Discussion on a future Senate

[Duddha]

(I thought this was clear but mabye it isn't) I think any structuring of the senate should be done through bills. We should keep the loose description of the senate in the constitution and try different structures through bills. If we don't like what we decide on we can change it. There is a great potential for role-play if we leave the structure open for change. The government could be overthrown at the same time we have a revolution in the game. There are a lot of possibilities.

In this post I will defend the Majority/Minority system even though I'm leaning towards the Parliamentary. All statements will only apply to the system I proposed.

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.

It is not true that a majority of members do not support parties. My poll showed that only around 40% considered themselves independant.

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.

The Majority/Minority system I proposed does not support party politics any more than the Presidental system does. Anyone can run and anyone who receives the most votes becomes the Majority leader.

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?

Under the Majority/Minority system committees would be chosen in the same fashion as deputy ministers are chosen. If the majority leader was apart of a party they may choose party members more often but under an independant I doubt there would be more favoritism than in the Executive.


I think the Majority/Minority system would promot independants while the parliamentary would promot parties. The Majority/Minority system is based on individuals while the parliamentary is based on coalitions and parties.

I hope we get some more than two suggestions on systems. Lets be creative. It doesn't hurt to talk about all the different things we could do.

[Thud]

I really like the Parliamentary form of 'role-play' government. I love it. I will lobby for it as hard as I will lobby against a war with England.

My new motto is : If it improves the fun-ness (role-play, here) of the game, Do It.

[Thud]

I also wouldn't mind the Majority\Minority. But I definietly want one of those systems in a bill.

[GodKing]

I wonder if this discussion can be combined with the one regarding quarum and a census?

Census poll - topped thread.

Vote: one option. # people who vote are quarum.

Posts: If you post, you are also a senator for that month. This will not keep anybody new from joining, make being a senator "something special", and we seperate the senators from the citizens by making senators the only one who can propose laws or something. The Prime Senator or whatever, can be a position elected by the senators to:
1) start discussions
2) represent the senate in chats
3) be the one to keep the senates records (haven't seen any talk about this one yet)
4) post the census thread for next month, and keep it updated (the person must be around for that month, or an election can be held by the senators just prior to)

this rough idea is slowly taking shape.... comments thoughts....etc.

[Thud]

GK, I was intending to propose something nearly identical to this. Right on.

Of course, the "Prime Senator"'s purpose will have to be worked out in further detail.

[Duddha]

Census poll - topped thread.

Vote: one option. # people who vote are quarum.

Posts: If you post, you are also a senator for that month. This will not keep anybody new from joining, make being a senator "something special", and we seperate the senators from the citizens by making senators the only one who can propose laws or something.

a bit complicated. I don't think this is necessary. I think the way senators are spelled out in the Con Con is good enough.

The Prime Senator or whatever, can be a position elected by the senators to:
1) start discussions
2) represent the senate in chats
3) be the one to keep the senates records (haven't seen any talk about this one yet)
4) post the census thread for next month, and keep it updated (the person must be around for that month, or an election can be held by the senators just prior to)

If we are going to have senatorial leadership, we should decide how many and what their roles should be.

[Kloreep]

First off, I'd like to say I'm against any sort of integration of parties into the official system. If party leaders or parties as a whole wish to take an active role in the senate, all well and good. But no special powers for parties and leaders of such!

The "Prime Senator" is an interesting idea, but I lean more toward a ceremonial Speaker, who would organize things and keep the books (as GK pointed out, the Senate does have the responsibility of record-keeping to go with power), but who wouldn't have much actual power. IMNSHO, things should be left to volunteers; if a senator sees something they think should be done, like the formation of a City Micromanagement Panel, they should simply go and do it.

I think we could have a lot of fun roleplay in the senate, but I see it more as a direct roleplay: a roleplay of personal positions, and great debates over current issues, not a bureacratic shuffle of parties. We could probably have pages of debate simply over the issue of slaves, which, BTW, seems to me to be an issue outside party politics (after, builders can easily use them once they're acquired, even if they don't go hunting for them).

[Laertes]

I think that a party-based parliamentary system could add a lot of fun to the game, but I would not want it to be too bureaucratic or complex.

