View Topic

Hey everyone! I just wanted to get the ball rolling and start a discussion about an idea I have for Term Limits.

Basically, my idea is to limit the number of consecutive (and only consecutive terms, its not an absolute limit where once you've served that's it) terms members of the Underhusen may serve. My idea is to limit members so that they may serve only 2 consecutive terms before they have to sit an election out so as to give every member a fair shot without the advantage of incumbency for certain candidates. However, I realize that such limits may be seen as restricting the UH, the only democratic part of the government, and that there might be concerns that there will be a wave of uncontested elections so I have 2 ideas to make it less restrictive. The first idea is simple: the Monarch may wave Term Limits as he sees fit on every election. This is so that if the Monarch is concerned that there may be an uncontested election he can allow current UH members who are Term Limited to seek a third term. The second idea is that Term Limited candidates may seek re-election but must have a certain number of people who support a third term before the limits are waved, a sort of candidate petition, if you will. The exact number can be decided by the UH every term or may be a fixed number or percentage.

Anyway, this is just my idea. I'm hoping to start a discussion and see what the rest of the UH feels. Thank you, and I hope we have a productive and friendly session, everyone! :]

You should maybe move this to the citizen's platform, so that all people may speak on it instead of just us five...

You should maybe move this to the citizen's platform, so that all people may speak on it instead of just us five...

Well, I just wanted to see what the other UH members felt as well. I'll move this to the citizen's platform in a sec, but like I said, I wanted the other members ideas and comments to create the best version of this idea we can.

Mmmm, of course... Give me some time to form an articulate opinion, shouldn't take too long...

Mmmm, of course... Give me some time to form an articulate opinion, shouldn't take too long...

Ok. Have a nice day, Reon :]

Mmmm, of course... Give me some time to form an articulate opinion, shouldn't take too long...

Ok. Have a nice day, Reon :]

Thank you I shall try to, North... Same to you.

ugh guys, while banter is all well and good is here really the place for idle chat?

I mean it's fine, don't worry or anything... I just think it's a little odd is all...

ugh guys, while banter is all well and good is here really the place for idle chat?

I mean it's fine, don't worry or anything... I just think it's a little odd is all...

We're just building a decent working relationship, all above board, I assure you...

Anyway, what do y'all think of the idea?

ugh guys, while banter is all well and good is here really the place for idle chat?

I mean it's fine, don't worry or anything... I just think it's a little odd is all...

We're just building a decent working relationship, all above board, I assure you...

Anyway, what do y'all think of the idea?

Of term limits or the work relationship

For the term limits, my position is the same as it was last term, I think they are a good idea, it can stop the same people running in elections over and over, and it can also prevent certain members from getting burnt out in the Underhusen, so to me at least the discussion is now just a matter of specifics: "How long should the term limit be?"; "How long should the gap be?"; Ect... Otherwise I am fine with the idea, for the time being.

And with those questions, I think that 2 consecutive terms and then a 1 term break sounds fine, just now.

(also yeah I see the irony in my current position )

I think that a word relationship is pretty good for Underhusen efficiency, myself. 

In terms of term limits, I think that it's a good idea, but we'd need some sort of clause that allowed people to be part of the Underhusen for more than two consecutive terms in certain cases, like when there are only five people willing to run for a position in the Underhusen.  That was a concern brought up once or twice, if I remember correctly.  Overall though term limits is a great idea, I think!

I'm still not convince that term limits are necessary... I suppose I don't see any specific harm in them but they just don't seem necessary...

I think that a word relationship is pretty good for Underhusen efficiency, myself. 

In terms of term limits, I think that it's a good idea, but we'd need some sort of clause that allowed people to be part of the Underhusen for more than two consecutive terms in certain cases, like when there are only five people willing to run for a position in the Underhusen.  That was a concern brought up once or twice, if I remember correctly.  Overall though term limits is a great idea, I think!

I agree, which is why I came up with 2 different ideas for that. One is that the monarch may wave the restrictions as he sees fit, the other is that a candidate that is term limited may announce his intention to seek re-election but must then get a certain number of people to back his candidacy.

Having looked at everything and doing some thinking, I've come to the conclusion that term limits would not be at all beneficial. So, with that in mind, I motion to table this discussion.

I second that motion...

The motion to table has been made and seconded, all those in favour of tabling, please state "Aye"; or "Nay" if you wish the topic to remain active.