Children...

Yes -- let's not fight.

No I have several points so I'm going to number them.

1 -- Es, let's put it this way. In our previous thread, you've been concerned that people are not spending enough time around and are only popping in and out for elections. If we institute term limits, there's a chance that these are people we're going to get into elected office if others are term limited.

2 -- To GR's point before -- I don't know what else we can do, other than offer more positions? Yes, they are selected ... but what else?

3 -- And to GE's what should a "social society" be? I'm not sure I understand?

4 -- Finally, just spit balling -- what if we held elections more frequently? Either every other or every three months instead of every four? That would give more opportunities for change, make it possible for people who could dedicate less time to run and maybe make term limits more acceptable?

I wouldn't be opposed to making terms 2-3 months long, instead of 4.

We moved from three month terms to four month terms as three month terms were too short; you'd spend the first month getting stuff set up and planned, the second move doing it, and for the last few weeks before the election you became a lame duck as nothing new was started as there were elections soon. Four month terms also allows Cabinet/Judicial elections to be spaced out properly.

---

Escades' argument seems to boil down to the idea that we should prevent the people who've won elections from running to give the people who lost them a better chance of winning. This is, to put it frankly, absurd. It's penalizing success, and artificially limiting the number of candidates by removing the ones with records of service and a history of competence.

We have often had elections with just one candidate, and sometimes none at all. We don't want even less people running for elections, and we don't want people with a proven record of good work banned from running so that... what, exactly? The people who lost the elections can get a turn?

It shouldn't be a question of turns. Running for election is a right; winning an election isn't. If the Assembly wants to keep electing the same person, then good for it.

---

Anyway, this whole argument is pointless. Article 2.8 of the Charter produces a right for all citizens to both vote and run for office, so this would require a Charter amendment. I doubt you'd be able to get 50% of the Assembly to support term limits; you're not going to be able to get 75% to do so.

That's a pretty distorted boiling down of Escade's argument. The idea is to prevent a few people from dominating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, I think it's an entirely accurate description. She wants the people who win elections banned from standing for election. It is quite literally absurd.

Many democracies in the real world do it, so to call it absurd is just a bit grandiose. Escade wants to bring new people into leadership positions, and she believes term limits are a good way to do that. Dismissing it as absurd isn't very convincing. There are many arguments for why it is and isn't a good idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with the thrust of what Escade has outlined, but I do not agree with term limits as a way to achieve it.

However, I would also caution that the principle that elections is the only real check that we need is not true. It is the nature of NS that people tend to vote for those that they like, and some people will put themselves up for election even if they do not feel that they can do the job effectively because of the status, because their friends tell them to do so or simply because they don't like the other people running. Now I am not saying that these are all that motivate people, many run (I like to think) because they want to do the job, think they are the best person and want to improve our region.

But I think that it is incumbent on every person running for office to really think through whether they are doing it for the right reasons or not - and I think that if we encourage individuals to think in those terms when running for office then we will have another, perhaps more effective, check than just elections.

As part of that attitude, I think that older members, and I say this as an older member in another region - have to consider whether they are running out of habit or whether there are younger members who are equally as capable (or have the potential to be capable). Ultimately, we all want our region to succeed, but that requires fresh blood and although I do not agree with legal limits on terms, I think that Escade is right to highlight this important issue.

I don't even understand Escade's argument anymore. How can we agree on a solution when I don't even believe that there is a problem of few people dominating the cabinet? Escade has directly accused people of 'clinging on to power' and not helping the region and I don't know who she is talking about.

Honestly, I find the attitude of pointing fingers and accusing people who put their free time into building these institutions as doing nothing but 'clinging on to power' just more destructive politics.

Let's look at the cabinet:

Tsu and Geo haven't held elected power in over a decade. GR is on his second term, Escade on her third and Kris is on his second or third. Farengeto is on his second.

I do not think any of these people are unfairly dominating TSP politics by clinging on to elected power.

She wasn't talking about any of the current cabinet SB. She was talking about you and me.