Why Ca 2+ and not Ca +2
Chemistry has an organization called the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), which sets standards for nomenclature (among other things). Chemists usually follow its recommendations.

IUPAC says


  Ionic charge is indicated by means of a right upper index, as in $\ce{A^n+}$ or $\ce{A^n-}$ (not $\ce{A^$+n$}$ or $\ce{A^$-n$}$).


and


  The iconic charge number is denoted by a right superscript, by the sign alone when the charge number is equal to plus one or minus one.
  ...
  $\ce{Al^3+}$ is commonly used in chemistry and recommended by [74 = see quote above]. The forms $\ce{Al^$+3$}$ and $\ce{S^$-2$}$, although widely used, are obsolete [74], as well as the old notations $\ce{Al^{+++}}$, $\ce{S^=}$, and $\ce{S^{--}}$.


No reason is given, but you'll find a historical account of sign conventions for charge and a defense of IUPAC's choice in this article. He says,


  [IUPAC's convention] avoids confusion with the conventional symbolism for inherently positive and negative numbers and maintains consistency in how we count physical entities. Thus, in counting apples, we say two apples, three apples, etc., not apples two, apples three – that is, the number always precedes the name of the entity being counted. Likewise, when counting charges, we should say two positive charges or three negative charges, not positive charges two or negative charges three. The IUPAC ruling was intended to make the charge number symbolism consistent with this verbal convention.


Personally, I think the charge should be written like any other signed number. Formulas typed from the keyboard without superscripting can be ambiguous; is X2+ to be interpreted as $\rm X^{2+}$ or $\rm X_2^+$? (You should type X(2+) or X2(+), but few people actually do that.) But it's pretty clear what X+2 would mean. Putting the sign first also makes it trivial to parse the charge from a formula typed this way without the need for parentheses.