According to the Constitution:
Amendments to the Constitution must be posted as a Proposed Poll in the discussion thread for at least 24 hours prior to submission to the Judiciary. The discussion on the amendment must have lasted at least 48 hours.

Amendments must pass Judicial Review. If accepted, the Judiciary will post the poll. This poll will be open for 4 days, state the new text and the current text. To pass, an amendment must have a 67% majority of positive votes, ignoring Abstain, and have a total number of votes greater than 1/2 of the census
So, Cyc said there was no limit to how many terms served an elected person could have. With that, CG will probably stay Defense Minister for the entire game. Not that he/she isn't a great one, but that neglects other people who want offices.

So I propose this amandment:
Article H1. Three Term Limit
An elected official may not serve more than three terms in the same office. An official who has served three terms in one office may run for another office or wait for the next term to run for the same office.

People! Do you believe this is fair?

Yeah, sounds fair. Maybe too fair. Would two consecutive Terms in one office be a better limit?

A proposed amendment discussion would be posted in the Citizen's sub-forum. That way all citizen's will see it, not just those interested in government postings. I'll ask DaveShack to move it.

Sorry, my fault :crazyeye:

k im against this because from the last DGs, the amount of people involved has gone way down once it gets closer to the end of the game. I would agree to this if we can keep people here. But I dont agree because of what I said...unless we can get more people involved.

my 2 cents

Ideally I think we'd want something some sort of exception of "if there are no other valid nominations for a position the incumbent may be nominated beyond the term limit"

At what point is it "okay" for an incumbent beyond the limit to be nominated then? After normal nominations are over, is it then a sort of defacto nomination, unless they've specifically announced that they don't want to run for it?

I am for this. I would like a turn as defense minister!

Do we need to be in a hurry for this amendment? I think it might be better to just see if we have a problem with people running for re-election and deal with it then.

Well, we shouldn't be in a "hurry." But, like billybones said, what if no one but the current officials get a chance at office? That would make newbs feel unwelcome and excluded. But if we establish this limit, then the newbs would get a chance, as offices would be open. I like Falcon's idea that if no one else wants the position then the current official can continue despite the limit until someone else wants it.

I agree with DaveShack. This amendment seems superfluous at the moment. There are two scenarios in which someone continually holds the same post. (1) The position is uncontested, in which case term limits would create a void. (2) The official consistently wins elections, in which case we are punishing election success.

If someone truly does become a tyrant over the course of the game, an amendment like this could be considered. For the moment, however, let the will of the people decide issues without constraints.

Another thing which I feel is applicable... is Deputy positions...

The primary concern here is that one official will remain that official as other people don't get an opportunity to demonstrate their skills for that position. As such the "incumbent" seems best qualified. With Deputy positions a person can take on a partial/back-up role of the office and have a better chance to demonstrate their abilities to perform the duties of that position. As such come election time the Deputy has a better chance of becoming the primary Official in that position.

Deputies though I think are a case by case, only if the main official chooses to take on a deputy, otherwise there is no deputy for a position. DG1 I think they tended to be runner-up in the election. But even with Deputies there's still no guarantee they will be elected and given a chance to be the primary official. (Civ III DG1 I always had a Deputy and I was in office >5 terms in a row).

EDIT: Though, there's also no guarantee the Deputy will get any "official" work. The primary official might never be absent and they might never give the deputy "official" work.

Also, should note, the Domestic and Defense Ministers and our first Governor all appear to be planning on having a deputy of some sort, not sure about the other officials.

Section H.2 of the Code of Laws states that all executive and gubernatorial positions will have a Deputy. A good Leader will find effective ways to utilize the Deputy.

BTW, I agree with both of Falc's posts.

Section H.2 of the Code of Laws states that all executive and gubernatorial positions will have a Deputy. A good Leader will find effective ways to utilize the Deputy.

BTW, I agree with both of Falc's posts.

Ah, didn't realize it was already a written requirement. Very good.

Another way of wording it may be:

An official may not serve more than three consecutive terms in an elected office unless there are no other candidates for the position.

That makes it clear that it is consecutive terms, that it's elected positions we're talking about and not deputies, election office or any of the other volunteer jobs (I don't think we'd want to include those anyway) and that it can be ignored if we can't get anyone else to do the job.

Although, if we are going to have this I would prefer 2 terms rather than 3.

Good edits, I'm not one for technicalities. Maybe it should be two terms, because that is two months that we're talking about...

It would be interesting, although potentially impractical in a sparsely-populated demogame, to impose a consecutive terms limitation. If for no other reason, it would simulate how different leaders' influence guides a nation's direction by their personality traits and agendas. (For example, if Taft had been reelected instead of Woodrow Wilson, how might the beginning of WWI have played out? Taft was a demonstrated pacifist, who preferred arbitration to armament. He was also quite fond of eating, and was the last president with facial hair, but I digress.) At any rate, it could make an impact on the style of action we all undertake, just by the urgings of our president. (And have profound impact on our moustachioed population.) :p Just a comment for thought-provoking boredom relief.

silly me, I responded to this idea in the Election Office thread, before I found it here. Sigh. Well, since I don't know how to link to another thread's post, all I can say is we should have consecutive-term limits before we all end up as pacifists with moustaches.
...oooOOOoooh. Mysterious Allusion.

silly me, I responded to this idea in the Election Office thread, before I found it here.
moved it here

An official may not serve more than three consecutive terms in an elected office unless there are no other candidates for the position.

