Unlimited Elections Amendment

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.

Unlimited Elections Amendment:

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

Article 3: The Delegate and Vice Delegate:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

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.

Sure why not.

Fuck it, we'll do it live.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

I oppose this bill.

I oppose this amendment as well.

Opposed.

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

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.

mcmasterdonia:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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!!

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.