Unlimited Elections Amendment

[Pallaith]

I felt it was a good time to revisit this idea. I proposed the last version of this bill and not only do I stand by my words from five years ago, I would argue the events that have transpired since then have only strengthened my argument. One of the biggest fears of this idea, that elections would be more uncompetitive and the incumbency edge would only harden with more chances, has proven to be false. Our elections have as of late been more competitive than ever, and even the incumbency advantage could not be taken for granted.

We live in rougher times than past years in this game. Activity is more sporadic, long time indisputable truths have proven to be disputed, everything is in flux. And at times we find it difficult to call on the new blood that is often is what refreshes and rejuvenates this region. Whatever this slowdown is, it’s been plaguing our region for over a year. The talent bench remains difficult to discern. I believe the last thing we need is to cut off an option to adapt to these times, and while I mean to open up this option (keeping incumbents longer) I continue to believe, and recent events have shown, that such an outcome is hardly even guaranteed anymore. In other words, I am even less concerned by the remote possibility of some future delegate running the table.

Consider that since this idea was last proposed, we have had two vice delegates serve three terms in office, and we have seen how that was a feat they did not wish to build on. I believe there’s only so long players can stay in these roles, and that natural limit will also be a factor in mitigating the longer potential incumbency.

1. Article 3 of the Constitution is amended as follows:

12. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three election cycles.

We’ve done a good job of holding our leaders accountable and not being afraid to challenge the status quo or big established players. We’ve done a lot of work to make our elections more competitive. This is a barrier that can only get in our way in the future when we need it, I believe the time is right to retire this archaic provision as well.

 

[St George]

Sure why not.

 

[Jinkies]

Fuck it, we'll do it live.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

There was a similar proposal made here:
I Love McMasterdonia

Do we think the third time might be the charm? Personally, I don't care to place more power in the executive branch of our government. Over the years there have been many attempts (some successful) which have served to shift the balance of power toward the exec. We should not underestimate the power of incumbency come election time. While not impossible to overcome, it does present a huge hurdle to a challenger. It certainly discourages some from entering the race at all. Especially when ambitious and talented players can seek a delegacy in some other region.

This would be a big change. I encourage everyone to read the discussions in the previously linked threads, as there are good arguments on both sides. We need to be visionary about the impact this will have on shaping the region.

 

[Jinkies]

There was a similar proposal made here:
I Love McMasterdonia

Do we think the third time might be the charm? Personally, I don't care to place more power in the executive branch of our government. Over the years there have been many attempts (some successful) which have served to shift the balance of power toward the exec. We should not underestimate the power of incumbency come election time. While not impossible to overcome, it does present a huge hurdle to a challenger. It certainly discourages some from entering the race at all. Especially when ambitious and talented players can seek a delegacy in some other region.

This would be a big change. I encourage everyone to read the discussions in the previously linked threads, as there are good arguments on both sides. We need to be visionary about the impact this will have on shaping the region.

I think there's something to be said about competitiveness of races, certainly, but I'd argue competitiveness is only desirable if there's a compelling distinction in policy directions between the two candidates. Recently, candidates have largely been united in policy direction, so I suppose I feel somewhat like it's preserving something that currently doesn't exist and is unlikely to exist once more, echoing Ghost's concerns about talent being drained.

No one ever runs forever, especially in a region like TNP where government kind of just wears you out. If we get a threepeat delegate, imo that just means they're qualified.

Also worth noting that incumbents have struggled recently. Polling data on Simone suggests he would've lost if he ran for re-election. Picairn lost by a hair's breadth, and Chipoli squeaked by in terms of historical margins. I think the incumbency effect can be strong if the region is doing well, but I don't think that's the case here to be completely honest.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I think as long as we have high standards of our Delegate, which at least used to be the case, then the term limit being in place doesn’t add much. As has been said above, sitting delegates can and do lose elections. Or to put it another way, we would have term limits but they will be called elections.

I think competitiveness is very important, even if it isn’t about policy. There is more than policy to being Delegate. Personality, soul, kindness and how they do the policy part matters too.

I support the amendment because it makes sense to me and has for a long time. If we have a good delegate, who is active and governs with everyone’s wellbeing at heart - then we should be able to vote for that again. It is an extremely hard job to keep up for a long time. Even three terms is only 12 months which is comparatively low to other NS regions and I think even that would be too much for most people. As the leader, it also takes courage to realise when it is time to go.

I’m curious though if this is being suggested because of a desire to keep the current leadership. Because if that is the case, I don’t see it that as a good reason to do this.

 

[El Fiji Grande]

I oppose this bill.

 

[Cosmic]

I oppose this amendment as well.

 

[Blue Wolf II]

Opposed.

8 months is enough. We don't need a year+.

 

[Halsoni]

Currently I’ve only heard those who are in favour of this amendment. Perhaps the ones opposed can give more reasoning than just “opposed” or “8 months is enough”. I haven’t really formed an opinion yet, so I invite everyone who’s opposed to elaborate on their views.

 

[Pallaith]

I’m curious though if this is being suggested because of a desire to keep the current leadership. Because if that is the case, I don’t see it that as a good reason to do this.

