The Senate Fair Participation Act (Failed)

[Dr. Cynic]

To put it simply, this is designed to begin the process of term limits for the Senate. I figured that 4 consecutive terms for a Senator (elected after the act passes) would be enough to start with before some fresh blood would be allowed to have a go.

As we've seen, lots of people have wanted to run for the Senate in the past few elections. This bill is designed to open up the opportunity for them to serve and prevent incumbents, no matter how good, from holding on indefinitely. Not many Senators also reach 4 terms, make no mistake, some do, and we're serving with a few who have. They are tremendously talented at their jobs. However, every so often, we need fresh blood and fresh ideas.

This bill also doesn't prevent a Senator from returning to office again, so it's not designed to exclude great Atlasians. A four consecutive term limit I think is a fair thing that we can agree to in order to help prevent stagnation of fresh ideas.

[Dr. Cynic]

Generally turnover is high, with the occassional bore/TNF/bgwah/Duke that can stretch it out to two years continuously.

No one has been able to stomach it longer.

No one except me.


The problem with this is that it could cause seat filling problems. Even when it looked like I was doomed with no internet late last month, there was little interest in taking the seat and Maxwell can correct me if I am wrong, but basically if I had failed in such there would have been something of a scramble to find someone. 

Regions go through ruts and shrinking the potential poll candidates, particularly when aside from myself, there has not been a problem with people long remaining in this chamber doesn't seem like a good move.

Plus I have full faith in the people of the IDS to elect their Representatives.

Well, as you say, the turnover can be high, so there's not always a need for it. I think though as well to Senator Polnut's point, that interest can be kept up with frequent competitive races. There are plenty of races I've seen here where people simply don't want to run a campaign they feel like they'll lose from the start. With term limits, those individuals might be more easily persuaded to run for an office they might want. I think on the whole this should be a positive and only rarely do Senators serve more than 4 terms anyway, so this might be an extra kick in the pants.

Besides, even if you get a bad Senator for one term, the original Senator could run again in the next election if it was really that much of an issue.

[Dr. Cynic]

It's worth noting that in the entire history of the senate only yankee (obviously), tnf, me, gabu, duke and bgwah have served more than 4 terms, so I don't think this is that big a problem, though I can see the case for it.

And I'm not saying this from self interest either, as I can't see myself staying in the senate much longer, even if the people of the northeast wanted me to.

There's a grandfather clause in there for you, Yankee and TNF, I believe. The four term limit only applies after the next election, so you'd each have four extra terms if you could get them. As well, like you say, most Senators don't serve this long, so I don't foresee the kind of issues that many of you raise. I would see them if say, it was a two term limit. So few Senators serve four consecutive terms that I feel as though the problem of harming the quality of debate would not happen. That's why I chose four because so few people serve so long. If you have a different number of terms in mind (say five or six), I'd be open to hearing that.

Senator TNF's amendment is friendly. If it needs to be an amendment rather than an act to be enforceable that's no issue with me.

[Dr. Cynic]

I know Senator Cynic wants to improve things with this amendment but I have never been a fan of the princip of "term limit".

I believe that this is the right of the people to decide if they want to continue to have their senator, not us.

And the fact that just after 1 term the senator could be back in the senate, well, I guess this amendment could be easily "hijacked", an Atlasian version of Putin/Medvedev .

This is a game, keep in mind. If this were a real life situation, I'd tend to agree. However, I support term limits in a game like this because in some cases, getting new people involved quickly is essential to keeping them interested.

It also allows people who may lose election to a popular incumbent for no other reason than the incumbent is simply more well known and popular a chance at the job.

[Dr. Cynic]

I know Senator Cynic wants to improve things with this amendment but I have never been a fan of the princip of "term limit".

I believe that this is the right of the people to decide if they want to continue to have their senator, not us.

And the fact that just after 1 term the senator could be back in the senate, well, I guess this amendment could be easily "hijacked", an Atlasian version of Putin/Medvedev .

This is a game, keep in mind. If this were a real life situation, I'd tend to agree. However, I support term limits in a game like this because in some cases, getting new people involved quickly is essential to keeping them interested.

It also allows people who may lose election to a popular incumbent for no other reason than the incumbent is simply more well known and popular a chance at the job.

I have to disagree, I believe that the fact this is a game this is an another reason that term limits shouldn't exist.

This is a game, and this game needs few old senators, in order to welcome the new senators. Senator Yankee contantly helped the new VPs with his experience for example. That wouldn't be a good thing if all senators were just elected.

Furthermore, how many "old senators" currently do we have? 3: TNF, Yankee and Bore. That would be unfair to say that there is a problem with "seniority". There is a huge turn over in the senate.

And being a sitting senator doesn't mean you never have close elections. TNF has never been safe, Yankee has been safe most of the time but faced some close races recently (Maxwell). And finally, John Boreow has A-L-W-A-Y-S been challenged, and he has always prevailed by a tiny margin.

I made the Windjammer senate tracker 3 month ago, and basically, which senators never missed votes during my time as VP? Yankee, TNF, bore and Tyrion. What have they in common? Their seniority.


No but really, I know you want to improve things, and I appreciate your enthusiasm with game reforms, but according to me term limits aren't the solution.

I actually don't support term limits in real life. I support them here in the game and again, let me reiterate, this bill is not aimed at the current incumbents. This is a bill that is designed specifically to keep this game alive in the long term. Turnover and interest wane very quickly with newcomers to the game. I talked to several people who were frustrated with being unable to get a footing in the game simply because of factors like facing a popular incumbent and at the time we didn't even have regional assemblies. You're not looking at this long term. In the short term, I could see where your argument could make sense. But this is a bill designed to invest in the future of a more open and competitive Senate races and to get people a better chance to serve. I'd like to offer up for example the case of Poirot who is a frequent candidate, yet he seemingly can't get elected past the regional level. I feel with term limits, he and others like him would have a better shot without having to take on entrenched incumbents (Not necessarily these incumbents).

[Dr. Cynic]

I sure wish you wouldn't ignore the main argument behind it though. This is not meant for the short term, but it is a long term strategy to ensure no one gets too cushy. 4 terms is 16 months. How many serve that long? Not many, yes.

You're also right to say the Senate is filled with old players, including me. But I'll be gone in December (I have a wedding to plan and that just has to take precedence). I hope whoever gets the seat I'm occupying will be someone who hasn't had the chance to serve in the Senate yet.

Again, you're only bringing up examples of the current crop of Senators. This bill is aimed toward the future, not current members (who are grandfathered an extra four terms by the language of the bill). 16 months in one spot in this game really should be enough for anyone.

[Dr. Cynic]

There is still the option for those very old Senators to return later and it's very unlikely that every Senator once elected simply won't know what they're doing. This isn't the real life Senate where seniority offers any sort of special perks. Every term won't expire immediately. You'll see three and four term Senators serving with new ones.

There will always be members of the Senate who will be able to guide new ones along, so I fail to see what's so awful about saying "Ok, after 16 months, you've got to find another way to be useful for a little while and then come back if you can again later".

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[Dr. Cynic]

No need. I withdraw the bill.

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye