Discussion on a future Senate

[Duddha]

This is the area where I disagree with Duddha and agree with Apocalypse... a majority leader or prime minster is not NEEDED. The system the Con Con has proposed, with ANYONE able to submit bills, is perfectly workable in this environment...

edit:wrong quote

A majority leader or PM would not inhibit anyone from submiting a bill.It mearly creates a positon that is soley dedicated to the Senate.

If no leadership positions are created the senate will either have no power and suffer the same fate as the first senate or a leadership will form without any formal rules and without any of the fun that goes along with having completely political election. On the other hand, too much leadership will lead to autocratism.

[Duddha]

adaManda:

I think GodKing made a very good and sensible post that clarifies one of my chief fears -- one that most of us seem to agree on (even UnOrthO ). We don't want the Senate to go sprawling out and passing laws on every little issue. Remember, the Senate just doesn't need to pass laws on most things. Example: Deputy for Science. The power already exists in the Executive Branch (the issue of weather it should be there or not being seperate), so let the President do it -- and that doesn't need a law. To be honest, I personally feel that the Con Con is in a tough spot right now. On one hand, we have people who want to go and create a complicated party system for running the Senate. On the other, we have people worried that the game's going to implode under the pressure of hundreds of new Laws. Both are good points , but (more importantly) both are things that the Constitutional Convention has no control over -- it's up to the Senate to decide how many laws are appropriate and what laws are appropriate. Any check in the system must come from inside, and I'd strongly urge Senate leaders to keep a system closer to what we have for the first month. The reason? Quite simply, let's get the rest of the Government working before we start reforming the Senate. I'd also urge Senators who are concerned about what bills may be passed to remember that this is a seperate issue from the Constitution itself, and it is up to the senate to find a moderate and acceptable path for itself to follow.

[Duddha]

I maintain, however, that Apocalypse is right in that the interests of efficiency and remaining focused on the civ game itself along with a strongly populist mindset would make the absense of a PM/Speaker and a more unorganized Senate system preferable... my point is that efficiency and focus on the game do not seem to be universally considered goal #1

I don't really think a majority leader or PM will slow the game down. The Constitution clearly states who runs the game. Under the const only 4 people are need. The const does not gives the senate, or its leaders, the power to stop or infringe upon the progess of the game. It is simply a fun extra for parties and roleplay.

[notyoueither]

Leadership in most bodies is a helpful thing. Just keep it simple, please.

[Nimitz]

I like the majority and minority leader idea they need not have any real power they are just there pushing one side or another of a bill which ever there side supports and for RPing.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by Duddha
adaManda:

Thanks Duddha -- I'm glad that made its way into this thread .

I need to read more of this thread before I make any specific comments. However...

If the Senate wanted to elect one leader to represent it in Governmental affairs/lobby the Executive Branch/Act as an Organizer, I think there could be some use for the job, though I wouldn't necessarially be in support of it.

I'd be dead against, however, the whole Majority/Minority leader thing. Most of the players just aren't interested in Party Politics, as the many Party Affiliation polls show, and and it'd make the game significantly more complex for new players to join. To be honest, I think we should build the 'law' ability and anything else you guys decide to add on top of our (working) Senate system, not totally redraw it from scratch.

Just my personal opinion (not that of the Con Con) .

-- adaMada

[MrWhereItsAt]

I have an open-mind about lots of things in this game, the NewCon and potential changes, but there is one thing I will not support and will bitterly oppose no matter what happens. Do NOT give parties any official powers. Parties are all well and good, but I don't think any Party should be officially recognised as anything beyond an unofficial organisation. The Leader of a Party is just that - they should have no more rights or powers than anyone else outside their Party.

If, for example, we had representatives of each Party in some kind of Committee drafting a new law, where does that leave Independents like me? Couldn't I just make a new Party with just me as a member? Wouldn't this make things really silly?

A resounding NO to any kind of Party Governmental system. Like I said, I will listen to anyone on anything, but I would fight this sort of development with all my resolve.

[Hot Mustard]

I will add my voice to those against introducing party politics into the game. I would almost certainly leave under those conditions, as I don't think I could tolerate the kind of system and behaviour they create. Once again, I will remind people that we don't want to introduce barriers to new members. Every additional role/group/law that we create is a barrier.

The more I think about this constitution, the more I like it - it reduces barriers, and it is flexible. The reason I'm so worried about this issue is that the number of active participants has dropped, and there needs to be some consideration of how to draw new recruits, and maintain those we have.

I am in favour of a free-wheeling Senate, with no officials. We will learn over time what works and what doesn't. I don't believe that having recognized positions is necessary, as the core group of participants should provide a good example to follow in Senate discussions, if these constitutional threads are any judge.

[Arnelos]

Well, as I stated, I'm actually against doing this (instituting party politics into the game), but I'd like to be able to help those in favor of it IF it were to become a reality (because I wouldn't leave if it was established.... hell, it might be a lot of fun).

[Thud]

Y'all know that I would like a role-playing Senate full of Officialdom. I think that would make the game closer to a game and further from trying to win the actual CivIII game.

[DAVOUT]

As many others, I am against introducing political parties in the game, mainly because they have demonstrated their inability to build any political content usable in the game.

There is one idea I would like your opinion on : all citizens have right to be senator, but I wonder if they should not volonteer.

[Apocalypse]

The problem with volunteering is that some might not know to volunteer. It is the same with the sign up thread Markos made.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
There is one idea I would like your opinion on : all citizens have right to be senator, but I wonder if they should not volonteer.

All citizens ARE senators unless they hold an elective office.

Right now you are a senator. I, an elected official, am merely a citizen.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

All citizens ARE senators unless they hold an elective office.

Right now you are a senator. I, an elected official, am merely a citizen.

Exactly . Everyone's a senator unless they're elected. No need to make it volunteer based -- everyone in the game should have the same rights and powers anyway (with the exception of elected officials, who have different rights and powers).

-- adaMada

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

All citizens ARE senators unless they hold an elective office.

Right now you are a senator. I, an elected official, am merely a citizen.

I had understood, thanks anyway.

So the maths are : senator = citizen
We will lament soon on the fact that the senators are not active enough. If they volonteer, they would be fewer, and the senate would represente a more active corps within the community, without limiting the rights of the citizens not volonteer, and without giving more rights to the senators, all powers being granted to the senate, not to individuals.