of the supporters to recognize the significance of this decision. I want you to really see that nothing comes free, and the kind of elections we imagine will result from this change won't just happen on their own. We have to make that potential reality an actual reality. If the very day after this bill passes, you aren't prepared to up your game, as candidates challenging incumbents or newcomers wanting to put yourself out there as the next leaders of TNP, as RA members prepared to be a check on the executive and to keep the government honest and responsive, as voters really weighing your choices and making sure you get everything you possibly can out of campaigns, as citizens protecting your rights and freedoms and not letting the changing tides determine how many of those rights and freedoms you get to keep or to what extent, then you should really think twice about supporting this bill.
I really appreciate the points made by some of our long-time and respected TNPers. A term limit forces an open election after two cycles, this is true. We have already explored whether that makes a difference (sometimes old incumbents come back anyway, sometimes the talent available isn't very...talented), but the fact remains, it does force a change at least every 8 months. I think all of us, proponents of this bill and opponents of the bill, can agree that we want our culture of fresh faces and regular turnover to continue. We do not want the same person to be delegate forever (well, maybe some of us do, and I appreciate their candor in coming out and saying so). We are suspicious of anything that strips our democracy away. We differ on our assumptions and beliefs about what a world without this term limit looks like. It is easy to imagine everything r3n said coming true. It is just as easy for me to imagine my vision of competitive elections every cycle coming true. It depends on what all of us are willing to do. It depends on us being careful, thoughtful, and most importantly, accountable. We have to be willing to be tough but fair, we have to be prepared to be brutally honest if it comes to it, if a delegate wants to keep serving and asks us to sacrifice the kind of fresh renewal a term limit can offer us. I believe in the culture of TNP, and I believe that it can adapt to a world without a term limit. But I do not say that idly, I know that it will be more work than a lot of people may be appreciating. Making this change is placing a large bet on who we are as participants in TNP's democracy, and whether we really believe all that nice stuff we say about looking forward and renewing our government and looking out for the best people for the job and protecting those democratic and egalitarian values we're supposed to have. It isn't enough just to remove term limits to prove that all of that is true.
If you want more exciting elections, more meaningful elections, you have to be braver as potential candidates and more critical as voters. That will be even more true without a term limit than it is with one. I wish we could be those kinds of voters now, but I do believe term limits provide a great deal of complacency. I am fully aware that removing this bumper from the bowling lane of politics means that if the right candidate and the right run of bad luck comes along, we could fail a critical test, and we can throw the TNP's democracy straight into the gutter. But TNP has played it safe as long as I have been in this region. I was inspired by the strong response to abc's term limit bill, I believed that this region has loud and tough voices that will not fail to meet the challenges a world without a term limit will provide. But that kind of faith is scary. We don't know what will happen, and we don't know if we will live up to our best potential. There is a responsibility that we have to take seriously if we do this. So I really do appreciate the support this bill has received, I believe that the support proves my instincts right, but I want all of the supporters to recognize the significance of this decision. I want you to really see that nothing comes free, and the kind of elections we imagine will result from this change won't just happen on their own. We have to make that potential reality an actual reality. If the very day after this bill passes, you aren't prepared to up your game, as candidates challenging incumbents or newcomers wanting to put yourself out there as the next leaders of TNP, as RA members prepared to be a check on the executive and to keep the government honest and responsive, as voters really weighing your choices and making sure you get everything you possibly can out of campaigns, as citizens protecting your rights and freedoms and not letting the changing tides determine how many of those rights and freedoms you get to keep or to what extent, then you should really think twice about supporting this bill.
Last edited:
I'm just giving my two cents to this issue although I'm not that much involved in the region overall. I am not sure whether it is okay to argue here by drawing comparisons to real life countries so forgive me if that's not really wished for.
Earlier the argument was made that term-limits are anti-democratic. In my opinion that is based on the definition of political freedom meaning that you only really have political freedom if you basically enjoy all possible freedoms in the political process to an extent that you stay within the rules of the process itself of course (meaning voter fraud is of course not a political freedom). Meaning nobody should put any restrictions on your political ambitions.