I think this is our final draft. Does anyone have any changes to be made before we submit this to the Judiciary?

Why did you decide to go with two Terms?

I didn't go with two, I went with three. Doesn't "cannot serve more than three" mean that the official can serve three terms?

Yes, it does. Sorry. I was doing something else when I typed that post. I meant why did you decide to go with three Terms. It appear you were going with two.

Well, if majority says two, then let's go with two. Let's have a quick one-day vote. I do vote to go with two, I just thought no one else did.

I'm in favor of this. However, there should be an exception in the event we hit one of those rough patches when we don't have many nominees to chose from or someone runs one term one month, take two months break from that position, then runs for the position again.

CG - you missed the "unless there are no other candidates for that position" part. :)

Actually, CivGeneral is talking about the option of re-running. CG, this amendment is only about consecutive Terms in one office. Even a break for one month would make a person who was forced out of office eligible to run again.

Actually, CivGeneral is talking about the option of re-running. CG, this amendment is only about consecutive Terms in one office. Even a break for one month would make a person who was forced out of office eligible to run again.

So it's not as strict as The PotUS's term limits where it's jtst two terms and that's it? :)

Nope, there's no limit to the total number of terms, just only 3 consecutive. You could do 3 skip a term then do 3 more.

An official may not serve more than three consecutive terms in an elected office unless there are no other candidates for the position.


I'm pretty sure I speak for everyone when I say this is the final version, unless we want to change three to two.

I'm alright with that.

This amendment would actually be to the Code of Laws, not the Constitution. So, I will take your proposed amendment, redirect it to the CoL and submit a proposed amendment poll at the end of this thread. This proposed poll will have a link in the request for Judicial Review (JR) in the Supreme Court thread. The Court will review the proposed poll and if they accept it as formally correct and not conflicting with any other/higher laws, post the official Amendment Poll for you, civplayah.

That's the way it used to be anyway. I better check the new Court Procedures. :blush:

This is a poll for an addition to Section H.1 of the Code of Laws. Please review the legislation carefully before voting.

This is the way Section H.1 reads now -

[i]Section H.1 Elections
The Election Office, a citizen’s office%

Okay... one more slight wording concern...

"An official may not serve more than three consecutive terms in an elected office unless there are no other candidates for the position."

might be better as...

"An official may not serve more than three consecutive terms in the same elected office unless there are no other candidates for the position."

Unless we want to inadvertently restrict people from going from President 1 term -> Domestic 1 term -> Governor 1 term -> Military 1 term

Agree w/ Falcon02's point, an important change imo.

Yes, that is a huge change. Without it we might be in for a month of arguments over whether anyone can hold an office in the 4th term.

This is a poll for an addition to Section H.1 of the Code of Laws. Please review the legislation carefully before voting.

This is the way Section H.1 reads now -

Section H.1 Elections
The Election Office, a citizen’s office supervised by the President, will perform all actions needed for each election cycle.

The regular election cycle starts at the posting of the nomination threads, and concludes when the last poll, including runoff polls, closes. Nomination threads will be posted 8 days before the end of the current term. Election polls will be posted 4 days later, and will list all accepted candidates for each election. Election polls will be marked public, and last for 3 days.

Each position will be granted to the candidate receiving the largest number of votes in that election. In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days, and be repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie.

Except for the possibility of the first term being shorter, all terms will start on the 1st of the month, and end on the last day of that month.
--------------------------------------------------------------

This is Section H.1 with the proposed amendment in place -

Section H.1 Elections
The Election Office, a citizen’s office supervised by the President, will perform all actions needed for each election cycle.

The regular election cycle starts at the posting of the nomination threads, and concludes when the last poll, including runoff polls, closes. Nomination threads will be posted 8 days before the end of the current term. Election polls will be posted 4 days later, and will list all accepted candidates for each election. Election polls will be marked public, and last for 3 days.

Each position will be granted to the candidate receiving the largest number of votes in that election. In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days, and be repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie.

An official may not serve more than three consecutive terms in the same elected office unless there are no other candidates for the position.

Except for the possibility of the first term being shorter, all terms will start on the 1st of the month, and end on the last day of that month.
_____________________________________

This poll will be open for 72 hours (3 days) and is subject to Section N.1 of the Code of Laws.


Edited for Falcon02's suggested change.

Yep, good catch.

Cool! stupid 10 chars

This amendmant should now be up for Judicial Review.

An official may not serve more than three consecutive terms in the same elected office unless there are no other candidates for the position.

Your Request for Judicial Review (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7873166&postcount=29) has been made, civplayah. Thank you for the effort in getting this done.

Incase anyone missed it, the poll has been posted here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=314561)