[discussion] Term limits for CdeC

[Viking Prince]

There is a bit of discussion in the Q&S Curial Commentary thread on term limits for CdeC

Seven sounds like a good number.

There should be a limit on how many times people can sit on the CdeC. I imagine there are enough candidates these days that we're unlikely to fall short.

Actually that isnt a bad idea really... how about 3 terms?

What would be the point in service medals over bronze then? Unless you mean consecutively.

Now I do not think there should ever be a limit on volunteers willing to do the work, but maybe this should be discussed. There are really two practical approaches to this limit question. Consecutive terms not allowed or a limit on consecutive terms. Two terms is a medal contribution for what ever that is worth. No consecutive terms would mean sitting out one month for R&R and then back into the contest. Is there any merit to such a change?

[Jom]

*Looks for AL*

I'm in two minds on the matter. If councillors are doing a good job, then they'll continue to be elected so why the need for a restriction on consecutive terms? On the other hand fresh blood bringing a fresh perspective to things can help make a more dynamic CdeC. This may lead to people choosing the opportune moment for a more favourable CdeC, however, and waiting until someone they know would be more inclined to vote against them to reach their maximum consecutive terms.

[irishron]

I am against term limits. Let the electorate decide if you are worthy for another term.

[Bokks]

I am against term limits. Let the electorate decide if you are worthy for another term.

I am pretty much in complete agreement with this, although Nole brought up an excellent idea, too (and I'm not just saying that because if it was in place a week ago I'd be in the CdeC right now... ).

If anything, though, I'd have to remain fully in opposition to three term limits (no offense, Graham) since that just seems like poppy-cock to me. Three terms would be nine months, and it seems like nine months is when a member (who would really want to be involved) would start to get the hang of things. It'd also nullify the majority of the CdeC medals we have, since you don't even get bronze until two terms, but that's another discussion.

Seven would be, if we had to pick a limit on the terms, a better number, since that'd be an ugodly amount of time that very few people would spend, anyway (although I can name at least two members that probably have done that and then some...)

But if we had to impose a limitation I'd say it'd be a limitless amount of terms total, but four terms (or one year) consecutively. That'd give the Curia the freedom to decide who they want in the CdeC all the time, it'd give the individual member not only the freedom to pursue it during the whole of their TWC career, and yet still allow a batch of "new blood" to come in after any given amount of time.

There is also, definitely, something there to the shortlisting outlined by Nole, but I think that should be on a semi-voluntary basis, as in if there are 6+/twelve (or was it thirteen? ) candidates as there were last time, then the Curator should ask if any of the incumbent members should like to step down before the voting takes place.

[Belisarius]

The Will of the Civitates not the will of the Constitution. Opposed.

[Nole4694]

Possibly if there are more than 6 candidates those who have served the most consecutive terms could be short listed or something?

There definatly shouldn't be a limit on terms, and its counter productive if there aren't many people in an election to remove the more experienced candidates. But possibly if we have an election like we had the last time with like 10 candidates, those who have the most experience would be shortlisted? There should be a balance between newbiness and experience though so this might not be the best option.

So I can comfortably say I'm on the fence

[Viking Prince]

Possibly if there are more than 6 candidates those who have served the most consecutive terms could be short listed or something?

There definatly shouldn't be a limit on terms, and its counter productive if there aren't many people in an election to remove the more experienced candidates. But possibly if we have an election like we had the last time with like 10 candidates, those who have the most experience would be shortlisted? There should be a balance between newbiness and experience though so this might not be the best option.

So I can comfortably say I'm on the fence

This is an interesting idea worth thinking about.

[Squid]

I don't support limiting the total number of terms someone can server but I would support limiting the number of consecutive terms. Being the incumbent gives a near overwhelming advantage in elections. I can think of only one (and I'm not sure of that one) election where an incumbent who was running again lost their seat.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

The popular Peacock......

The "Prancing Peacocks" are put in place by the casting of votes. If those that cast the votes due their due diligence then the right people should always end up in the right place. Well most of the time anyway....

I don't support limiting the total number of terms someone can server but I would support limiting the number of consecutive terms. Being the incumbent gives a near overwhelming advantage in elections. I can think of only one (and I'm not sure of that one) election where an incumbent who was running again lost their seat.

1. How long is each term that CdeC Members are elected for?

2. Is job performance for incumbent CdeC members reaccessed prior to election or are they reelected by popularity and or a blind rubber stamp vote?

3. Is it possible to ensure that citizens cast their votes with due diligence?

[Capt. Fozdike]

Dammit! I am beaten by Bokks.

Anyway, I agree with Irishron. I think that a limit to terms is unnecessary, the people voting can decide who deserves another term and if they did a good job.

[Lysimachus]

I'm on the fence with this. I think it's unfair that it's nigh-on impossible for new applicants to break themselves in, but then there shouldn't be a restriction on the amount of terms a ctizen can serve. On the other hand, I wish citizens wouldn't just vote the same people in again and again and again. For example, a few months ago there were new people running all the time and every single time they would fail. Then the only time any of them got in was when most of the incumbents decided not to run which left citizens no choice but to vote for the new guys.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

For example, a few months ago there were new people running all the time and every single time they would fail. Then the only time any of them got in was when most of the incumbents decided not to run which left citizens no choice but to vote for the new guys.

