The Senate Fair Participation Act (Failed)

[windjammer]

I know Senator Cynic wants to improve things with this amendment but I have never been a fan of the princip of "term limit".

I believe that this is the right of the people to decide if they want to continue to have their senator, not us.

And the fact that just after 1 term the senator could be back in the senate, well, I guess this amendment could be easily "hijacked", an Atlasian version of Putin/Medvedev .

[windjammer]

I know Senator Cynic wants to improve things with this amendment but I have never been a fan of the princip of "term limit".

I believe that this is the right of the people to decide if they want to continue to have their senator, not us.

And the fact that just after 1 term the senator could be back in the senate, well, I guess this amendment could be easily "hijacked", an Atlasian version of Putin/Medvedev .

This is a game, keep in mind. If this were a real life situation, I'd tend to agree. However, I support term limits in a game like this because in some cases, getting new people involved quickly is essential to keeping them interested.

It also allows people who may lose election to a popular incumbent for no other reason than the incumbent is simply more well known and popular a chance at the job.

I have to disagree, I believe that the fact this is a game this is an another reason that term limits shouldn't exist.

This is a game, and this game needs few old senators, in order to welcome the new senators. Senator Yankee contantly helped the new VPs with his experience for example. That wouldn't be a good thing if all senators were just elected.

Furthermore, how many "old senators" currently do we have? 3: TNF, Yankee and Bore. That would be unfair to say that there is a problem with "seniority". There is a huge turn over in the senate.

And being a sitting senator doesn't mean you never have close elections. TNF has never been safe, Yankee has been safe most of the time but faced some close races recently (Maxwell). And finally, John Boreow has A-L-W-A-Y-S been challenged, and he has always prevailed by a tiny margin.

I made the Windjammer senate tracker 3 month ago, and basically, which senators never missed votes during my time as VP? Yankee, TNF, bore and Tyrion. What have they in common? Their seniority.


No but really, I know you want to improve things, and I appreciate your enthusiasm with game reforms, but according to me term limits aren't the solution.

[windjammer]

Well,
I still believe that's a bad idea. There isn't a problem with turn-over. I mean, how many senators are one-term or two-term senators? 7: Nix, you, Lumine, Cassius, JCL, Cranberry and Polnut. 
That's why I don't believe there is a problem with that.

Furthermore, among the "old senators", TNF, Bore and Yankee, they constantly face challenge (less true for Yankee but still), boreow constantly won reelection by tiny margins, TNF as well, there isn't a problem with competitiveness.

Furthermore, yes, indeed, the senate is full of "old" players:
-Lumine was MW Governor, MW Archduke and ME representative before.
-Polnut and Nix were both presidents, senators and probably some other offices like Governor before.
-JCL was a representative from the ME Assembly.
-Bore a representative from the NE assembly.
-Cassius a representative from the ME Assembly
-Yankee, I don'( know, because he's senator for really a long time .
-You were a former VP and president
Etc, etc,...

Yes, the senate is full of old players. But I don't think that is a problem. People have to show their potential in the regional legislatures, before basically getting a promotion. I mean, I spent basically  more than 1 year in the MW legislature as representative, as Lt Governor and as Governor.
Newbies can start by the local legislatures, then building their name and winning seats by using party machines.


And I still believe this is the voters' right to decide if they want their senator to be replaced or not.

[windjammer]

I understand this is for the future Cynic . But I don't believe this bill improve things in the future, even if there are good intentions behind.

I mean, I like that there is a very old senator in the senate for example. Seniority is an advantage, especially with a current important turn over (7 one-term or two-term senators).

[windjammer]

There is still the option for those very old Senators to return later and it's very unlikely that every Senator once elected simply won't know what they're doing. This isn't the real life Senate where seniority offers any sort of special perks. Every term won't expire immediately. You'll see three and four term Senators serving with new ones.

There will always be members of the Senate who will be able to guide new ones along, so I fail to see what's so awful about saying "Ok, after 16 months, you've got to find another way to be useful for a little while and then come back if you can again later".

So basically five term, then 1 term as something else, and then 5 terms  as senator?
This is absurd...

[windjammer]

So basically, if I understand correctly:
1) the goal of this bill is to increase turn-over because there would be senators who would never be defeated because of their seniority: on the 10 senators, there are 7 senators who are one term or two term senators and on the 3 other senators: 2 of them constantly have tough reelection battle. There isn't a problem with turn over, period.

2) senators would be able to return after in the senate: what's the goal of term limits if the senator can be back 1 term after in the senate? That's a little absurd.

3) And yes, again, this isn't up to you to decide if a senator wishes to retire, or if his constituents want to defeat him. If you want to be a one term senator, that's your choice, but that's YOUR decision. Every senator should be able to choose.

4) And finally, yes, having a 7 term senator is different from having a 4 term senator etc. More the senator has experience, better he serves his constituents.

[windjammer]

So if you want everyone to have a chance, why not abolishing the elections and drawning up senators?

[windjammer]

So if you want everyone to have a chance, why not abolishing the elections and drawning up senators?

Oh, come on now. The President is term limited, the term limits proposed in my bill offer 16 consecutive months of service (many don't serve so long, but some do). Incumbents present and future should not be able to set up house in any one spot in perpetuity. Not me, not you, not any of us. I believe 4 terms is fair. I think plenty of others feel that is a fair number, but if you don't, let me know, I'll raise it to five. Would almost two years straight not be fair?

After awhile, we may all grow complacent and term limits should prevent that from happening.

Cynic, really you don't understand my vision of this game.
Yes, this is a game, but a competitive game. There will be winners and losers.
Really, the funniest part of this game (according to me) is to get elected. I spent a lot of time trying to get elected recently as senator, and 4 months ago as VP.
I don't plan to die as senator, but I really don't understand why people who would want to be elected until their death shouldn't be able to try to do that. I mean, this is a game, a competitive game. Incumbents most of the time have competitive races and fight for their survival, I don't understand why we should forbide that.
If people don't manage to be elected, they have to change their strategy, but they can't blame those who manage to be elected.

[windjammer]

I suppose we just have to disagree on this then, because I see no further point in continuing this exchange if neither of us is going to budge. We can have the vote when it comes up and what happens happens.

I agree, I'm not going to budge at all, even if you replace 4 term by 240, I oppose term limits in princip!

[windjammer]

Well, considering Cynic will soon resign, I motion for a final vote!

[windjammer]

Nay