I would argue this to be untrue, however. Term limits are inherently democratic and actually protect democracy. And I'm not only talking about the fact that those countries that abolish term limits in this day and age are usually countries that slip into authoritarianism like the United States where the current president expressed his admiration for China's president after he abolished term limits in his country and enshrined his own name into the constitution (that is not to imply that this will actually happen in the US. Obviously it won't). Or the fact that authoritarian leaders who do this kind of thing often end up getting ousted like Evo Morales just recently in Bolivia.
Abolishing term limits invites stagnation. People get comfortable with what they currently have. Someone might be a good leader for 1-2 terms but then lets himself or herself get reelected although their pool of ideas has run dry. But people like that person and continue to vote for him or her. They are comfortable with what they know. And before you know it, you find yourself in a situation of political stagnation where your region is slowing down on progress. Germany and Japan are examples for that.
Term limits, however, force competition. They force people to consider who they are actually voting for and to think about who that person is. And it gets them more involved (how ironic for me to say that). The abolishment of term limits does not actually encourage competition. I can't think of an example where that is the case although if anybody can then please. And considering how nobody seems to think anyone would want to be delegate for more than two terms anyway I don't even know what the point of such a bill would be.
So with my usually quiet voice I'm expressing my opposition to this proposal.
Earlier the argument was made that term-limits are anti-democratic. In my opinion that is based on the definition of political freedom meaning that you only really have political freedom if you basically enjoy all possible freedoms in the political process to an extent that you stay within the rules of the process itself of course (meaning voter fraud is of course not a political freedom). Meaning nobody should put any restrictions on your political ambitions.
I would argue this to be untrue, however. Term limits are inherently democratic and actually protect democracy. And I'm not only talking about the fact that those countries that abolish term limits in this day and age are usually countries that slip into authoritarianism like the United States where the current president expressed his admiration for China's president after he abolished term limits in his country and enshrined his own name into the constitution (that is not to imply that this will actually happen in the US. Obviously it won't). Or the fact that authoritarian leaders who do this kind of thing often end up getting ousted like Evo Morales just recently in Bolivia.
Abolishing term limits invites stagnation. People get comfortable with what they currently have. Someone might be a good leader for 1-2 terms but then lets himself or herself get reelected although their pool of ideas has run dry. But people like that person and continue to vote for him or her. They are comfortable with what they know. And before you know it, you find yourself in a situation of political stagnation where your region is slowing down on progress. Germany and Japan are examples for that.
Term limits, however, force competition. They force people to consider who they are actually voting for and to think about who that person is. And it gets them more involved (how ironic for me to say that). The abolishment of term limits does not actually encourage competition. I can't think of an example where that is the case although if anybody can then please. And considering how nobody seems to think anyone would want to be delegate for more than two terms anyway I don't even know what the point of such a bill would be.
So with my usually quiet voice I'm expressing my opposition to this proposal.
Last edited:
Some argue that term limits violate the will of voters who want a leader to continue. However, history has shown that term limits strengthen democratic institutions over the long term and help ensure peaceful political transition.
Because of term limits:
It sounds like a paradox, but even as term limits prevent a popular delegates from remaining in office, they promote the healthy competition needed to strengthen democratic institutions and the democratic process.
shamelessly stolen
Because of term limits:
- Incumbents are less able to use the region’s institutions to manipulate elections or erode the power of rival branches of government and political adversaries.
- Leaders feel more pressure to deliver results and leave office with a positive legacy.
- Individuals, no matter how powerful and popular, cannot become indispensable.
- Political transitions are normal, regular, predictable events, so rivals have little incentive to upset the system through coups or other means.
- A rising generation of political leaders emerges, bringing fresh ideas and possible policy changes.
