Osiris Fraternal Order

Again, this isn't a matter for the state code, as the Elections Administration Act should be the vehicle through which elections are legislated.
Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea should be the name of the game, and any such legislation without this at its spirit will meet my full opposition.

I'm against having a cap on how many times a person may run for/serve in a particular office. If the populace is satisfied with how he or she is performing, then they will give that person fresh mandate to serve in the regional government. If not, then they can simply choose to vote another candidate. But we should not disqualify someone just because he/she already served x number of terms. That has an advantage, gives us candidates with a wealth of experience in government.

I'm keen on supporting a COID provision, but I think as it currently appears in the draft we need to refine it more to avoid the instances mentioned by Sev

Guys, a lot of you are repeating stuff I've said, but in a different way ;-;

Theoden Sebastian wrote:Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:35 amI'm against having a cap on how many times a person may run for/serve in a particular office. If the populace is satisfied with how he or she is performing, then they will give that person fresh mandate to serve in the regional government. If not, then they can simply choose to vote another candidate. But we should not disqualify someone just because he/she already served x number of terms. That has an advantage, gives us candidates with a wealth of experience in government.

I'm keen on supporting a COID provision, but I think as it currently appears in the draft we need to refine it more to avoid the instances mentioned by Sev

Diversity can serve the region nicely. Plus it isn't impossible at some point that the person who keeps getting re-elected has the main voters around his/her finger, or that a group of people keep one of their own in the Pharaoh seat for their own gain. I understand putting a cap doesn't solve that potential issue, but it at least hinders it slightly.

Marselesk wrote:Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:23 pm

Theoden Sebastian wrote:Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:35 amI'm against having a cap on how many times a person may run for/serve in a particular office. If the populace is satisfied with how he or she is performing, then they will give that person fresh mandate to serve in the regional government. If not, then they can simply choose to vote another candidate. But we should not disqualify someone just because he/she already served x number of terms. That has an advantage, gives us candidates with a wealth of experience in government.

I'm keen on supporting a COID provision, but I think as it currently appears in the draft we need to refine it more to avoid the instances mentioned by Sev

Diversity can serve the region nicely. Plus it isn't impossible at some point that the person who keeps getting re-elected has the main voters around his/her finger, or that a group of people keep one of their own in the Pharaoh seat for their own gain. I understand putting a cap doesn't solve that potential issue, but it at least hinders it slightly.

Mate, you know as well as I do that regions tend to revolve around the activity of a handful of key people. Term limits are a bad idea, especially for something like the delegacy.

Term limits are bad. They can prevent otherwise competent and qualified individuals from holding office because they've held it before.

And I'm not sure the Administrative Team should appoint an individual from amongst themselves, however I'd be open to the Pschent doing so.

Joshua Bluteisen wrote:Sat Dec 12, 2015 2:34 am

Marselesk wrote:Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:23 pm

Theoden Sebastian wrote:Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:35 amI'm against having a cap on how many times a person may run for/serve in a particular office. If the populace is satisfied with how he or she is performing, then they will give that person fresh mandate to serve in the regional government. If not, then they can simply choose to vote another candidate. But we should not disqualify someone just because he/she already served x number of terms. That has an advantage, gives us candidates with a wealth of experience in government.

I'm keen on supporting a COID provision, but I think as it currently appears in the draft we need to refine it more to avoid the instances mentioned by Sev

Diversity can serve the region nicely. Plus it isn't impossible at some point that the person who keeps getting re-elected has the main voters around his/her finger, or that a group of people keep one of their own in the Pharaoh seat for their own gain. I understand putting a cap doesn't solve that potential issue, but it at least hinders it slightly.

Mate, you know as well as I do that regions tend to revolve around the activity of a handful of key people. Term limits are a bad idea, especially for something like the delegacy.

My problem is that a handful of key people shouldn't always be the same people. I don't see how consecutive term limits are bad, really, but i am open to discussion on that. There are always at least a few people who would be capable of running for office, so there's no need to keep re-electing the same person over and over. The person getting re-elected doesn't always have to happen because the person is doing a great job, as well. As it stands, what's stopping me and some friends from getting into the Deshret and keep voting for one of us over and over and over in order to keep our interest the interest of the region? Becoming a Pharaoh or Keeper shouldn't be the result of knowing the right people, but having the capabilities to improve or maintain the prosperity of the region, as well as being able to show those capabilities. I am in no way saying that the Deshret is corrupt and selfish, far from it. I'm saying we should be making ways to keep it from becoming like that.

I am fully in support of having a diverse pool of choices to lead the region, and of encouraging new faces and fresh blood to try and take the reins of government. But again, that should not be at the expense of those who are still willing to serve Osiris.

Us prohibiting people who already serve a couple of consecutive terms will not necessarily result to new members running. Nor will it equate to a better or efficient corps of leaders. By allowing 'veteran' or 'senior' players to keep winning their mandate, alongside new members, we have a better chance of installing a government that will be led by experienced and trained leaders.

I'm in agreement with Kleo, if someone has been pharaoh three times in a row its time for someone else to take the reigns if only to get a fresh mindset. That same drive and initiative cannot be present there will be a certain amount of complacency inbuilt imho. Consecutive term limits are decent compromise between term limits and no term limits and theoretically it can be such that they need sit out one election or so to be eligible again.

I'd rather not go down the line of any regions in NS where we see a delegate remain in power until they decide they won't run again and only then do you see a new face in the big seat. Pharaohs surround themselves with experienced scribes anyway which are vetted by the deshret so our leaders will generally always have experienced advisers to run the government.

Revall wrote:Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:25 pmI'm in agreement with Kleo, if someone has been pharaoh three times in a row its time for someone else to take the reigns if only to get a fresh mindset. That same drive and initiative cannot be present there will be a certain amount of complacency inbuilt imho. Consecutive term limits are decent compromise between term limits and no term limits and theoretically it can be such that they need sit out one election or so to be eligible again.

I'd rather not go down the line of any regions in NS where we see a delegate remain in power until they decide they won't run again and only then do you see a new face in the big seat. Pharaohs surround themselves with experienced scribes anyway which are vetted by the deshret so our leaders will generally always have experienced advisers to run the government.

This sort of attitude betrays a lack of faith in the People.