Repealing a part of the Articles of USNW

When the USNW Articles were created to replace the USNW Charter, there were a few things that were changed that some people might not know about, including me up to this point. There were a lot of safeguards to make sure people had proper experience before taking up a high office, and all of them were in effect in the last election. I am confident most of these were in the old charter, which has mysteriously vanished, but in case parts weren't, this is what the bill would do to Chapter II.

• You must have been a member for five months to run for Chancellor, First Minister, or Executive Secretary, instead of the current three months.
  
• You have a term of six months; you have a term limit of four terms consecutively and six terms overall, the articles say nothing of this.
  
• You must have been a member for three months to run for a ministry, the articles say nothing of this.

For the first one: Quite frankly, for those of you who have aspirations to run for high office (and there are a lot of you), you need to have been a member here for a long time to see how everything works. Three months, frankly, isn't enough. You need to see how issues are handles within this union, outside of this union, how events are operated, how members are recruited, etc., and in the last three you haven't seen half of that. Five months encompasses the previous AIN elections, which removed the incumbents, so seeing the USNW executive reactions is an important example of that. Think of what would have happened if it would have been an October Crisis and we were somehow dragged into it.

and the second one: You don't really need to see that kind of thing as a minister, but you should have a little bit of union experience and know everybody here. Three months is a good compromise. And again, that was what it previously was.

finally: Term limits are so crucial. USNW runs as a democracy, which means you shouldn't stay in it forever. You're already an admin forever, someone else should take up your position eventually. Plus, people might feel all-powerful and get a little zealous. The October Crisis brought this issue up, and that's why this was previously in the constitution.

Before you worry that you won't get to run for something you wanted to, think about what happens in the long run. We want to prevent tyranny and ensure that we get the most experienced administrators possible. Think about it

So this is only for the executive department? Or is this also includes the ministries?

I don't think we should have term limits. If that person is a good person for that position, we should let them run as many times as they wish, as long as the members of USNW want him in.

111222333444 wrote:So this is only for the executive department? Or is this also includes the ministries?

Read it and find out.

My opinion for what it's worth...

You must have been a member for five months to run for Chancellor, First Minister, or Executive Secretary, instead of the current three months.

The more you've been around the place the more you learn how everything works. I'd approve of this change.

You have a term of six months; you have a term limit of four terms consecutively and six terms overall, the articles say nothing of this.

Term limits are a good idea. Last union I was in, in my opinion had the problem you brought up (all powerful dictator that is ruler of everything and all changes he makes need no vote and opposition are banned from the site). But we also had the problem for awhile where no one wanted to run against that person either. I feel that term limits could be shorter than the six months, as this is a long time in forum land, and 4 consecutive terms would have the person in power for 2 years. This I disagree with. I'd prefer the terms to be 4 months with 2 consecutive terms and unlimited overall. You never know who will leave or join the union. Perhaps one person might be the only candidate that wants the job but can't take it due to already been in the job 6terms.

You must have been a member for three months to run for a ministry, the articles say nothing of this

This is acceptable I feel for a lower Position. All we need is for people to actually apply for them. I'd also approve who ever is elected Chancellor to have the right to ask members to take up Ministry rolls if no one has applied for them, or if current ministers are MIA.

K50 wrote:

111222333444 wrote:So this is only for the executive department? Or is this also includes the ministries?

Read it and find out.

I got it before you posted

The Imperial Federal Kingdom of Grand, Belluterra, and Malo supports this. We would also like to explore the possibilities of what Shayden proposed, about there being no term limits, or at the very most, being a limit on consecutive terms. If it came down to a final vote, however, we would vote yes.

They aren't in there because before re-proposing the current charter I removed them after discussing it with a panel of members. They were legally voted on and removed when the new revision was accepted.

I think term limits are pointless, if someone doesn't want someone there just vote them out. Term limits in real life where people can pressure people by different means into not voting, fraud, ect. they come in handy but here where we can just vote people out, there's really no use. The rest I am fine with and will support.

My personal replies to term limits...

Term limits are for the most part the least of my worries compared to the other two topics. However Fox brought up a good point. But again, the executive experience safeguard is by far the most important.

I think a no-confidence vote is dangerous as far as building community in the USNW. For example, if I proposed a bill to knock someone out of office, people would turn against each other really quick. But fresh blood is important in democracy. That's really all I can say without rambling

I still don't support the term limits. We can just vote someone out instead of setting term limits like Chip said.

I support this fully.

The vote of no confidence is a safe guard, if someone is being extremely inactive and not doing their job, we cna't just take them out of office, we have to vote them out. Therefore, vote of no confidence.

I think maybe extending the term limit excessively would be better than just being one for ever... just my opinion.

If someone does a good job, then they shouldn't be barred from running. The only reason we have term limits in real life is because people can get too much power and force people into voting for them or not voting at all, they can also not have elections. That can't really happen here, plus we have a vote of no confidence, so there's really no reason for having a term limit.

I agree with Chip

So do I

I don't but since you guys obviously don't know the effects that a no-confidence vote has on the community yet, I guess I'll put this to vote without it.

2/3 majority to pass. Voted.

This sounds good. I think the limitless term is fair. I don't really think anyone here would go crazy with power, so I don't see any immediate danger. I don't understand the no-confidence vote, as I thought that had something to do with banning members. Is that right?
Edit: Voted BTW.

No-confidence vote is pretty much an impeachment from an office.

So the term limits are out? Just wondering, since they are crossed out on the first page

Very well then

Voted.

Voted

Am I supposd to be able to vote?

You shouldn't even see this....