A Senate for the People

[Pythagoras]

The more complicated this thing gets without much of a formal constitution, the more confusing and angry people are going to get in the long run. So ixnay on the senate idea. We all agree that the govt is derrived from us 100 or so, and we are enough to make a representative body.

[arkanjuca]

Senate are subjected to money and power wishes....

The senate was created because you cannot have the people voting every request. But we can...

The senate only looks to his own interests.

**** the senate!

[EDIT] Ops, sorry my language... [/EDIT]

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I currently refuse to vote, as the senate idea, as it's being discussed, is very unclear and vague. The idea has some great merits and some atrocious flaws, and I won't vote until it is cleared.

This is not a constitutional poll, or am I wrong ?
(there would be more to come if this goes through, like nye says)
And I suggest such polls should have an - Not to be constitutional - option,
preventing subjectivity, mistakes, unclearity and other flaws...

Actually, I believe elected parties should be represented in such a national assembly.! (senate, parliament, reichstag, storting, etc.)
And that would clutter things up here... I think?

NB: I think our poll options here's all right. Yeah, it's kinda civ-style...

[notyoueither]

bump

Might as well give the other 83 people a chance to vote no and to call this idea down.

[notyoueither]

A slightly positive trend for the yes side.

2 days to go.

[Spiffor]

I eventually voted NO.
The whole senate thing is unclear for now : you have Panag's suggestion of a place where senators control the government's jobs, the budget etc. This idea sounds useless , because anybody can do this currently, by asking for the savegame. Panag's suggestion would mean taking power from the people, and it would be unforgivable.

Then, we have NYE's idea of a senate, which is much smarter : an organized thread, where matters are discussed, without creating new threads every two minutes.
BUT, NYE would like some elected representatives of the people, which still doesn't sound right to me : the people can represent themselves, so we don't need any representatives.

Then we have Moral Hazard's idea, where senators should be the ones who say if a poll is correct or not. I agree we need a team to control polls. But, if they are in the senate, some of them will control polls while thinking of their career : I know some would-be senators are sincere, and I have high trust in Nye for example. But let's face it : the senate is the place where wanabee ministers start, in every democracy of the world... Every senate is filled with power hungry people, who think more of themselves than the common good. Letting these people control the rules would be an error, if not a catastrophe.

So, despite my sympathy with several points, I eventually voted NO.

[notyoueither]

Good points Spiffor, however...

If we need a limited group to judge polls, people will have to be elected to those positions. Thus where ever that responsibility ends up, those offices may attract ambitious sorts. It must not be the executives.

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Good points Spiffor, however...

If we need a limited group to judge polls, people will have to be elected to those positions. Thus where ever that responsibility ends up, those offices may attract ambitious sorts. It must not be the executives.

Yes, but the constitution could have an amendment regarding polls and validity... A clause demanding a "unvalidate"- option in all such polls.

[notyoueither]

How would that work?

Yes, No, and "This is not Valid"?

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Don't need it. I feel that the citizenry is competent and informed enough to make decisions on their own.

Besides, having a Senate goes against the idea that we're a participatory democracy here.

[notyoueither]

Last day. Last chance to kick me and this idea around.

Come on! You all know you want too.