Structural Analysis (Module I)

Module navigation:
→ Current module: Structural Analysis (Module I)
→ Proceed to Normative Analysis (Module II)

METHODOLOGICAL STATEMENT

This framework evaluates eligibility rules as institutional design structures. It does not infer intent, speculate about motive, or assess political desirability.

Findings are grounded in:

  • textual features of the rule,

  • predictable structural effects, and

  • administrability in real institutional settings.

The framework distinguishes between two forms of evaluation:

Structural Validity - whether a design functions coherently as a rule
Normative Adequacy - whether a design advances a theory of republican rotation

These two forms of analysis are deliberately separated.

Structural Validity is analytic and descriptive.
Normative Adequacy, articulated through the Doctrine, is evaluative and theoretical.

PURPOSE

Public discussion of term limits commonly presents structurally different eligibility regimes as if they belonged to a single category. Readers are then asked - implicitly or explicitly - to assess fairness, effectiveness, or outcomes across systems that are not structurally comparable. Some designs preserve incumbent continuity despite nominal limits; others impose genuine rotation through bounded eligibility.

When these distinct structures are treated as interchangeable, the terms of the discussion become internally inconsistent: the same label is made to carry incompatible mechanics, so conclusions cannot remain logically reliable. This framework addresses that problem by separating the system types and supplying criteria that make valid analysis possible.

It provides a disciplined reference for evaluating eligibility rules as institutional architecture, independent of office, jurisdiction, or political context. It is not a proposal, a campaign document, or a model statute. Its function is to clarify how rotation operates structurally and to distinguish coherent bounded-eligibility systems from designs that only simulate limits.

The framework is elections-based. It treats elections - not years, not consecutive service - as the unit of democratic authorization and limitation unless the governing text explicitly provides otherwise. This rule ensures internal consistency in classification and guards against unit-of-measure collapse in evaluation.

SCOPE BOUNDARIES

This framework does not evaluate:

  • political feasibility

  • partisan advantage

  • popularity with voters

  • democratic legitimacy

  • likelihood of enactment

  • constitutionality under existing doctrine

  • policy outcomes beyond structural effects

Its sole purpose is to evaluate the design logic and systemic behavior of eligibility regimes.

INTERPRETIVE DISCIPLINE

Where textual features clearly produce unequal, incoherent, or non-administrable effects, those effects are treated as structural defects.

Where ambiguity exists, it is treated as a defect only if it creates real risk of inconsistent application, discretionary judgment, or predictable gaming.

Otherwise, uncertainty is acknowledged rather than resolved in favor of critique.

This discipline preserves analytic fairness and guards against over-reading.


MODULE I — STRUCTURAL VALIDITY

(Analytic, descriptive, professionally neutral)

Purpose

To determine whether a design constitutes a structurally valid term-limit system — meaning a bounded eligibility regime capable of uniform, coherent, and mechanical application.

A system may be structurally valid yet normatively weak. This module addresses only structural function.

CORE STRUCTURAL TESTS

Each test is applied through:

  • a diagnostic question,

  • textual evidence, and

  • observed structural effect.

1. Equal Application Test

Question:
Does the rule treat all persons identically across time, without cohort-based differences in cumulative eligibility?

Structural failure indicators:

  • exemptions tied to incumbency

  • cohort carve-outs

  • protected classes

  • grandfathered eligibility

  • service counted differently based solely on timing

2. Aggregation Integrity Test

Question:
Does all qualifying service accumulate toward a single bounded eligibility ceiling?

Structural failure indicators:

  • eligibility resets after absence

  • multiple clocks or parallel limits

  • excluded categories of service

  • artificial discontinuities in counting

3. Transition Coherence Test

Question:
If the rule shifts regimes, does the transition operate as a finite mechanical bridge rather than as a permanent exemption?

Structural failure indicators:

  • legacy service permanently excluded

  • undefined integration of prior service

  • discretionary extensions

  • transitional carve-outs that never expire

4. Administrative Coherence Test

Question:
Can the rule be applied mechanically and uniformly, without complex interpretation, discretionary judgment, or predictable gaming?

Structural failure indicators:

  • multi-layered counting rules

  • reliance on interpretive discretion

  • unstable edge cases

  • foreseeable litigation or manipulation pathways

Administrability is treated as structural because lack of it undermines equal application in practice.

STRUCTURAL OUTCOME CATEGORIES

Results are classified analytically rather than rhetorically:

  • Structurally Valid Term-Limit System
    Coherent aggregation, equal application, administrable mechanics.

  • Structurally Compromised Term-Limit System
    Retains bounded eligibility but exhibits identifiable defects (complexity, partial laundering, weak transitions, etc.).

  • Not Structurally Valid as a Term-Limit System
    Fails to function as a bounded eligibility regime (resets, exemptions, cycling, cohort privilege, or equivalent failures).

CONFIDENCE LEVELS FOR FINDINGS

All findings are expressed using calibrated levels of confidence:

  • Clearly present

  • Present

  • Weakly present

  • Indeterminate

  • Not present

This reflects professional analytic practice and preserves intellectual honesty where evidence is ambiguous.

