A Senate for the People

[notyoueither]

OK. We are here to decide whether there should be a formal Senate to serve the people of this great nation.

It could be very limited, or it could be made into a monster. Those are questions for later polls. What powers the Senate should be given will be determined by the people. The composition and function of any Senate is also a question for future polls. However, I propose that those powers should never over-ride those already enjoyed by the President and the Ministers for the conduct of the game. The Senate should in no way interfere with the conduct of the game. Rather it should be a servant in governing ourselves.

Some useful suggestions have revolved around deciding disputes about polls and elections, as well as giving opinions in cases of disputes between the constitution and the govt.

It has been proposed that the Senate may function as an unofficial forum for the citizens of this great nation regardless of official status or not. That I am sure it will. The question is whether it should be given official status and powers or not.

BTW. The Executive and the people should not hold this poll up as a reason for not beginning the game. The final fate of the Senate is not necessary to begin.

This poll will last 5 days.

Link to the Senate discussion here. It is quite lengthy. Sorry.

[atawa]

If the result of the poll on impeacment dont change we have enough power lying with the people to 'correct' our gouverment

Better let the senate remain unofficial as we have enough elections and polls right now

[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.

BTW, NYE, I think you should ask Markos to close this thread, and post a new poll which isn't rigged. It's extremely easy to manipulate answers with the way questions are asked. Just see the 2 contradictory polls about military commanders.
In your options, the favorable option to the senate will attract even mildly partisans of a senate, while the negative answer will only attract diehard opponents, who think a senate is "stinking".

You should post options like :
"1. Yes, we need a senate to protect against tyranny
2. No we don't need another layer of bureaucraty"
(these ideas seem to be the most pros and cons)

Or options like :
"1. Yes we need a senate"
"2. No, we don't need a senate"
(Which are extremely neutral)

The thread title isn't neutral at all. "A senate for the people". If a diehard opponent did make the poll before you, he would probably say "A senate for petty priviledgees" or something. A neutral question would be "do we need a senate ?" or something.

If you close this poll and create a new, neutral one, following my advice (or simply common sense), then I won't consider the poll to be rigged. Currently, I consider this poll as irrelevant.

[Jon Shafer]

I say no. A Senate, in any form, will cloud the purpose of the game, and should it 'stand up for the people's rights', that assumes that the people can't already do that (but they can), and would thereby take away more of the people's power to make decisions.

[civman2000]

I think the idea is ok, but what this poll is really asking is "Should the Senate be official?" and I don't think it should, though I wound't mind an unofficial one.

[Kuciwalker]

We ARE the Senate.

[Nikolai]

I am positive to a Senate, but honestly, I think this forum is the Senate, so as I see it, we don't need any poll on this!

[Chandragupta]

Originally posted by skywalker
We ARE the Senate.

Precisely. I think the roughly 100 members (exluding the ministers and pres/vp) all with equal opinion values and votes counts as a senate. We dont need any extraneous mechanism to make things even more heavily beauracratic. An extra senate would do the same things the forum already does, it'd just be silly and superficial.

[notyoueither]

Spiffor,

Given the results to date I think it would be worse for me to attempt to invalidate this poll.

I never intended to skew the results, and I do not believe that my wording has done so. I will however keep your suggestions in mind if I make forays into poll making again.

The people are wise. They will reach the correct decision for the whole.

[Guardian]

I voted no, because I too believe that we already have a Senate and that every citizen is already in it.

Most modern democracies don't call a popular vote every time there is an important decision to be made. Instead, the people elect representatives for the Senate, and the Senate pretty much handles the rest on the people's behalf.

So, the citizens in this game are really both citizens and senators.

[notyoueither]

I think many people misunderstand. No mention has been made of reducing the power of the President, or ministers, or of the people through polls.

However, settling disputes is a thing best done by a small number of appointed or elected individuals. If you submit heated disputes to the court of public opinion, you will have very heated disputes.

There are already disputes over polls arising.

[Guardian]

This is one of democracy's shortcomings...

People are different, and have different opinions and different ideas on how the systems should work. So, by making the same system and the same rules apply to everyone, we are in effect ensuring that there will be disputes. In any society, there will always be people who disagree with established policies, there's just no way around that. You can't please everyone all at the same time, and so politics is a often a lot about deciding who gets the shaft this time...

You just have to try not to shaft the same people too many times in a row...

Sure, there are times when you feel that a single person or a small group would have been better suited to make decisions and get things settled once and for all, and yes, this is probably true in many - if not most - cases.

On the other hand, no one is wise enough - or good enough - to be trusted with unlimited power.

That's why there has to be compromises - which, more often than not - is what democracy is all about.

A compromise might not always give us the best possible solution. In fact, it usually won't. What it will do is keep the system from tearing itself apart in the process of trying to make decisions. If the decision that's reached is the wrong one, then sooner or later the majority will realize that it's made a bad decision, and we'll get to go back and fix it if possible. If not, then we'll just have to hope that the people will learn from its mistakes and support a different kind of decision next time.

That's democracy, and it's not a perfect system, but it's one that works (for the most part, anyway...) and is fairly self-sustained. Take it or leave it.

[notyoueither]

You are totally missing the boat.

What about when it can't be agreed on what decision has been made?

What about when people start numerous polls to get policies changed to their liking? Don't like the verdict of poll 1? Start poll 2 with a slightly different slant that gets you what you want.

And nobody has said anything about unlimited power. Where did that come from?

[Guardian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What about when it can't be agreed on what decision has been made?

What about when people start numerous polls to get policies changed to their liking? Don't like the verdict of poll 1? Start poll 2 with a slightly different slant that gets you what you want.

Well, it's not like that sort of ting never happens in the real world, is it?

We just need to make rules - like in the real world.
This is where the constitution comes in...

For instance, the Norwegian constitution states that if a bill is turned down by either the Storting (our Congress/Senate), the King or the Supreme Court, then that same bill may not be proposed again within the same term. If, however, you wait until the next term when a new Storting is in session, then it's perfectly okay to bring it up again.

We need to make rules like that in here to, and we need to stick with them. You're probably right about needing somebody to enforce them though.

Perhaps we should elect a Supreme Court?
They would have the power to throw out any decision they find to be unconstitutional - just like in real life.

And nobody has said anything about unlimited power. Where did that come from?

That was a general remark, not a response to anything said in here.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by skywalker
We ARE the Senate.

Well put, skywalker.

I think that says it all really.