Term limits

[Pandemoniak]

Should the directors and commissioner seats be limited to a specific number of term ?
We have severals options :
1. No term limits at all
2. Term limit of 1, you cannot be in the seat two terms in a row
3. Term limit of 2.
4. You need a majority of votes instead of a plurality after a term limit of 1
5. You need a majority of votes instead of a plurality after a term limit of 2
6. As long as you get bananas...

The Poll will last seven days.

[Pandemoniak]

oops please take the blue "majority instead of plurality after term 1" for "majority instead of plurality after term 2"

Thanx for your attention.

[MrWhereItsAt]

I say three, and not any more in a row unless there are no alternative candidates that fourth time.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Three terms in a row, and a majority would be needed after the first term.

[Lemmy]

i like MWIA's idea best actually, keeps it simple to.

[Lemmy]

however after a one term break from office, a person should be allowed to run for any office again.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Agreed, Lemmy. Unless anyone can find a good enough reason to change from what works in the other two games, why not use it?

Oh, and 'cause 3 isn't an option - I'm not sure whether to vote banana or not at all.... For the moment I will pass.

[DeathByTheSword]

tumbs up for lemmy`s idea

[Pandemoniak]

I like the idea of being a good enough politician to be elected 10 times in a row...
There shouldnt be any limits, but votes.

The Sky is the Limit
Pandemoniak
in A. C. Confidential

[Darkness' Edge]

I support the Lemmy/MWIA proposal.

[FlameFlash]

*grumbles something about Pandemoniak not including proposals mentioned in this thread and therefore considers banana if that will invalidate this poll...*

[Darkness' Edge]

I'm not putting a vote down for anything yet, but I'll put banana if the proposal isn't put in the poll...

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by FlameFlash
*grumbles something about Pandemoniak not including proposals mentioned in this thread and therefore considers banana if that will invalidate this poll...*

/me mumbles something else about actually posting (some of) these ideas (taken from the other Demo games) in that other thread, which resulted in some approval.

Or does my non-membership of a party invalidate my opinions for official consideration, no matter who else likes them?

I will now go vote Banana as a protest against "3 terms unless no alternative candidate found" option being missing.

I ask that all others who want Lemmy's/my proposal or any other included in this poll to vote Banana also.

[FlameFlash]

Here are the different options that should have been offered in this poll... listed in order of being posted.

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.

Leland plan:

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.

MrWhereItsAt Plan:

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.

GePap Plan:

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?

FlameFlash plan:

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.

Zakharov VII Plan:

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.

And then the ones from this thread:
Added "3" in place of "xxx" what was original in MrWhereItsAt's plan.

[FlameFlash]

Here is the new official term limit poll thread with everyone's proposed plans being respected.

It will stay open for the official three days.