My record on this matter is consistent: I don’t believe in term limits. I have this opinion much more strongly in the real world, because the negatives are actually worse than the negatives in the context of our regional politics. But when it comes to TNP, having seen as many elections as I have now, and times both good and bad, I am a firm believer in having all options on the table, even if we don’t make use of all of them. Whether the current government survives another election is an open question, and one that probably has an obvious answer as of today, but this change isn’t about the current government. I’m trying to look forward and consider the state of our talent bench and the people who would stand for elections in the future. I’m trying to make it easier to respond to those times when we aren’t sure where to turn and we’re concerned about our options, or lack thereof. Having the option to retain the incumbent if we’re not sure about the alternatives is an option we do not have more than once currently, and I would like the flexibility to have that option in case we decide we might need it - especially if the government is doing well and we’ve reached a better point which can be threatened by making a change.

Last election the arguments I made for keeping the incumbent included our hold on endorsements, and the fact that the state of the game was so bad that we needed to have some consistency and continuity to actually make progress. We didn’t have a term limit to worry about then, so we could keep our positioning and maintain some consistency, but if we had been term limited, we would have had no choice but to pick the best new option and lose all that ground. Maybe people still would have felt compelled to change - they almost did last time despite the impact it would have on the areas I was concerned with - but at least we had a real option to maintain our ground. I do not know how long these bad times will last, but I sure do want us to have the opportunity to stick with what’s working, or what might work a bit better fundamentally than changing things out. Given we had a string of one term delegates regardless, it’s even less compelling that many of you fear this is automatically going to lead to one person who never leaves. The electorate’s behavior on this matter has changed in a way I haven’t observed from previous election cycles, and I am not convinced it’s gone back to “normal” just because the current delegate won a narrow victory last time.

 

[Koopa103]

I support this so I can finally run and achieve my dream of declaring the First Northern Empire, for peace and prosperity across the region. No one will want to replace me because we'll NEVER stop WINNING!!

 

[Pallaith]

Bumping this because I don’t like to push things to vote prematurely, but this is a rather simple concept for a change so I don’t think we have to kick the tires around too much either.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

Currently I’ve only heard those who are in favour of this amendment. Perhaps the ones opposed can give more reasoning than just “opposed” or “8 months is enough”. I haven’t really formed an opinion yet, so I invite everyone who’s opposed to elaborate on their views.

I want to address the "talent bench." It is very important for our existence as a premier region. Mentoring and developing newer members is key. Yet there is a limit to how long players will enjoy sitting on the bench. Term limits provide a legal foundation which supports the ambitions of newer players.

Dreadton made some excellent points the last time this change was proposed:

"Some argue that term limits violate the will of voters who want a leader to continue. However, history has shown that term limits strengthen democratic institutions over the long term and help ensure peaceful political transition.

Because of term limits:

• Incumbents are less able to use the region’s institutions to manipulate elections or erode the power of rival branches of government and political adversaries.
• Leaders feel more pressure to deliver results and leave office with a positive legacy.
• Individuals, no matter how powerful and popular, cannot become indispensable.
• Political transitions are normal, regular, predictable events, so rivals have little incentive to upset the system through coups or other means.
• A rising generation of political leaders emerges, bringing fresh ideas and possible policy changes.

It sounds like a paradox, but even as term limits prevent a popular delegates from remaining in office, they promote the healthy competition needed to strengthen democratic institutions and the democratic process."

I will not be voting in favor. I have seen the lengths some delegates will go to in order to hold on to their power. Many of you have as well. While Ghost may argue that the times have changed, I assure you that human nature has not.

 

[Pallaith]

I do believe times are different now, and we need flexibility. I’d rather not need to consider the option of hanging on to a delegate longer but find myself unable to do it because of an arbitrary barrier. And I know firsthand the fatigue that sets in when you’re in office too long - our coup delegates couldn’t even last a regular term length, how is a forever elected delegate going to handle 3 or even 4? How is the electorate of today seemingly poised to change delegates every election going to tolerate someone that long? I don’t see these fears as realistic based on current factors, and yes I realize that means that I could be advocating for this limit to come back if the circumstances change again. I also recognize it’s distasteful for many people to go back and forth with such changes, and the risk is too great to unshackle ourselves from this limit.

Taking a page from GBM’s book, I have observed an alternative proposal just as simple as mine in that very same prior discussion, a change from a two-consecutive term limit to a three-consecutive term limit. At the time, I was not in favor of that alternative, because I didn’t feel it really provided the impact I was looking for. In the years since I have realized that I value the option for more time and that the culture has shifted to make stringing overly long incumbencies very difficult, particularly when there are no results to easily point to for many skeptical and impatient citizens. An option for a third term would be better than status quo, and would satisfy those of you who fear going over the slippery slope. It’s also more in line with other regions which do not have term limits and tend to see new delegates after a year. I remain convinced we won’t see three term delegacies become the norm because two term delegacies aren’t even the norm anymore.

I would also note that a 3-term limit would alleviate some concern that I’ve seen crop up now and then since the tumultuous events in 2023, where we had two delegates resign. More thought has been put into personal limits and the intensity of the job, last year a leading candidate dropped out because of these concerns. The incentives for potential candidates are negatively impacted because the limit penalizes people who stand in the special election. Before the double recall led to Gorundu’s resignation last the point where special elections could happen, we faced a prospect of good potential candidates agonizing in over whether to run for a very abbreviated first term which would leave them with only a single term to serve if they wanted to stay on. A change to 3 consecutive terms means that these people could make that decision, have the abbreviated term, and still have the ability to go for two if they really want to.

I’d like to explore people’s appetite for this alternative - it seemed to be broadly popular last time, although most opposed to removing the limit seemed content with it. But these are different times so perhaps some small loosening of the limit to address my concerns would be more acceptable to many of you now?