Election Term Limit Amendment

[Black_Hole]

I propose we eliminate the law outlawing officials holding the same office 2 terms in a row

8) No person may hold the same elected office 2 terms in a row or hold more
than 1 office at the same time, except in cases where the position would
otherwise not be filled.

to

8) No person may hold more than 1 office at the same time, except in cases where the position would otherwise not be filled.

 

[fe3333au]

I agree ... since the team may unanimously agree that the present citizen does a fantastic job ... in leiu of this, would the 2 terms of Captainancy become redundant ... and therefore should be altered in line with the other positions

 

[ybbor]

I disagree with the proposal. I think its important to give each citizen a chance to hold leadership positions. This way we can continualy put new blood into the mix, and allows people to run who might otherwise be intimidated by the current office holder. And if we have someone be defence minister for 5 terms, and then they decide they want to quit the MTDG, or run for higher office, we would have a populace that had no idea how to run the office.

 

[classical_hero]

I would prefer that a citizen can hold a position for no more than two consecutive term at a time, with a gap of two terms before they can hold that office again.

 

[Chamnix]

I agree with ybbor. It looks like we have enough active players that offices are being contested, and we should continually give new blood a chance. If someone does a great job, they will probably do just as great a job in a different office for one term.

 

[fe3333au]

I agree with new blood ... but why not have 2 year potential as Captain is ... an election will be called either way ... an active player will throw his/her name into the elction meld either way

 

[General_W]

I think term limits is generally a good idea (ie new blood) - but is it possible to have an exception? If we're in the middle of a war - it seems like it might be a good idea to hang on to our president & defense/war minister through the conflict. (maybe I'm reading more into the importance of the ministers than is necessary - but it seems like a "War/Crisis clause" might add needed stability when the game gets rocky.

8) No person may hold more than 1 office at the same time, except in cases where the position would otherwise not be filled or when a majority vote declares a state of emergency. In such an emergency, elections are still held - but the current office holder may continue to run until the emergency ends or another person is elected.

What do you think?

 

[Kentharu]

that is good general but you would have to define what a state of ermergency is you could guess but guessing is not very accurate (duh) also i do not intend to hold ANY office ever though the new blood thing is good it shouldn't be over done

 

[GenMarshall]

I agree with the lifting of the election term limit ban.

 

[General_W]

I think it would be up to the Defense Minister or the President to determine when a state "emergency" exists. They would launch a poll (24 hour vote window?) and the majority of votes cast would approve or deny the move.

A declaration of war, would be an obvious "emergency." It's also conceivable that in a build-up to our own sneak-attack on an enemy, we may want continuity in our leadership = ensure it all goes smoothly.

The emergency would end when the President says it's over.

It's worth noting 2 things:
1) It's looks like we've got a great team, with lots of really excellent players, and I'm not really worried about someone going "Evil Emperor" on us and taking over permanently.

2) A "State of Emergency" doesn’t stop the voting – people can still be voted in or out – if people want. It just allows us to keep the same leadership if everyone agrees.

 

[Emp.Napoleon]

I disagree with term limits. From my work in the foreign department in the ISDG, I cannot imagine trying to get good intelligence when you can only be in office for two terms. By being in office longer than that, it is easier for the other teams to trust diplomats, and for their tongues to slip more often. Even when trying to get something passed in another team, consistency is important.

I do see that we want new blood in government, but we are such a small team, everyone can help out, public office or not. There will be times when we do not want new blood, those times we will vote to keep people in. When we want new blood, we will vote new people in, no?

I also don't like only being able to run for one office, maybe we can cap it at two? We didn't have term limits in the ISDG, nor limitations on how many offices you can run for, and we did good.

 

[ybbor]

@ EMP: you can't hold one or more elected position at the same time. you can still be both a president and a diplomat

 

[peter grimes]

Why don't we wait a couple more terms before deciding to limit terms. I think everyone here has made some really good points - new blood, continuity, emergency overrides, etc. It's so early in the game, and since there are so many intelligent active players, maybe we don't need to worry about this quite yet. Let's see how things roll out a bit first.

If I had to vote today, I'd abstain.

 

[Emp.Napoleon]

@ EMP: you can't hold one or more elected position at the same time. you can still be both a president and a diplomat

But can you be a diplomat for more than one term in a row?

 

[Black_Hole]

so if we have a good military advisor one term, we have to get rid of him for someone that can't do the job next term?!?

this law will hurt us more than help us

 

[Kentharu]

i agree with B_H the amendment is good at heart but it will hurt more than help it is up to the new players to get the courage to step up to the vets and challenge them in whatever way whether it be in running for office or in amendment proposals

 

[Emp.Napoleon]

so if we have a good military advisor one term, we have to get rid of him for someone that can't do the job next term?!?

this law will hurt us more than help us

It seems like the people who need to leave office because of term limits, just get another office, thus eleminating new blood. So let's get rid of it.

 

[General_W]

You know, as flattered as I was to be nominated for president - I think our current officers are doing a great job - I really feel like I am listened too (even though I'm new) and I don’t feel like I need an official office to really contribute to the team.

If the officers were just running things, and not listening to "lowly citizens" like me - - then yeah, that would decrease the fun terribly. However – so far – this has not been the case!

The reality is: Our officers are doing a great job, and I don’t see any pressing need to change things dramatically. Frequent elections may be more of a hassle… and ultimately a distraction from the real object of this game… making Team MIA the most respected and feared force ever in the history of MTDG!!

Making elections less common might help (maybe there’s an election when we change eras?) Or maybe elections are just a “special event” that can be called by a gung-ho citizen that thinks they can do a better job – or called by a current office holder that needs a break!

Bottom line: decisions are already being made democratically, consensus is already being sought on major issues, and I’d be very happy with a lot less emphasis on this whole “election of officers” business.

(But if not… Vote General W for president! )
MIA forever!

 

[Meleager]

We can always dispose of the goverment if they get out of hand.

 

[fe3333au]

But can you be a diplomat for more than one term in a row?

I think it is upto the Foreign Misister ... as the FM appoints them ... so his/her (don't think we have females but better safe and polite ) discretion should allow positions to be held longer than 1 term ... if not then i would suggest that senior diplomats advise and 'show the ropes' to the newer