It sounds like a paradox, but even as term limits prevent a popular delegates from remaining in office, they promote the healthy competition needed to strengthen democratic institutions and the democratic process.
shamelessly stolen
Last edited:
- TNP Nation
- PotatoFarmers
- Discord
- Freg#0420
I would like to point out that it is a terrible idea to put a parallel between RL term limits for leaders and TNP's term limits for WAD. One refers to limits forcing leaders to step down after 8-10 years in power, the other is just 8 months. Although you might argue that things move faster in NS, however you do realise that one is a full-time (paid) job, the other is something that was done purely out of interest of each and everyone of us here.
However, I doubt that the removal of term limits would have much benefits to the region. The creation of a term limit allows for another person to come and take over, provide another opinion, while giving the current delegate a break. Based on the answers above, I seriously doubt that a candidate would be willing to serve for three or four terms consecutive.
If a candidate wants a longer time to implement their policies, then in my opinion, a longer term would be much better than removing the time barrier. As for how long that could be, I am not in a position to decide or suggest because I don't think that extending past 4 months would help.
On the other hand, if the purpose of the removal of term limits is to return the decision of electing a candidate back to the people and encourage competition, then the issue would not be the term limits itself, but rather the populace. If the citizen population is unable to produce another candidate for the Delegacy, then will removing the term limits help? It just allows the incumbent to stay in their seat for even longer even if the incumbent might not have created or suggested any new ideas. The Delegate is not an easy job, it is the leader of the executive, the face of TNP, and more importantly, the person that decides where TNP is going and how we are going there. If the term limits allow for an additional check and balance to prevent long-lasting delegates becoming the "super delegates", then why change the status quo if the alternative does not make so much of a difference? The issue at hand here is the populace. If the populace would be more willing to question the incumbent and stand up to contest whenever they feel that the incumbent is not doing enough, then naturally there would be your competition. If the populace cannot produce another candidate, allowing the incumbent to stay on for long does not solve the issue.
However, I doubt that the removal of term limits would have much benefits to the region. The creation of a term limit allows for another person to come and take over, provide another opinion, while giving the current delegate a break. Based on the answers above, I seriously doubt that a candidate would be willing to serve for three or four terms consecutive.
If a candidate wants a longer time to implement their policies, then in my opinion, a longer term would be much better than removing the time barrier. As for how long that could be, I am not in a position to decide or suggest because I don't think that extending past 4 months would help.
On the other hand, if the purpose of the removal of term limits is to return the decision of electing a candidate back to the people and encourage competition, then the issue would not be the term limits itself, but rather the populace. If the citizen population is unable to produce another candidate for the Delegacy, then will removing the term limits help? It just allows the incumbent to stay in their seat for even longer even if the incumbent might not have created or suggested any new ideas. The Delegate is not an easy job, it is the leader of the executive, the face of TNP, and more importantly, the person that decides where TNP is going and how we are going there. If the term limits allow for an additional check and balance to prevent long-lasting delegates becoming the "super delegates", then why change the status quo if the alternative does not make so much of a difference? The issue at hand here is the populace. If the populace would be more willing to question the incumbent and stand up to contest whenever they feel that the incumbent is not doing enough, then naturally there would be your competition. If the populace cannot produce another candidate, allowing the incumbent to stay on for long does not solve the issue.
I understand your point but this is a political RPG and therefore real life comparisons are something I find adequate. Also the very fact that this is just a game and not real-life also makes it more likely that you get someone who wants to abuse the system for the lulz. That's just something I wanted to say to this.
Opposed. For a few reasons. 1) Term limits force a revolving government. I don't have exact stats on this, but as far as I know, it's much easier for a younger player to work his or her way up the ladder of this region and become delegate faster here than in other regions. I was in TNP for only 2 years before being elected. Additionally, it ensures most of our delegates will be somewhat new players, without the same old group running the region indefinitely as can be seen elsewhere.
2) Term limits encourage newer players to run. Incumbency has a huge advantage in elections. When a Delegate is term limited, the ensuing election will almost certainly be competitive.
