The Senate

[civman2000]

now i understand. Essentially the senate is a body to make polls with official results that no cabinet member will support ot make it foocial. In that case, I'm all for it! I never liekd the idea of only ministers being able to make official polls. As long as people dont jsut post polls and call them official and instead the senate has debated a little, it should work fine!

[civman2000]

Still, I don't liek the idea of making it anything official...maybe make the "Citizens' Debate Thread"?

[notyoueither]

Ninot,

Senate does not mean US style senate. Think Rome, or revolutionary France.

If direct is good, and we are small enough for direct democracy, then why ministers? The only reason to limit voting rights in the senate, not polls, would be if a more commited, better informed, and/or readily available group were needed in rare cases of disagreement between the govt and the constitution.

[Jon Shafer]

Okay, let me lay things down here more clearly. The reason an elected Senate is formed, is because there are too many people to represent in the government. This is clearly not the case, and thus is not necassary. There are nearly as many senators in the entire USA as there are citizens in our game. Clearly, our population is not too large to run things as it is.

[notyoueither]

Why are there ministers?

[Sirotnikov]

Ministers do not represent the people - rather they represent the current chosen leaders.

A Senate Court should represent the people's interests against the government, which can't always explain it's immediate motives.

Also, a Senate Court should act as a judge between the government and the people. And it's a non executive official body.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why are there ministers?

Ministers are the executive power. It means doing many menial jobs, with a limited margin of decision. If you take the example of the minister of trade (my post), its concern is to haggle the best possible deal. I don't see myself posting a poll saying "will you trade literacy for 3 gpt + territory map, or for 5 gpt ?". I don't see Eli posting a poll "Would you prefer a road at 51.25 or at 51.26 ?". These menial decisions have to be made by a few people to have at least some efficiency.


Except if breaking the rule becomes a permanent issue in our DemoGame, I don't imagine 30 polls per day saying "is this decision unconstitutional ?". Such polls should arise once in a while, where everybody should be able to vote.

NYE : what I feel awkward about is that you seem to confuse the role of a senate (representing the interests of the people) and the role of a "rules-authority", whatever its name (supreme court, polling commission etc.).
A "rules-authority" shouldn't represent the interests of the people. It should work for the sake of the rule itself. It's possible to think (as I do) that a "rules-authority" has no relevance, and that the interest of the people is the most important value. Then, it would mean the people would have to judge themselves if the government is breaking the rules. I still don't understand why we'd need another layer of bureaucracy for this.

Again, as opposite to day-to-day decisions, which are the lot of the ministers, the problems involving breaking the rules will happen not so often. It's perfectly reasonable to think that everyone can state his own opinion then.

[Panag]

hi ,

, a senate court , .....
allas , the senate should be formed , ...

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Ninot,

Senate does not mean US style senate. Think Rome, or revolutionary France.

If direct is good, and we are small enough for direct democracy, then why ministers? The only reason to limit voting rights in the senate, not polls, would be if a more commited, better informed, and/or readily available group were needed in rare cases of disagreement between the govt and the constitution.

hi ,

agreed , and the senate should serve as a body , that would act when called upon by the government , to settle things by minister's , and to listen to the president when he needs to talk to a neutral group , ...

have a nice day

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Spiffor


Ministers are the executive power. It means doing many menial jobs, with a limited margin of decision. If you take the example of the minister of trade (my post), its concern is to haggle the best possible deal. I don't see myself posting a poll saying "will you trade literacy for 3 gpt + territory map, or for 5 gpt ?". I don't see Eli posting a poll "Would you prefer a road at 51.25 or at 51.26 ?". These menial decisions have to be made by a few people to have at least some efficiency.

Why doesn't the President do all this?

Except if breaking the rule becomes a permanent issue in our DemoGame, I don't imagine 30 polls per day saying "is this decision unconstitutional ?". Such polls should arise once in a while, where everybody should be able to vote.

The role of the Senate or a Court would be to decide disputes about the results of a poll in rare cases. Would you prefer to have another poll to decide such questions, and then another...?

NYE : what I feel awkward about is that you seem to confuse the role of a senate (representing the interests of the people) and the role of a "rules-authority", whatever its name (supreme court, polling commission etc.).
A "rules-authority" shouldn't represent the interests of the people. It should work for the sake of the rule itself. It's possible to think (as I do) that a "rules-authority" has no relevance, and that the interest of the people is the most important value. Then, it would mean the people would have to judge themselves if the government is breaking the rules. I still don't understand why we'd need another layer of bureaucracy for this.

Again, as opposite to day-to-day decisions, which are the lot of the ministers, the problems involving breaking the rules will happen not so often. It's perfectly reasonable to think that everyone can state his own opinion then.

Well. I don't see why the Senate can't do both. Provide a forum for public discussion for everyone, and have 3 or 5 or 7 senators who would decide disputes when and if they occur. Disputes will occur at some time or other. We could have ugly public floggings of each other, or we could have a mechanism for deciding things in an efficient and civil fashion. Right now, we have flogging each other publically.