That's how new guys everywhere get in.... The old guys die off or decide to go hang their hat somewhere else. I'm new, abbews was new, Leonidas is new {per say}. Change takes time... Most stuff in life ain't a McDonald's drive thru, wish it was though...

[Hesus de bodemloze]

Opposed. Are we putting a limit on the amount of citizens that could receive citizenship? No we don't so why should we put a limit on the amount of time served on the CdeC.

[MasterBigAb]

I am also oppose.
I agree on the fact that there is some kind of "impossibility" for new people to get elected but still that's in my eyes not the right way to deal with that...
I am also against any limitation, not three months, not 7 months, not at all, if hey are doing a good job, they will be reelected, that's like it should be...
What i could imagen is something like Nole4694 suggested, ro kind of...
If there are a lots of candidates and more than one seat why not trying to give 50% to "old dogs" and 50% to new ones ?!?
Example if you have 12 candidates and three free seates, why not make two lists, and you have to select one who never was in the CdeC before, one who already was and the third vote is totally up to you again...
Of course there might be a problem if there are too less old or new candidates or if there will only be one seat available atm....

[Hesus de bodemloze]

Follow the sheep, nice way to insult the citizenry.

[Leonidas The Lion]

Opposed.

[Empress Meg]

Opposed. There shouldn't be set terms for positions which are voluntary and which may be removed at any time by the curia. If someone is doing an awesome job why remove them? If someone is doing a poor job simply don't vote them back into the office. No hard feelings, no head scratches, keep it simple.

Devoirs The Empress

[Celsius]

Support. Most people voted based on name, your post count, and how many medals you have. Without limits, the more senior members are elected just because they are Senior. I know they contribute and do their jobs, but i believe in Term Limits.

So again, Support

[Augustus Lucifer]

*Looks for AL*

Basically I'm against term limits, for reasons mostly already stated. It's no secret incumbents have a huge advantage, both in curial elections and in reality. I mean can you count the Senators/Congressmen who are complete tools but keep getting elected by their district? This isn't just everyone being sheep, it's a combination of a multitude of factors. These include voter turnout, information availability, name recognition, and comfortableness. Term limits don't solve the underlying problems, they just introduce a dummy layer that has no conception of whether or not it's achieving some greater good.

So better than introduce term limits, brainstorm ideas to even the playing field.

Voter Turnout - Curial votes in general are a very small composite. There's room to endeavor for networking within the Citizen body that facilitates higher voter turnouts without introducing vote influence or undue aggravation. More voters means a more correct result, by democratic definition.

Information Availability - Enforce some manner of mandate regarding participation in debate threads. Consider other means of showcasing, including centrally distributed test cases. Make the link to these materials more noticeable in the vote thread.

Name Recognition - Not really any way to solve this. Fortunately the first and second areas tend to solve this, because the more information the more you recognize all candidates enough to mitigate this, and the more turnout the more spread out the recognition.

Comfortableness - This is often the most compelling. Since folks don't truly *know* how someone will perform, and since the Curia hardly has the stomach for a VonC nowadays, if they're satisfied with what's current then it isn't likely risking worse is on the to-do list. A possible solution is considered below.

On the other hand fresh blood bringing a fresh perspective to things can help make a more dynamic CdeC.

Whenever discussions of who should be elected comes up, we always hear about mingling experience and fresh perspective. That's a noble endeavor if it can be pursued without infringing on the main criteria of overall suitability. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much interest in revising the CdeC system to incorporate irregular involvement that would introduce these elements. My thread about On-Call Consultants attempts to address the experience factor. I also made an advice thread in the CdeC before I left and hopefully that will be utilized by others.

With regards to fresh perspective, part of the problem is a lack of field experience. It's always going to be safer to elect incumbents because you can see how they performed. But it's a paradox since if you don't elect someone they can't perform and if they can't perform you won't elect them. The solution is simple and obvious: CdeC Internships.

I'd envision it as a tempered process. Interns would be elected like Councilors. There would be a fixed amount of them, like let's say one intern is elected with every Councilor election cycle. The interns would be able to comment on the cases and discuss the case, and perhaps vote in special circumstances or on a round-robin basis like Magistrates. Interns would only be allowed to serve one internship with the CdeC per year unless there was no applications in a given period, insuring that we'd consistently be giving different people a chance to showcase themselves in real situations.

I can't really see anything awry that would come of such a system, especially considering the pushes towards transparency which make the confidentiality discussion moot.

Being the incumbent gives a near overwhelming advantage in elections. I can think of only one (and I'm not sure of that one) election where an incumbent who was running again lost their seat.

That's one other thing. We should stop listing whose terms are up in the vote thread itself. No need to give lazy votes a lifeline.

[MCM]

I go with limits in principle