Retry: Amendment III

[Kuciwalker]

The court should be able to change the amendments without the people, except for very major things.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Spiffor
UberKrux : although I'm in favour of unlimited terms, we have to abide with the poll. It was a grouping poll, and a majority wanted limitations to some extent (the majority within this majority wanted 2 terms in a row).
Trip doesn't always have a perfect behaviour when he writes amendments, but this time, he has done this work very democratically.

i love how people can use logic on me but ignore it when i use the same logic (tassadar getting the wheel a while back)

[Kuciwalker]

Spiffor is not the same person as tass

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by skywalker
Spiffor is not the same person as tass

im stating that the same logic is oly used when the DIA wants to use it.

im going to get some breakfast/lunch before the turnchat, so see everyone there.

[Kuciwalker]

When's the turnchat?

[Jon Shafer]

1 and a half hours from now. Same time as always.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, I've missed a lot.

[civman2000]

Running for multiple postions was allowed in the civ2 game and there were no problems. I doubt that it would happen very often anyways. If someone wins 2 they just drop one and let the runner up have it. I think we should limit it to at most 2 positions at a time though

[Kuciwalker]

No, let's not create any potential confusion.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by civman2000
Running for multiple postions was allowed in the civ2 game and there were no problems. I doubt that it would happen very often anyways. If someone wins 2 they just drop one and let the runner up have it. I think we should limit it to at most 2 positions at a time though

But CM, why should it be allowed? Wouldn't everyone want to run for multiple positions? And another thing you could potentially do is have 2 elections. You win both. 1 of them, a DIA candidate is runner up. The other, a UFC one is. Essentially, you can pick who wins. Not very fair, IMHO.

[Inverse Icarus]

i'm still mortally opposing the 2 term limit.

[Kloreep]

I'm still thinking over the two-in-row term limit...

The only reason I can think of for it is to force the people to bring in new blood occassionally. But do we really want to force a popular official out of their chosen office for a term so frequently?

Perhaps it should be three or four terms in a row. However, I think there should be a limit to how many terms in a row someone can hold an office to make sure other candidates have a chance to prove themselves.

[Spiffor]

Kloreep, UberKrux :
The only way to avoid term limits would be to post a new poll about this. However, the previous poll must be at least 3 weeks old so that the repoll is valid.
For the same reason, this here amendment won't be polled in next 3 weeks, because itwould be an unconstitutional repoll.

[Captain]

But, if we introduce and pass a new amendment that cuts the repoll time to 2 weeks or less and make it retroactive...

However, this is just sort of a legal loophole and isn't in the spirit of the law. Plus, I approve of the 2 consecutive term limit. You can always run for some other office Uber in the interim, maybe you'd like being President... or FAM for a month

[Jon Shafer]

I think we can all agree this amendment not passing before election time may lead to a very interesting situation.

Either way, I still think the sooner we can get these kinds of things on the books the better. There's only a problem if someone complains. And why would they? The amendment is simply fixing things that were wrong, not trying to overrule a previous decision.