Introducing set terms (Officers)

[frattastan]

I liked the challenge system because it was flexible enough to work well even in times of low activity (and better than having elections with the same candidates running due to lack of opponents), kept administrative work at a minimum and ensured a simple and stable government structure.

However, in absence of regular elections, Officer activity inevitably tends to become more stagnant after a few months (to the point where some stop accomplishing anything and there's little point in keeping them around).
This wouldn't be a problem if the incumbents were regularly challenged, but it doesn't happen. Unless there's visible signs like blatant inactivity, a vacant seat, Officers being moved to the role of 'Please Challenge', people aren't encouraged to step forward or become interested in participating in the government.

I would amend the Constitution to introduce a set term (tentatively of four months) for government Officers, with the intention of encouraging participation and strengthening their accountability to the Assembly. The possibility to challenge during the term would remain.

You're free to open another debate on that, but at the moment I do not want to introduce a set Delegate term.

[sedge]

You want all four elected at the same fixed time (so anyone that challenges and replaces would only serve the remainder of the term), or for each newly elected Officer to have a term of 4 months - so they're all likely to expire at different times?

[frattastan]

All four at the same time, preferrably.
Works better for coordinating government action and removes the possibility of the Assembly being busy all-year round organising elections and the Delegate having to deal all the time with crippled governments (always with one officer in the process of being elected).

And yes, this means that a successful challenge during a term would only be a by-election.

[Christian Democrats]

Let's just do away with the election of officers altogether.

~ One delegate, who is the region's head of government
~ Election every six months -- or earlier if there's a challenge
~ Appoints whichever four players he wants to his cabinet

To make things interesting, prospective delegates could put together tickets.

If elected, I will ask players A, B, C, and D to serve in my cabinet.

Also, the Assembly, by majority vote, could impeach and remove cabinet officers.

[frattastan]

I prefer the balance we currently have in the Constitution, with Officers elected separately from the Delegate, but having to fulfill specific roles. The Delegate already has enough influence over the executive, and I'd not want them to be supreme.

[Guy]

Let's just do away with the election of officers altogether.

~ One delegate, who is the region's head of government
~ Election every six months -- or earlier if there's a challenge
~ Appoints whichever four players he wants to his cabinet

To make things interesting, prospective delegates could put together tickets.

If elected, I will ask players A, B, C, and D to serve in my cabinet.

Also, the Assembly, by majority vote, could impeach and remove cabinet officers.

I don't like this suggestion. Further to what fratt said, it fails to address the issue identified (and the reasoning behind his suggestion) - the lack of governmental activity, and people not wanting to step up to challenge incumbents and thus a lack of involvement with the government. If the Delegate is to hand-pick his Officers, there is an even lesser chance of people stepping up.

I don't really see the advantage of this system over our current one.


I like fratt's idea, and I think it merits serious consideration. It's likely to address both problems simultaneously - both get more people involved in regional government, and spur activity (as it forces us to have elections).

[Libetarian Republics]

is there someone you don't like, fratt? bet you missed me as officer

I like the idea of having a mixture of set elections/challenge system.

[Christian Democrats]

I prefer the balance we currently have in the Constitution, with Officers elected separately from the Delegate, but having to fulfill specific roles. The Delegate already has enough influence over the executive, and I'd not want them to be supreme.

Having a delegate who is "supreme," in my view, would increase government accountability. We'd know where to point the finger if things weren't going right. Furthermore, having a strong executive (unitary executive) would allow reforms to be implemented quickly if need be. I also think adopting such a form of government could make the regional cabinet more meritocratic.

[frattastan]

With a unitary executive the governance of the region would become too influenced by the Delegate's personal projects, which is something I'd rather avoid.

[Christian Democrats]

With a unitary executive the governance of the region would become too influenced by the Delegate's personal projects, which is something I'd rather avoid.

That's what I find attractive about the idea: that one player with a lot of resolve could influence the region and do it quickly. It would surely up the ante during delegacy elections, which, from now on, would be taking place at least once every six months.

[frattastan]

I have little faith in Great Men, sorry.

[Abbey Anumia]

With a unitary executive the governance of the region would become too influenced by the Delegate's personal projects, which is something I'd rather avoid.

That's what I find attractive about the idea: that one player with a lot of resolve could influence the region and do it quickly. It would surely up the ante during delegacy elections, which, from now on, would be taking place at least once every six months.

And an apathetic (or even malicious) player who's good at winning elections could do an awful lot of damage and do it quickly. Having separately elected officers helps keep the region less clique'y - given our absence of 10s of thousands of other positions it's worth it as well for the ability to bring different viewpoints into the government. Don't want that changing.

However, the actual topic of this thread I could see as a reasonable idea, mostly on the basis that people are more likely to say "Screw it" and run in an open election than they are to actively challenge an existing governmental member. I like the simplicity of the challenge system and it's a bit of a shame to lose it but we do end up with a sad amount of governmental inertia. So long as the terms were long enough, I think it could be good.

[Guy]

I agree with Abbey and frattpoo. While our unique challenge system indeed has its advantages, and it has served as well for almost three years, I think it would be beneficial for us to try something new. The advantages of regular Officer elections are numerous, and hopefully it will get new people involved in our government.

What term lengths sound reasonable to you? I suggested four months to fratt - if an incumbent is doing a good job, then they could re-run. Otherwise, I would not necessarily be opposed to longer terms, but I don't see a big advantage in doing that. I think staggering the terms might be a good idea as well, if only so to ensure we don't have four elections occurring at the same time. It might make the legislative text a tad more complicated, but we can probably deal with that.

[Felasia]

I am in favor of changing from a challenge system to an election system for Officers.

The main problem is the unwillingness of people to step-up and challenge an incumbent. As Abbey had already stated, it is far more likely that a possible challenger emerge in an election than from the challenge system itself. Considering the fact that you have to be confident that you can do a better job.

Four months is reasonable for a term.

[Christian Democrats]

Six-month terms, staggered

March -- Officers A & B elected
June -- Officers C & D elected
September -- Officers A & B elected
December -- Officers C & D elected

[Guy]

Personally, I'd prefer if it was shorter than six months. We also have to somehow determine which Officers will be up for election first.

[Saeturn Valerius]

Personally, I like three months. Six and even four can start to lead to the sort of stagnation this is trying to avoid.

[frattastan]

Not convinced about the benefits of staggering the elections.

[Guy]

Yeah, it might be more trouble than it's worth. On the other hand, four simultaneous campaigns can become a bit confusing, especially if they are contested.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Well, I leave for two weeks and something interesting happens.

*Disclaimer: I'm still in the throes of a rather serious concussion, so this might be even more curmudgeonly than usual*

First off, seeing how this is written by Guy and that I've been around as long as dirt - and been about as effective - I can guess at whom this particular piece of legislation is directed. To be completely honest, I've been in a rather dire health situation for the last few months with the concussion being a nice medical curtain call. If I had known how long this would draw out I would have resigned a long time ago. But I didn't and I'm still here, so that's that. I also don't have much of anything to do, as per the Constitution, because of the Media...

Sorry, rambling. That stuff's not pertinent.

From my understanding, term limits is a nice idea, but it won't catalyze the sort of paradigm shifts we're all looking for. If you all will remember, we had this conversation last year and TRR's activity and - if memory serves me - the ultimate conclusion was that the issue is far more multifaceted than something that can be easily resolved by changing up the officers. We would need to permute 16 distinct and effective citizens in a single year to sustain the proposed system, if I understand it correctly.
At the same time, what officers do is not the be-it end-all of TRR activity. Every time an officer is elected he or she presents a couple Great Leap Forwards which then - for a multitude of reasons - sink faster than a mobster in Lake Michigan.

If we really want to resolve the activity and government inertia issues once and for all, I'm going to suggest what any good bureaucrat would: let's look more deeply into the problem. I think that we all need to sit down and have a long thread trying to identify the primary reasons for regional inactivity.

All of that being ineloquently and ineffectively said, I would like to offer my own solution to the mix:
One of the inherent flaws with hauling new people in every three months is that it will require a perpetual state of reinventing the wheel.
My suggestion is that for every current office we have two officers: a Senior officer and a Junior officer.
The Senior stays on the current system, where he or she remains in office until challenged.
The Junior is elected on a term basis, potentially once every three months. Or whatever.
The two officers would work - theoretically - in tandem. Each would undoubtedly also have their own pet projects and whatnot.
The relationship would be like that of the Senate and the House, with the purpose of the Senior to be a little more prudent and serve as a bit of a cooling saucer and a level head. I guess less like the Senate and House and more like Agent K and Agent J.

But here's the kicker: the Junior can challenge the Senior for the Senior position.

Okay, that's more than enough screen time for me.
Take from that what you will.

*drops mic*

[frattastan]

It is written by me and not by Guy. It's not specifically directed at anyone, just something I have been considering for a while.
Furthermore, it's not meant to solve anything related to activity (because I don't believe lack of activity is due to structural problems, or that it can be changed in a single move), but to encourage a wider participation to the governance of the region, even in roles of responsibility.

We would need to permute 16 distinct and effective citizens in a single year to sustain the proposed system, if I understand it correctly.

While it's possible that we will have 12 distinct citizens (four officers elected every four months ... that's three elections a year - twelve people), it will not be required. We are not imposing term limits. People could re-run as often as they want.
Only, instead of having Officers serve for indefinite periods, we would periodically vote to judge their performance and decide whether their term should be renewed or if it would be better to replace them.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

And that is why I should talk even less when concussed...

Yeah, sounds like a solid plan. I'm all for it.

[Thought Transference]

Just a sideways thought about staggered elections, based on this:

Article 7: The Challenge System
...
* B: Elections begin once a challenge is submitted. If the elections are for the position of Delegate, any citizens admitted after this time will not be allowed to vote until elections are completed.

I know this is only theoretical, and even at that it's a small thing, but if we stagger the elections we will be increasing the amount of time that newly admitted citizens will be left cooling their heels while the rest of us vote. By itself this isn't that important but with other considerations it might be.

[frattastan]

That clause refers exclusively to Delegate elections, so it wouldn't apply with the proposed changes.

[Thought Transference]

With a unitary executive the governance of the region would become too influenced by the Delegate's personal projects, which is something I'd rather avoid.

That's what I find attractive about the idea: that one player with a lot of resolve could influence the region and do it quickly. It would surely up the ante during delegacy elections, which, from now on, would be taking place at least once every six months.

And an apathetic (or even malicious) player who's good at winning elections could do an awful lot of damage and do it quickly. Having separately elected officers helps keep the region less clique'y - given our absence of 10s of thousands of other positions it's worth it as well for the ability to bring different viewpoints into the government. Don't want that changing.

However, the actual topic of this thread I could see as a reasonable idea, mostly on the basis that people are more likely to say "Screw it" and run in an open election than they are to actively challenge an existing governmental member. I like the simplicity of the challenge system and it's a bit of a shame to lose it but we do end up with a sad amount of governmental inertia. So long as the terms were long enough, I think it could be good.

As for the the main point, I don't know if it's a good idea capable of doing what you think it will. It might make things better, but it just might be another kind of ineffective. I'll let others argue that point.

However, if it is a good idea, I'm with fratt and Abbey on not going for the unitary executive approach. Abbey's way of phrasing it says exactly what's on my mind: "And an apathetic (or even malicious) player who's good at winning elections could do an awful lot of damage and do it quickly".

Also, I think I'd go a stage further than Abbey and say that separately elected officers won't just keep the region less clique-y, it'll keep us less volatile and less prone to upheaval for the amusement of someone who doesn't really care about TRR. In that case, leaving the election of officers independent of the Delegate would help to stabilize the very worst excesses of such a person until (s)he is voted out again.