3) It discourages cults of personality. If a Delegate manages to stay in office long enough, players will learn to associate them exclusively with the Delegacy. This is harmful for democracy and damaging to our region's image as a thriving and healthy democracy which welcomes new players into its government.
4) Like hell I'm about to let anyone take my longest serving in-game title away.
2) Term limits encourage newer players to run. Incumbency has a huge advantage in elections. When a Delegate is term limited, the ensuing election will almost certainly be competitive.
3) It discourages cults of personality. If a Delegate manages to stay in office long enough, players will learn to associate them exclusively with the Delegacy. This is harmful for democracy and damaging to our region's image as a thriving and healthy democracy which welcomes new players into its government.
4) Like hell I'm about to let anyone take my longest serving in-game title away.
Seenvorland, I think this was a remarkably eloquent post and I agree wholeheartedly with you.
Forget Imgur or Reddit. This is why this man holds the endorsement record. Change my mind libs
Fontainberg
Undertale Weeb
- Pronouns
- They/them
- TNP Nation
- Fontainberg
- Discord
- Avalaise#6417
Edited: After reviewing the arguments made, I would have to change my opinion from support to opposition.
The current term limits and the current system do seem to be working fine, as it seems a majority of the citizenry supports the current system. Personally, I believe we should extend it to a 3 term consecutive limit.
The current term limits and the current system do seem to be working fine, as it seems a majority of the citizenry supports the current system. Personally, I believe we should extend it to a 3 term consecutive limit.
Last edited:
- TNP Nation
- PotatoFarmers
- Discord
- Freg#0420
I understand where you are coming from. The part about me not really liking the RL reference was directed at everyone that did so, not just you. However, I would like to say that your points are generally valid and echo my issues with this bill.I understand your point but this is a political RPG and therefore real life comparisons are something I find adequate. Also the very fact that this is just a game and not real-life also makes it more likely that you get someone who wants to abuse the system for the lulz. That's just something I wanted to say to this.
Abbey
TNPer
I'm still trying to figure out in my head quite where I fall on this. Both sides have good points, and I think the goal that everyone is aiming for here is more competitive elections. However, I'm not sure that term limits are necessarily the reason that elections aren't always competitive. I think the problem is cultural, and I don't think removing term limits will do anything to address that. I could conceivably be persuaded to vote for the removal of term limits if we manage to facilitate a cultural change whereby there is a vigorous challenge to the delegate after one term, whether the incumbent is running or not. I think we're at risk of making things much worse if we don't try to do that first because that change would be really important if we did remove term limits. I don't think that many challengers will come out of the woodwork just because they don't know when the incumbent is going to step down. In many ways, I'd fear that the opposite would happen, and people wouldn't run or prepare to run with any urgency because they don't want to run against the incumbent.
That, fundamentally, is what needs to be changed. We need to try and find ways to make elections less of a popularity contest, and more merit-based; we also need to be trying to encourage newer members, albeit ones who are able to make a decent go at it, to make runs at the delegate no matter whether the delegate is running again or not. We need to find ways to get more experienced members to help mentor these promising upstarts in how to build a "CV" that will help them win, and also on how to structure and run a campaign. Removing term limits won't make that change happen on its own.
I also agree that increasing the limit to 3 terms is the worst of both worlds, but could perhaps be a stepping stone to removing term limits in the future if we do make those changes as we'd introduce some additional uncertainty on whether the delegate will run for the third term.
That, fundamentally, is what needs to be changed. We need to try and find ways to make elections less of a popularity contest, and more merit-based; we also need to be trying to encourage newer members, albeit ones who are able to make a decent go at it, to make runs at the delegate no matter whether the delegate is running again or not. We need to find ways to get more experienced members to help mentor these promising upstarts in how to build a "CV" that will help them win, and also on how to structure and run a campaign. Removing term limits won't make that change happen on its own.
I also agree that increasing the limit to 3 terms is the worst of both worlds, but could perhaps be a stepping stone to removing term limits in the future if we do make those changes as we'd introduce some additional uncertainty on whether the delegate will run for the third term.