View Topic

I've always wanted to do an extensive debate thing for an election, but I think the last few elections have shown that I always end up too busy to give the task justice. Therefore, this time I'm creating an open forum debate area...anybody can ask a question to the candidates, and candidates can debate with each other as they please.

Now go forth and perform politics while you still can.

Term Limits

Where do the candidates stand on this emerging issue?

right in the corner of the debation hall, dear   :-*

Term Limits

Where do the candidates stand on this emerging issue?

They need to be in place as to not hinder the Underhusen's ability to perform; but it's also important to instill a method of injecting fresh ideas and flush 'burned' out ones.

I would think a quarter system works quite well; you can get a lot done in 90 days. 

Term limits are a great idea. They'll force new faces into the UH after a few terms.

@Jonewest, is a 90-day term limit compatible with the current voting scheme?

I'm curious...would term limits really force new faces, or just make for a smaller Underhusen? We've never had a full seven-member Underhusen as it is.

I'm curious...would term limits really force new faces, or just make for a smaller Underhusen? We've never had a full seven-member Underhusen as it is.

This is the concern I had, when initially discussing it in other campaign threads.

Term limits effectively do nothing when it comes to new faces. The election is held based on platform, and ideas. Whoever has the best platform and ideas gets in, whether they're a challenger with a new face, or a long time incumbent.

Also, I think we should focus on having a full Underhusen before any legislation is introduced limiting such numbers.

@Wintermoot I believe that the number of seats should be around 5, instead of 7.
@Daphne Meh, from what I have seen it has been a mix of a popularity contest and solid ideas. I don't think Term Limits force new faces to come to light, but they do allow them to do so. A new person who has nothing to do but is very politically motivated wouldn't have much reason to stay if the Term Limits were too long. Likewise it could feel like a burden to have a short amount of time.
@Point It should be. It is a rather favorable solution and is quite the norm. Makes 4 terms each year...quite a bit of change without too much change.

I was just bringing that up because in the last election the conversation was about having as many candidates run as possible, and now it seems to have gone in the opposite direction.

Jonewest, are you sure we're on the same page? Term limits are limits on the number of terms a citizen can serve as Skrifa, not limiting the number of days. We already have regular elections.

The term limits I have in mind only apply for a period of time, after the period of time is up you can run again if you so desire. This is also a good way to allow new members into the Underhusen and to help increase activity in the other areas. Also keep in mind a bill can be repealed should it be necessary.

Jonewest, are you sure we're on the same page? Term limits are limits on the number of terms a citizen can serve as Skrifa, not limiting the number of days. We already have regular elections.

GRR terminology.
OK, now I understand what you mean.
Some regions define Term Limits as the amount of time limited to one Term.

OK. In that case, I am completely against 'Term Limits'. If you are doing your job well there is no reason you should be limited to the amount of consecutive terms you can serve.

Sorry dear.

I'm still struggling to understand how it helps new members enter the Underhusen though.

No worries, Jonewest, glad we got that clarified.

No worries, Jonewest, glad we got that clarified.

<3

Term limits seam to be an unnecessary complication at this point in time, perhaps in the future, when we have 15-30 people running per election it will be a useful mechanic, but at this point I don't see any need for a term limit to be instituted. Yes, I see that it could increase overturn rates, but that isn't always a good thing, especially in politics.