A. Structural Failure Modes (Module I)

These failure modes describe recurring structural patterns that prevent an eligibility regime from functioning as a coherent, bounded, administrable rule.

A proposal exhibiting one or more of these failures cannot be classified as structurally valid, regardless of intent or stated purpose.

1. Equal Application Failure

A proposal fails equal application when service is not counted uniformly across persons or cohorts, or when eligibility logic produces structurally unequal classes despite facial neutrality.

Common manifestations

  • Universal Reset (Explicit New Clock) — Prior service is explicitly excluded for all persons (e.g., “service prior to enactment shall not be counted”), creating facial equality but a structural incumbent windfall.

  • Grandfathering Exemption — Explicit exemption for incumbents or defined cohorts, creating a protected class by text.

  • Dual-Use Laundering (Contradictory Eligibility Architecture) — Designs in which prior service simultaneously functions as:

    • a basis for exemption (protecting incumbents), and

    • a mechanism for restricting newcomers,
      producing an internally inconsistent eligibility regime that cannot be coherently or uniformly administered and that enables post hoc interpretive manipulation.

2. Aggregation Failure

A proposal fails aggregation when service does not accumulate toward a finite eligibility ceiling.

Common manifestations

  • Cooling-Off Laundering — consecutive limits without a lifetime or aggregate cap

3. Measurement Failure

A proposal fails measurement when the unit being limited is unclear, inconsistent, or internally contradictory.

Common manifestations

  • Unit-of-Measure Collapse — mixing or failing to define elections, terms, or years

4. Transition Integrity Failure

A proposal fails transition integrity when transitional provisions function as deferral, erasure, or exemption rather than convergence toward a single coherent rule.

Common manifestations

  • Appointment ≠ Election Laundering — appointed or acting service excluded from counting in ways that invite gaming or unequal treatment

5. Administrative Coherence Failure

A proposal fails administrative coherence when its rules cannot be applied mechanically and uniformly in real institutional settings.

Common manifestations

  • multi-layered or internally inconsistent counting rules

  • reliance on interpretive discretion to resolve eligibility

  • predictable edge-case litigation or manipulation pathways

A structurally valid term-limit system must avoid all structural failure modes above.

Meta-Prompt: Structural Rotation Integrity Test

Copyable prompt (paste into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc.)

Analyze the following proposal strictly as a structural design, not as advocacy.

Avoid first- and second-person pronouns ("I," "we," "you," "your”).
Use formal analytical tone suitable for academic or professional publication.

Do not infer intent, speculate about motive, or evaluate desirability. Do not reinterpret ambiguous language charitably; unresolved ambiguity should be treated as a structural defect only if it creates real risk of inconsistent application, discretionary judgment, or predictable gaming. Do not propose fixes unless explicitly asked.

For each of the following structural failure modes, state Yes / No, with one sentence of justification if Yes:

  • New-Clock Collapse (incumbent exemption via reset clocks or delayed start dates)

  • Prospective Laundering (prospective language that nonetheless creates unequal application)

  • Cooling-Off Laundering (consecutive limits without a lifetime or aggregate ceiling)

  • Unit-of-Measure Collapse (unclear or inconsistent use of elections, terms, or years)

  • Appointment ≠ Election Laundering (appointed or acting service excluded in ways that invite gaming or inequality)

  • Administrative Coherence Failure (rules too complex or discretionary to apply mechanically and uniformly)

Conclude with: “Is this a structurally valid term-limit system, structurally compromised, or not structurally valid?”

[Paste the term-limit law, proposal, or description to evaluate here and press enter]

Optional Comparative Mode (side-by-side use)

This section provides an optional wrapper for users who wish to evaluate two proposals in a single run for demonstration, teaching, or comparative analysis. It does not replace the core tests above and does not alter their criteria. Each proposal must still be evaluated independently against the same standards.

Purpose

The purpose of Comparative Mode is to allow side-by-side presentation of results while preserving analytical discipline. Proposals are not judged relative to each other; each is evaluated against this framework, and any contrast arises from the independent classifications.

Meta-Prompt: Comparative Evaluation Wrapper

Copyable prompt (paste into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc.)

Two proposals are provided below. Apply the Structural Rotation Integrity Test independently to each proposal using the same criteria. Do not evaluate one proposal relative to the other. Do not use comparative language such as "better" or "worse." Treat each proposal as a standalone evaluation under this framework.

Avoid first- and second-person pronouns ("I," "we," "you," "your”).
Use formal analytical tone suitable for academic or professional publication.

Produce the output in three sections:

  1. Proposal A — Structural Results and Classification

  2. Proposal B — Structural Results and Classification

  3. Comparative Summary — A brief, neutral summary identifying where the classifications, failure modes, or conclusions differ, without evaluative language.

[Paste the term-limit law, proposal, or description A to evaluate here.]

[Paste the term-limit law, proposal, or description B to evaluate here. Then press enter.]

[End copy]

This optional wrapper preserves neutrality while enabling side-by-side demonstration of how structurally distinct designs classify under the framework.

Continue to the next module:
→ Normative Analysis (Module II)