Speaker Term Limitation Amendment

[Tom Paine]

To discourage the entrenchment of one person as Speaker, the following addition is proposed under Article 1:

The Speaker of the House is elected by the Curia, as per the procedure in Section 2 Article 2, from among those members ranked as Patricians, and will serve a term of six months. A Patrician may hold the office of Speaker for no more than two consecutive terms, after which he must step down for one term before applying for Speaker again. Should less than 2 other candidates stand, this term of rest will be waived.

(With thanks to deRougemont for his efforts in drafting this legislation)

Rationale: Whilst we have, perhaps, a dearth of Speaker candidates, we also have to deal with the potential problem of entrenchment; that is, a Speaker becoming too entrenched in the role, too comfortable in it. This seeks to prevent such a possibility by limiting the Speaker to a maximum of two terms in office, a la the American system, whilst balancing that with the practicality of removing candidates from the running, thus making it a break-period rather than a maximum period.

Supporters: Patricians: Fabolous (post 36)
Supporters: Citizens: Muizer (post 31); sapi (post 39)

V1.1: Added line proposed by Muiz, June 28th, 22:12

[sapi]

Support.

[makanyane]

erm, is the other ammendment
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=105029
still going anywhere?

If it is would it be better to say what length of time you mean in months rather than terms? On same basis could this somehow omit the "and will serve a term of six months" text as that would overturn the other one....

[the Black Prince]

I don't believe the two bills would have any effect on each other.


Should Mims bill pass, the text above would simply change from six months to 3 months, and the speaker would be only able to serve 2 terms, each of which would be 3 months long.

[Tom Paine]

Which is precisely the idea. Perhaps being more explicit would have helped.

[Fabolous]

So we have a max limit of 6 months, and then a required 3 off. Well, we are addressing a problem that doesn't exist yet, but perhaps that is better.

[Tom Paine]

Certainly - better that, than wait until it appears to deal with it, no?

[Fabolous]

Certainly - better that, than wait until it appears to deal with it, no?

Yes. Especially since if there was a Speaker who was say, working through his third term, on his way to 9 months, and someone worried about this same issue proposed this bill, it would be taken as a bill on removing that Speaker (and would probably fail, as that speaker has already won 3 elections). Much cleaner to handle it now. Full support.

[deRougemont]

Hmmmm.... Hermmmmm.... Urmmmmmm... *grumble grumble grumble*

Though I hate to agree with Ozy, I guess I will have to here...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

just kidding

Support.

[Simetrical]

We have very, very few candidates for Speaker even now. Limiting the pool still further is the worst direction the role could be taken, thrusting upon both the Curia and Hex candidates that are probably not suited for the role. I'm ambivalent about this kind of measure in real-life politics, but there there are always as many suitably mediocre candidates as could be desired, and plenty of other equally important or more important roles that ousted candidates could take if they're actually good. I strongly oppose this proposal.

[deRougemont]

^^^ Presently this proposal would mean that a Speaker must take a break after one year. That's a very long time on an internet forum. There may be few candidates now, but can we predict it will remain so 6 months or especially a year from now? After a 6 month break, they can return for another year & etc.

[sapi]

We have very, very few candidates for Speaker even now. Limiting the pool still further is the worst direction the role could be taken, thrusting upon both the Curia and Hex candidates that are probably not suited for the role. I'm ambivalent about this kind of measure in real-life politics, but there there are always as many suitably mediocre candidates as could be desired, and plenty of other equally important or more important roles that ousted candidates could take if they're actually good. I strongly oppose this proposal.

If we cannot get two suitable candidates - and, to be honest, two's all we'd ever need the way this amendment is structured - than the Curia is in so much trouble that this'll be the least of our worries.

[Muizer]

If we cannot get two suitable candidates - and, to be honest, two's all we'd ever need the way this amendment is structured - than the Curia is in so much trouble that this'll be the least of our worries.

Agreed. This is supposed to be an elected position. If this proposal causes a lack of candidates, then we cannot sustain elections anyway. However, perhaps we could include to waive this rule if less than 2 candidates are available for the next term.

[deRougemont]

Agreed. This is supposed to be an elected position. If this proposal causes a lack of candidates, then we cannot sustain elections anyway. However, perhaps we could include to waive this rule if less than 2 candidates are available for the next term.

I agree; this would be an appropriate safeguard.

[Mímirswell]

To discourage the entrenchment of one person as Speaker

And what if the Curia would prefer the entrenchment of one person? It's only a useful safeguard if you believe the Curia would continuing electing someone in lieu of a better candidate solely because they are the incumbent. Term limitations implicitly assume that elections favor the incumbent and while that is true for an ambivalent voter, the active Civitates (IE the 40 or so that vote) are not ambivalent on elections (though they
can be on individual proposals). I do not support.

[Belisarius]

I personally dont see the point as long as the Curia elects the Speaker

[sapi]

I personally dont see the point as long as the Curia elects the Speaker

To put it bluntly, I see it as a measure to protect us from ourselves; or more correctly, what future citizens may do (or not do)

[deRougemont]

I personally dont see the point as long as the Curia elects the Speaker

Like any proposal of this nature, it is to prevent entrenchment of one person in a position. This will give others with less pull and experience the chance to get into office. I think we should encourage as many curial members becoming experienced as possible, rather than relying on a handful of old guard to do everything.

[Tom Paine]

We have very, very few candidates for Speaker even now. Limiting the pool still further is the worst direction the role could be taken, thrusting upon both the Curia and Hex candidates that are probably not suited for the role. I'm ambivalent about this kind of measure in real-life politics, but there there are always as many suitably mediocre candidates as could be desired, and plenty of other equally important or more important roles that ousted candidates could take if they're actually good. I strongly oppose this proposal.

There only need to be two, as potentially they could alternate between each other...

I personally dont see the point as long as the Curia elects the Speaker

So you don't see the point of the US rule on Presidential term limits? Its to prevent any entrenchment of one person in an office because, no matter if they seem perfect for it, it leads to a) a lack of replacements - eventually, they won't do it again; and b) a certain degree of laziness on the part of all parties, as things happen with no real change and a settlement into a conservative mode.

[deRougemont]

If the Curia wants it, so be it. My thoughts are not that you may keep out a better candidate without term limits, but that you will keep out other candidates period. If offices are handed to the same folks repeatedly, this discourages other, newer members from bothering to compete for the office and, possibly, from taking part in the Curia at all.