Tweet
Term Limit Plans
Here are the different options that should have been offered in the original poll... listed in order of being posted in the UN Constitution thread
Crisler plan:
Leland plan:
MrWhereItsAt Plan:
GePap Plan:
FlameFlash plan:
Zakharov VII Plan:
And then the ones updated from the original poll:
Added "3" in place of "xxx" what was original in MrWhereItsAt's plan.
This poll will remain open for the official three days.
Crisler plan:
All positions shall have a term limit of 2 terms. This means that no one may server in a position for more than two terms in a row. After serving their two terms the person in question may not run for that position again for at least two terms.
When having held a position as one of the Directors, you may freely run for any other position you choose at the next election, with the exception of the Commissioner. The Commissioner is limited from holding any other public office for the same length of time as the number of terms he has just completed as Commissioner. (In this way others get a chance to take positions of leadership)
Also, when a Commissioner is not eligable for office, has completed two terms, or decides not to run for a second term. The Party of that Commissioner may NOT dominate a candidate for the office of Commissioner. (In this way we ensure a more well balanced political environment, we thus spread out the leadership of the colony.
If for any reason a Commissioner is able to hold a total of 4 times, the office of Commissioner then he is unable to run for any public office again. He is retired from Public Service by the Colony.
A citizen may not hold the office of Director (any director) longer than 2 terms in a row. In the term following the two served terms, he is not eligible to nominate himself as a Director candidate.
A citizen may not hold the office of Commissioner longer than two terms in a row. In the term immediately following the two terms, he is not eligible for any government positions.
When having held a position as one of the Directors, you may freely run for any other position you choose at the next election, with the exception of the Commissioner. The Commissioner is limited from holding any other public office for the same length of time as the number of terms he has just completed as Commissioner. (In this way others get a chance to take positions of leadership)
Also, when a Commissioner is not eligable for office, has completed two terms, or decides not to run for a second term. The Party of that Commissioner may NOT dominate a candidate for the office of Commissioner. (In this way we ensure a more well balanced political environment, we thus spread out the leadership of the colony.
If for any reason a Commissioner is able to hold a total of 4 times, the office of Commissioner then he is unable to run for any public office again. He is retired from Public Service by the Colony.
A citizen may not hold the office of Director (any director) longer than 2 terms in a row. In the term following the two served terms, he is not eligible to nominate himself as a Director candidate.
A citizen may not hold the office of Commissioner longer than two terms in a row. In the term immediately following the two terms, he is not eligible for any government positions.
So, it could be possible for someone to go from Director to Commissioner, but not vice versa, making the effective maximum duration of governmental service 4 terms. Unless he gets elected as Alpha Talent at some point. Anyway, I don't think that the same people hogging the government seats over and over again will be a problem (after all, it can be made an election issue by their opponents), at least not big enough to warrant very complex restrictions.
Term limits
A nice idea, but soon enough we will have a serious problem finding willing candidates. In the Civ3 game we are near to electing our SMC for the third time in a row; after this he is restricted from that position for the next term. However, no-one wants to take his place, so I am proposing what we adpoted in the Civ2 game: No candidate may be elected for a certain position/any position more than [3] times consecutively unless there are no alternative candidates. This way we preferentially get the new guy in, but in the case of not having any such guy, we can actually keep playing. I think this would work here, and is better than the Commissioner having to delegate, or the VP taking over that position, which are alternatives.
A nice idea, but soon enough we will have a serious problem finding willing candidates. In the Civ3 game we are near to electing our SMC for the third time in a row; after this he is restricted from that position for the next term. However, no-one wants to take his place, so I am proposing what we adpoted in the Civ2 game: No candidate may be elected for a certain position/any position more than [3] times consecutively unless there are no alternative candidates. This way we preferentially get the new guy in, but in the case of not having any such guy, we can actually keep playing. I think this would work here, and is better than the Commissioner having to delegate, or the VP taking over that position, which are alternatives.
I say NO to any type of term limit whatsoever (preferential rues for new guys, as MWIA suggested are a different matter): term limits are a way of saying that the elctorate (us) can't be tursted, is lazy, is stupid, is incapable, is unenergetic, so forth, enough to keep the smae people for ever without question. It also brings up the issue of the best person: what iof we elect the best perso for a position, period? should not the person that has proven, by service, that they are very good, stay there as long as no one else proves, by argument or service, that they are capable of holding the job?
Since term limits seem to be the only seriously mentioned part of the constitution so far I'd like to see us try and get back on track.
Some good ideas have been mentioned, especially between MrWhereItsAt & GePap.
How about a compromise between the two?
Certainly there needs to be the opportunity for everybody to hold every position (OOC) after all this is just a game(/OOC) however when the people require stable leadership, through times of war, for instance, leadership in at least US history has remained in place even though the President went past the two term traditional limit.
Of course, we also have to remember that the provision wasn't even instated until after somebody stayed in for more than two terms. Why not follow what worked within history? Follow GePap's advice and trust the People for now (both the canidates and the normal citizens), however if we see that one canidate sits in a commissioner seat or director seat for too long (more than the traditional two terms) we can then address the issue of stopping it then.
Some good ideas have been mentioned, especially between MrWhereItsAt & GePap.
How about a compromise between the two?
Certainly there needs to be the opportunity for everybody to hold every position (OOC) after all this is just a game(/OOC) however when the people require stable leadership, through times of war, for instance, leadership in at least US history has remained in place even though the President went past the two term traditional limit.
Of course, we also have to remember that the provision wasn't even instated until after somebody stayed in for more than two terms. Why not follow what worked within history? Follow GePap's advice and trust the People for now (both the canidates and the normal citizens), however if we see that one canidate sits in a commissioner seat or director seat for too long (more than the traditional two terms) we can then address the issue of stopping it then.
About term limits...I'm for rules that give a slight edge to the underdog...what I'm thinking, for example, would be that a "veteran" (two term) Comissioner would have to win a majority, not just a plurality, to serve a third/fourth/etc. term. For example, imagine Crisler is retained next term, and then for the next (possibly Crisler's 3rd term) it's Crisler vs. A vs. B. If Crisler has 11 votes, A 8, and B 6, then A would win because Crisler doesn't have a majority with only 44% of the votes.
Good things about this (at least to me)...as seen in the above example, Crisler has a very difficult time winning a third term (despite getting more votes than anyone else). However, if we're in the middle of a very, very difficult war and Crisler is doing well, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that Crisler could win a majority.
Problems, of course, come up if two or more veterans are also running...say Crisler and A are each going for their third term, with B trying again. If Crisler gets 12 votes (48%), A 10 votes (40%), and B 3 votes (12%), it would be rather absurd for B to win (which, under the above rules, he would since neither veteran has a majority). And this rule is no help when there are only two candidates, but it's an example of the kind of flexible rule I'd like.
Good things about this (at least to me)...as seen in the above example, Crisler has a very difficult time winning a third term (despite getting more votes than anyone else). However, if we're in the middle of a very, very difficult war and Crisler is doing well, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that Crisler could win a majority.
Problems, of course, come up if two or more veterans are also running...say Crisler and A are each going for their third term, with B trying again. If Crisler gets 12 votes (48%), A 10 votes (40%), and B 3 votes (12%), it would be rather absurd for B to win (which, under the above rules, he would since neither veteran has a majority). And this rule is no help when there are only two candidates, but it's an example of the kind of flexible rule I'd like.
Added "3" in place of "xxx" what was original in MrWhereItsAt's plan.
This poll will remain open for the official three days.
i will look at it when i come back from sports this evening 
).
Comment