Term limits amendment: Discussion

[AdamTG02]

Given the debate about the term limits clause, I propose an amendment that is intended to allow our veteran leaders to stay in the government while still allowing new blood a fair chance at their posts.


In Article II, change the text under "Office Terms" to read:

All office terms shall last one month. A member can run for a different office at the end of his term, but he cannot change offices during it. If a member is elected three consesutive times into a single government office, that member may not run for that office the fourth consecutive term. After the fourth term he may run for any office that is available. If no other candidates can be found for a post, the incumbent wil be eligible to run in that election, regardless of term limits.


This would allow Directors to run for another Directorate: Lemmy could run for Science again, GT could go back to Peacekeeping Operations. However, since they wouldn't be incumbent in the office, new blood has a fair chance of getting in.

Thoughts?

[lucky22]

This is good and does not destroy the spirit of the current Constitution.

[moomin]

I think we should aboilsh all limits altogether. If we, as peacekeepers see fit to have somebody doing ten terms in any particular office, I don't really see the problem.

[Hercules]

I think its a good amendment, but

If no other candidates can be found for a post, the incumbent wil be
eligible to run in that election, regardless of term limits.

change to 'any current government office holder will be eligible to run in that election, regardless of the number of consecutive terms served.

[DeathByTheSword]

guys in the current constitutions it states that. If this rules prohibits us from getting a fully seated government the rule is obsolete for that term.......it is the same only in another sentence

[- Groucho -]

I don't like "If a member is elected three consesutive times into a single government office, that member may not run for any government office the fourth consecutive term. "

If we are going to change the term limits, lets at least make them a little less restrictive and change "any" to "the same" in the above quote.

[AdamTG02]

Groucho: Actually, that was a typo. I edited the original text, replacing references to any office with the same office, and that skipped my notice.

It has been edited.

[- Groucho -]

Much better. Now - do we actually need term limits at all? If we do, I like Adam's amendment. But I'm not convinced that we need them. I'm not convinced that we don't either though.

The life of a fence sitter is hell.

[AdamTG02]

Would people like to vote on this amendment now, or to vote on whether to have term limits, and if that passes, vote on the amendment?

[Darkness' Edge]

Adam, that could be a good idea.

DBTS: I understand why you put that clause in there, but it's just not good enough. I shouldn't have to step aside for a term because I want to change offices at the end of it. We shouldn't have experienced people having to wait around to see if no one else nominates.

I'm personally for term limits in a portfolio, because I think it gives the newbies a go, but term limits on serving in government are ridiculous.

[GeneralTacticus]

I totally agree with DE.

[DeathByTheSword]

make the poll and vote is say

[GeneralTacticus]

Who has the authority to post an official poll on this matter?

[DeathByTheSword]

any one that wants to....every citizen may start an amdement poll

[GeneralTacticus]

Posted.

[GeneralTacticus]

Err, should the thread have 'official' in it's title? If so, could you add it, please?

[AdamTG02]

I've checked the Constitution, and it requires that a discussion thread on an amendment be posted beforehand, but not that it have "Official" in the title. The only threads that need that, based on my reading of the Constitution, are polls.

Thanks for the heads-up, in any case.