Proposed Amendment 01: Length of term

Proposed Amendment 01: Amended Length of Terms
Proposed by: The Right Honourable Sovereign Minister of Donkholme
Proposal date: 06/08/2010

Proposal text:
Be it ratified, this text would alter the length of the terms of the Judicial Council, from the designated 3 month interval to a 1 month term. Be it ratified, the Constitution of Tiberiam shall be amended to reflect this text. Be it ratified, this text shall be enacted at the beginning of the next Panel term after votes have been counted and Chancellors have been elected.

Interesting proposal, but i do have my concerns about it being one month at a time. When the rule was issed wihtin the constitution, I thought that would be enough time so that one dose not feel pressured into contemporary politics, one wouldn't feel obligated to set a quick resolve within a case, and one to take time to understand the amendments as they are holders of the constitution.

on the other hand, i do understand that three months is a long time, espically if you have your heart set on being a chancellor. Also, i understand that we would have frequent elections and a more active poltiical government.

As for me, i do not like the idea.

What other benefits can be had by a one month term limits of being a chancllor?

I chose 1 month as the time frame due to the fast-paced nature of NS.
I had debated 6 weeks. Any more than that would slow down progress.
I think a month term increases expected activity. It would also attract new nations interested in a fast paced government that changes often enough to promote interest.

I'm going to vote no on one month. Just for the sake of conversation, what about 2 months?

I think that donk has a point, but i do not think that we have enough nations to incite this legislation. Maybe when we get 20 nations or so, this would most likely be an interest to the populance of becoming a chancellor.

am i wrong in my logic?

I support the proposal. 3 months might not seem long, but it is a really long time for nationstates and for any online endeavour to be honest. I think you will find that a month will not be nearly as short as expected; I can't think of any issues at all that would take more then a week to clear up. If it takes longer then that, considering a typical forum atmosphere, it would probably just stagnate and never be resolved.

Another benefit that hasn't been mentioned yet, is that by limiting the term in such a way it severely reduces the chances of power going to the head of the elected official. The longer someone is in power, the more they feel entitled to that power. Longer terms could potentially lead to some nastiness between members.

I think this is a superb idea that will keep all seats fresh and new, with views and positions that will consistently reflect those of the voting population. It will also allow those seeking re-election to update and modify their platforms to better suit the desires of the community.

I'll vote in favour of this proposal.

This is a good point by Rasvidi, I think you just swung me. I'd like to change my vote to a yes.

you, too, have also swung me. I also vote yes on the purposal. Donk, you should write a bill and post it after this inactivity bill currently in the senate chambers.