Term Limits

[Alphawolf]

This poll is non-binding, open, and closes in 7 days.

I would like to see a nice clean debate, like those we have had so far, in this thread

Do you support the idea of term limits for elected offices? There are four choices:
Term limits codified in to Law.
Custom (unwritten rule) no recourse if someone doesn't obey
No Term Limits
Answer does not compute / Abstain

-the Wolf

 

[Stilgar08]

I'm all for term-limits because otherwise DP's might go crazy because of there mighty powers and do more than they should (read: try to shape the game the way they want regardless if that's what the majority thinks)...

As I pointed out elsewhere I'd like to see a mix: limitation of time (a month?)for playing the limited turns each government has got...

 

[Gloriana]

I concur with you there Stilgar08!

 

[Man'O'Action]

I'm all for term-limits because otherwise DP's might go crazy because of there mighty powers and do more than they should (read: try to shape the game the way they want regardless if that's what the majority thinks)...

*sigh* I was really hoping to agree with Gloriana on this one, but I don't think this is making any sense just yet.

The Honorable Stilgar has mentioned that a DP who was elected multiple times would as he said "go crazy" and act against the will of the majority. My question to him, and to his supporter is why would he continue to be elected if he is acting against the will of the majority?

When an elected ruler is no longer enforcing the will of the majority they throw him out. That is the entire point of the election.

I'm going to reserve my vote until I hear some more discussion and I would urge all my fellow citizens to do the same.

I would also ask the current term limits supporters to elaborate on the nature of the problems that term limits would solve.

 

[Alphawolf]

I'm withholding my vote until I see some debate (I try to keep an open mind and can be persuaded). My idea is for term limits is to not allow consecutive terms, someone can hold any office (provided that they actually get elected) as many times as they want but not in a row. The Incumbent continues in the office for the next term if no one challenges him.

-the Wolf

 

[RoboPig]

i say yes, but only in offices! so you can only be minister of Trade twice, but can hold other offices later.

 

[Alphawolf]

i say yes, but only in offices!

I'm a bit slow today could you please clarify what you mean by: "i say yes, but only in offices!"?

-the Wolf

 

[Black_Hole]

With these options I am voting no...
First you don't say how many terms, 1 term is completely unnaceptable to me, while 2 terms might be okay
Also there are no exceptions, what if the office would go vacant otherwise?

This can also hurt participation, if someone only wants to be a governor, then they get ousted out they might leave

 

[ravensfire]

I support term limits.

They sound odd, don't they? At odds with the concept of democracy, of letting the people choose, and yet, are they really?

DG elections are, in many ways both a popularity contest and an ideas contest. It's unfortunate, but quite true that the vast majority of the time, it's more of a popularity contest. People look at the names, pick the one that they know or trust, and vote for them. Sometimes, they'll read the debates afterwards. Some people do actually follow the debates and participate in them before making their decisions. Perhaps the worst tragedy is when a new citizen runs in a race, posts excellent plans and answers questions well, and is defeated by an incumbent that did NOTHING but accept their nomination.

Actually, I stand corrected. The worst tragedy is when the precence of one person in an election persuades others not to run because of the reputation of that person. This can easily result in one person holding the same office for most, if not all of the the game.

My belief is that the DG is much more that merely playing Civ IV. It's more about the community of people interacting together to condense multiple opinions into a single set of instruction. It's about people learning not just new ways to play Civ IV, but new ways to interact with people, and how to handle new situations. It's about, well, people. Having one person, regardless of how skilled, competent or popular they are, hold the same office for all, or nearly all of the game goes against that idea.

Term limitations aren't about preventing people from running, it's about keeping fresh faces in the offices. It's about encouraging all citizens to run for office by keeping the barriers low. It's about elections focused on the ideas, not the names behind the ideas.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

With these options I am voting no...
First you don't say how many terms, 1 term is completely unnaceptable to me, while 2 terms might be okay
Also there are no exceptions, what if the office would go vacant otherwise?

This can also hurt participation, if someone only wants to be a governor, then they get ousted out they might leave

Black_Hole - this is about the idea of term limits, not the specific implimentation.

The question would best be - "Do you support the idea of term limits for elected offices?"

-- Ravensfire

 

[Alphawolf]

With these options I am voting no...
First you don't say how many terms, 1 term is completely unnaceptable to me, while 2 terms might be okay

As ravensfire said this is the idea of term limits, do you support term limits of any kind? And why is a 1 term limit so adverse to you?

Also there are no exceptions, what if the office would go vacant otherwise?

I talked about this in my posts in the constitution thread, I must have for got to include them here, I'll fix that.

This can also hurt participation, if someone only wants to be a governor, then they get ousted out they might leave

And the different between this and being voted out is? Won't they both *hurt* participation?

-the Wolf

 

[Alphawolf]

The question would best be - "Do you support the idea of term limits for elected offices?"

-- Ravensfire

Thank you for the question Ravensfire, I've edited it into the first post.

-the Wolf

 

[greekguy]

Making term limits a rule in our Laws I think is a terrible decision. Forcing someone to not run in the election of their choosing is extremely undemocratic. Incumbents don't always win, so it's not like if someone runs every term, they are guaranteed every term. In the DGs i have participated in so far, a 2 term limit has been the custom. As in, it wasn't in the official laws, but most people didn't run for the same position more than twice. And DG 7, when a few incumbents tried to get elected for a third straight term, they all lost their elections. So no dictatorship will ensue. If the citizens don't want the same person in the same position each term, then they only have to not vote for them.

 

[Stilgar08]

*sigh* I was really hoping to agree with Gloriana on this one, but I don't think this is making any sense just yet.

The Honorable Stilgar has mentioned that a DP who was elected multiple times would as he said "go crazy" and act against the will of the majority. My question to him, and to his supporter is why would he continue to be elected if he is acting against the will of the majority?

When an elected ruler is no longer enforcing the will of the majority they throw him out. That is the entire point of the election.

I'm going to reserve my vote until I hear some more discussion and I would urge all my fellow citizens to do the same.

I would also ask the current term limits supporters to elaborate on the nature of the problems that term limits would solve.

Man'O'Action, funny enough, your post made very clear to me that I misread this poll in the first place! Your point

why would he continue to be elected if he is acting against the will of the majority?

is totally true, of course!

Nevertheless I'm still all for term-limits... And now I will come up with some "real" arguments for this :

- IMO, term limits will help to increase participation and will keep our civ vital. If the same persons run the same offices all of the time no new ideas, no new ways of solving problems and no new impulses will come from there. What you get is continuity but for the price of creativity. I know what Im talking about: Being from Germany we don't have term-limits in RL and therefore we had Chancellor Kohl for 16 years resulting in record-deficit-spendings and a gridlock on reforms (there are other reasons as well but IMO it adds up). This was almost like a monarchy!

- when there's a term limit it surely doesn't mean that this person couldn't get another office then. This adds to variability AND gives everybody who wants to hold an office the opportunity to get it and to see the game from different perspectives.

- If a position is vacant when the term-limit takes effect and nobody wants the job (which I doubt will happen, BTW) the office should of course not be leaved unoccupied. In that case the office holder might keep his/her position until a/some contestant/s show up (You can look at it as sort of commisionary holding and handling the office until a new humble servant of our civ shows up).

- You can put all of the above into the law as well. No need to leave it open as a sort of "gentlemen's agreement". Having this fix in our CoL doesn't mean we couldn't be flexible! And even IF it would turn out to be wrong: That's what the legislature is for!!

Furthermore a few suggestions: Maybe term limits should be for the triumvirate (tri) in total (using Alphawolf's draft here!): The DP cannot immediately become Secretary of War when he has to quit his position. He may become Chief Justice and/or Speaker and/or Head of Secret Services (just examples here...)

Term limits should last for 2 terms, e.g. A DP gets voted twice, then has to be out of the tri for at least 2 terms then can apply for another job in the tri or the DP-position again.

As you can see personally I'm for a 2-term-limit...

governors shouldn't have term-limits, IMHO. Let's not go too far, governors have limited powers anyways...

Making term limits a rule in our Laws I think is a terrible decision. Forcing someone to not run in the election of their choosing is extremely undemocratic.

Having the same person in the same position forever and ever seems more undemocratic to me than the limitations occuring due to term-limits for important positions...

 

[Man'O'Action]

I think the discussion here has been open-minded on both sides of this issue, but I am going to side with Greek Guy that this is a non-issue. Unless I am mistaken, there has not been a problem with run-away elected dictators in the past and we have no real indication that there will be one this time around.

I also think my colleauge, the gentleman from Lower Saxony, made an excellent point that at most term limits should be restricted to only the very highest office. Although, many of us may be sheep, many are not and I remain dubious that this will be a problem in the future.

The United States didn't have term limits on the Presidency until the 1940s, and we can just as easily enact them here if the situation should arise.

 

[Alphawolf]

The United States didn't have term limits on the Presidency until the 1940s, and we can just as easily enact them here if the situation should arise.

1951 actually with Amendment XXII. The only two people to ever run for office after serving two terms were Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I agree with you about the high office, to use the Triumvirate example just the three actual members of the Triumvirate should be bound to limits.

-the Wolf

 

[ravensfire]

governors shouldn't have term-limits, IMHO. Let's not go too far, governors have limited powers anyways...

Quite incorrect - you'll find that Governor's can hold a great deal of power.

Within their domain, Governors rule supreme - determining what cities build what, what land improvements will be made, how city labor is allocated. A military might want more troops, but its up to the Governors to determine when, and how many to build.

Don't undersestimate the power of Governors, just because their operate on a limited geographic scale. If anything, they are among the most powerful leaders, and generally the most active.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

I am for Term limits all the way around. Everyone needs a break, whether they know it or not. I'm sure as this is DG1 of CIV, there won't be a shortage of players. Oust the vets after two Terms. Bring in the new blood.

And just because you've used up both Terms Governing Province A, doesn't mean you can run for Province B, and then other Provinces.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Term limits sound ok.

Ravensfire's "popularity contest"-argument is a bit strange in this. You will not get this popularity contest removed by limiting the terms someone is electable. You will merely spread it around.
(To get elections that aren't a popularity contest you need secret nominations, if you see what I mean.)

 

[Gloriana]

I think the discussion here has been open-minded on both sides of this issue, but I am going to side with Greek Guy that this is a non-issue. Unless I am mistaken, there has not been a problem with run-away elected dictators in the past and we have no real indication that there will be one this time around.

I also think my colleauge, the gentleman from Lower Saxony, made an excellent point that at most term limits should be restricted to only the very highest office. Although, many of us may be sheep, many are not and I remain dubious that this will be a problem in the future.

The United States didn't have term limits on the Presidency until the 1940s, and we can just as easily enact them here if the situation should arise.

Is it an issue? No indeed, not really. If someone isn't functioning as he should, he will be voted out next term. It is just a matter of preference I think, and somehow I feel a 2-term limitation on the higher offices only should be in order.

I DO feel strongly that there should be a 2-term limitation on triumvirate positions. No more than 2 terms in the triumvirate, and then at least 1 term out...