How the Senate could look like

[DAVOUT]

Thank you Kloreep,

Whereas the Government is in charge of the country for one term, the Senate is responsible for the long term. In this respect it could not be useless that Senators interested in some particular area follow together the state of affairs and prepare from time to time a law in view of improving the future of the Nation. It is probably among those well informed citizens that particularly well prepared candidates will be found for the future elections.
But dont worry, the Senate will not create by its sole existence bureaucracy or complexity, it will be just what the Senators will enable it to be.
Incidentally, I see as a good omen that the important job in the DAF has attracted such a serious applicant.

[Thud]

An Alternative Organization

1. Supreme Bigwig (aka SAF, any name will do) :
keeps records of all laws, motions, resolutions, and otherwise that are passed, amended, or removed, as stated in the Constitution (Article II §12), as well as reports, minutes, treaties, and documents of any kind, created by the Senate. The Keeper of the SAF organize the filing in multiple criteria, mainly chronological, nature, subjects, and any other he finds appropriate.

2. Senate Majority\Minority Leaders : A referendum will be taken to determine the party or bloc of voters that is most popular. i.e. people will say the Hawks have more power than the DIA or independents. The Hawk representative or leader will become the Senate Majority Leader, and the DIA and independents will share a Minority Leader. Each Leader would draft Agendas. Differing Agendas would lead to real purpose to opposition, and would clearly expose issues to the public eye.

3. Senate Oversight Committee : A comination of ComDAf, ComFA, ComEF, and retaining those organizations as subcommittees. This is to simplify the process: any thread regarding domestic or nonmilitary foreign affairs will be submitted to the SOC.

5. The Senate Commission of Military Affairs (CoMil)

6. Commision on Science, Technology, and Development : Examines the method the President and Ministers take in futuring progresive growth and choosing techs.

All commisions will serve pretty much the same purpose and work pretty much the same way as Davout suggests.

[Kloreep]

I'm against having majority/minority leaders. For one thing, independents should not be lumped in with parties (or one party with another, for that matter); nor would independents be in a good situation in the majority, as any "leader" of the inds would be powerless and without any ability to form a majority agenda.

Also, where does that leave third parties? Civ is much simpler than RL, yes, so it is unlikely we'll see a major third party rise to power; but it could happen. In that situation, would you really want to lump two parties and the independents together?

I'm fine with formalizing party leaders in some way, and perhaps giving them limited powers. But we are a small enough senate that I don't think we need party grouping; issues can be debated by the entire floor, and if it's a major issue (switching govs, emancipation, etc.) temporary affiliations will form till it is decided by vote. And I doubt many issues will split cleanly along party lines; I'm sure some DIA members would be against emancipation, as slaves require no upkeep but workers do, and we'd thus have to spend more money on native workers. Hawks might think we should be benevolent to members of our own empire, even if we're hostile to the outside world. And that example doesn't include independants.

Anyway, this post is already much longer than I meant it to be. My point is, issues of any importance or controversy will be discussed, highlighted, etc. on their own; we don't need parties to define the agenda, and so I think they shouldn't.