As a relatively recent newcomer to the game (since about the end of term 3) I was disappointed that the party aspect did not seem to have taken off. My thoughts on why this might be are:

- the parties do not offer a significant enough platform to attract support (which is probably just a function of being new, and being primarily 1-issue (expand/build) at least on the surface)
- effectively managing and organising a party would take a lot of work and co-operation, and the people most interested are often already doing a lot of work in official posts
- parties need to offer something in exchange for membership which a member could not otherwise have eg ministerial posts, as happens in the US in RL, although this might not be the best example for the game

Perhaps we could also explore the role of the Senate in nore depth. For example, things it could do, based on RL analogy:
- passing of laws - but what would be the likely topics, other than constitutional amendments? Would laws be continually getting overturned as the state of the game changes
- debating issues of the day and voting on them (as happens in RL in the UK, and in the threads here already)
- calling ministers to account for actions (happens in the UK and US) - is this desirable
- have very emotional philosphical debates (already happens!) that end in fistfights like the Italian parliament (looks good on TV but not sure I would want it here!)
- we could chuck out the executive (European Parliament, US?) (there is probably something about this in the Constitution alrready- forgive myignorance)

I think we need to find a way of encouraging parties to prosper, without giving them formal powers, otherwise we will just have individual debates as pointed out by Kloreep above


-

[Nimitz]

The parties did well and infact thrived during the first three terms of the government but on the fourth term they just weakened greatly its only through hard work that parties have gotten the weak streangth they now have and every time we try to get the parties stonger some people try to stop them.

[Thud]

- we could chuck out the executive (European Parliament, US?) (there is probably something about this in the Constitution alrready- forgive myignorance)

We have the power to do this in Apolytonia.

In the U.S., a President may be impeached by a 2\3rds majority of both houses of congress.

[Aggie]

What really destroyed the parties is 2 things.
1) The trip/Ninot election
2) By the second term people realized that though it was somewhat fun from a RP view, it had little real use with a small group of people. If we had 100's there could be a use since everybodies voice might not be heard. But with only 50-75 members(still excellent for this kind of game). Its makes little sense since everybody who wants to be heard can be. I personally would like not to see parties ever again aquire the power they had,especially early on. They should remain as RP and entertainment, I still get a good laugh from Duddha's"don't let a foreigner eat your baby", but I don't base a policy on this idea. Parties should NEVER have an official sanction or function.
Aggie

[GePap]

First of all: I knew this day would come! I have been calling for a legislature since Ninot's term, and it may finally come ture.

I must back our current prez., that parties should not have a part in the senate officially at all: if individuals want to vote along party lines, they can just as they always have, but no positions should be made official. Since all citizens are senators rgith now, there is no need for lecting leaders and so forth. If we want someone to lead the senate, there is always the VP to do it, much like in the US.

Now, on the issue of 1 citizen = 1 senator:

We have many citizens, what is it, 300 officially? A census is a must for us to have a clear idea of numbers. Now, if it is a volutary census, as opposed to someone (MarkG, that is), giving us a list of all members or a list of who has posted in the lasdt few months, a topped census thread can be made, and we can hav a couple of thread warning everyone aout it. Honesty, someone not capable of seeing a new topped thread and a couple more making announcements should not really be a senator.

Another way to sit tha senate, and give it some real reason for debate would be to make senators ciy based. we have a census and eveyrone picks a city they 'inhabit', then they become senators from there, with the specific aim of imporving their bit of land. Obviously, people may want to mix their trading game aims with city or tile imporvement. I have no problems with that: which tile we imporve will not wiun us the game- honestly at this point I can see how we lose.

Also, whats the status of governors? If we are going to have designated governors, then perhaps they may also not be senators.

[notyoueither]

As things stand, the citizens make the laws directly (official polls). There is no level of representatives between them and that power.

As a member of the Con Con, it was not my intention to change this. It was my intention to make the passage of laws easier (since they would no longer require 67% to pass). It was also my intention to allow more flexibility in the law making process, that is where the Senate governing itself enters in.

However, the Senate is not free to do whatever it pleases. There are other clauses of the Constitution which define citizenship, and others which define the rights of those citizens.

BTW, a census happens everytime there is a Presidential election by default.

[DAVOUT]

It has already been mentionned that the Senate first act would be to design rules of procedure to organize its work. One of the most important item will be the specialized commissions in finance, foreign affairs, domestic affairs, and military affairs. The members of these commissions will be volonteers adhering to some internal rules, such as renouncing to post polls of laws on the subject dealt by the commission to which they belong. The laws prepared by the commission would be posted under the heading of the commission.

[Aggie]

One thing I am a little worried about happening is the following; a military comminsion decides we need to pursue a different strategy than that of the SMC. They then push funding for their idea over that which the SMC. We need rules that stress that such comminsions will be "advisory only", and will not try to seize more power and undermine exisiting leadership. This applies not only for the military, but for all ministries.
Aggie