The Senate Fair Participation Act (Failed)

[Dr. Cynic]

Let me address your points here:

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.

The goal is not to increase turnover. The goal is to get people who have been unable to serve in the Senate a chance to do so. You keep bringing up the current landscape, but the landscape could be very different in a few months time and has been different in the past.

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.

It's not absurd. The President is term limited, why shouldn't the Senate be? We shouldn't bar players for life from coming back again though either, in my view. If you'd like I can change the wording and have them sit out two elections if that would make it seem a little less 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.

It's not a personal thing with me, though I think you believe it is. I'm surely not the only person who supports term limits in this game.

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.

So, you're saying that if a player can get away with it in perpetuity, they should be just allowed to hold the job even if it comes at the expense of other players? That seems rather unfair to me considering we're not real legislators. We're playing a game. Every player should get a chance to play rather than continue to be sidelined. What of perennial candidates who have been around quite a bit but can't get elected? Should they continue to be forced to spin their wheels? It's unfair to people for them not to have a chance. Incumbents have usually had an advantage around here. This is designed to level the playing field.

[windjammer]

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

[Dr. Cynic]

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.

[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.

[Dr. Cynic]

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.

[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!

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I certainly understand the view of term-limits. Considering the role of the president is different and serves a different purpose, it make more sense to term limit the role. I don't necessarily see it as a panacea to issues for the Senate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would be open to the idea potentially, Nix.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

-Polnut and Nix were both presidents, senators and probably some other offices like Governor before.

A long, long, long time ago, back when the real life US President was a shoot from the hip cowboy Texan still, ole Polnut was Governor of the Mideast. However, out of respect for his subsequent quality, we don't speak of such things round here. He was more recently Governor of the NE from which he launched his Presidential campaign in 2011. He was Senator for a short stint in January 2012 and in the summer of 2013, both from having won specials.  Nixy baby was Governor of the Northeast before he took Scott's seat as NE Senator in Oct 2012, he was reelected in February and retired to run for Prez in June. He should have stayed, he was more fun that first stint in the Senate, been more moody ever since.

-Yankee, I don'( know, because he's senator for really a long time .)

I was the RPP Vice Presidential candidate in Feb 2009 with DWTL and I had campaigned aggressively, which was my only selling point. I have been told by some on left later on that I was an RPP lackey/hack during that period, which is really interesting since I left the site for six weeks and only returned just in time to vote in the April elections that year. Duke had hit an inactive spell during that period and I was considering running against him for Governor of the Dirty South in the next election. However, PiT asked me to run for Senate to succeed him (he went on to lose the Presidency by 1 vote) something I had never considered before and after casing the joint and getting passionate on some things going on in the chamber (namely the GM issue and the confirmation of an AG with little scrutiny) decided to go with that instead.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

And being moody helps the pain go away?

If post-college life is hammering you so hard, why make this such a downer as well?

[Dr. Cynic]

More frequent elections would more effectively break up the monotony of the Senate than term limits. Imagine if, instead of electing five Senators at a time, all ten Senators were up for re-election every two months. This would raise the stakes of our elections, drive out the most inactive Senators, and give our debates an increased sense of relevance to the electorate.

I wouldn't mind the idea of having all Senators go up for election at once, though that kinda thing could potentially be hell on the CJO's and the SOFE...

[windjammer]

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

[Cranberry]

Sorry, but I noticed just now that you have not enjoyed my so valuable contributions for this bill

Anyway, I won't support this, simply because I see no need for it. I mean, how often is this the case? The Pacific has had no four-term Senator since Bgwah in early 2012, and I doubt many cared then; I guess it is just the same in other regions. (but Yankee of course, but he is just special )
So no, I don't see a need for this.

[Dr. Cynic]

No need. I withdraw the bill.

[TNF]

I would like to assume sponsorship.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So no, I don't see a need for this.

I just did my polling for Survey Atlasia. I noticed that in the time between August and now when I wasn't able to do the polling, that caused there to be several n/a's, the change from last month not being present because they weren't here. Since it was for October, Lumine was still included and he is already gone and now we have another leaving already it seems.

[Cranberry]

What's up here?

[bore]

Seeing as no one objected to TNF assuming sponsorship, and the new rules aren't entirely clear about the process for assuming sponsporship, it just says something about the senate accepting the new sponsor (something that probably needs fixed) I'm going to open a vote on this:

Senators a vote is now open on this amendment, you have 72 hours to vote.

[TNF]

Aye

[windjammer]

Nay

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye

[Deus Naturae]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[Cranberry]

Nay

[bore]

Nay

This amendment has enough votes to fail, senators have 24 hours to change their votes