|
Post by Jack Fenton on Sept 4, 2008 10:12:56 GMT -6
It should be impossible for a party to oust a senator; the Senats is nonpartisan.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2008 13:48:46 GMT -6
I believe Dreu is proposing not that a party can oust a Senator, but that a Senators constituents may oust that Senator through a vote of "no confidence."
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Sept 4, 2008 14:23:21 GMT -6
Exactly Timotgi!
So... if I am really dissatisfied with Senator Malada, I can get a certain number (to be determined) of signatures to have a vote of confidence. If he loses that vote of confidence then I guess we would have either a special election or the Cunstaval would appoint someone.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Sept 4, 2008 14:46:21 GMT -6
Exactly Timotgi! So... if I am really dissatisfied with Senator Malada, I can get a certain number (to be determined) of signatures to have a vote of confidence. If he loses that vote of confidence then I guess we would have either a special election or the Cunstaval would appoint someone. What if your Cunstaval thought the Senator was doing a great job, and vote positive in the VOC ? What would keep him from just renaming the Senator to the position?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2008 17:46:19 GMT -6
Or we could just wait until the next election....
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Sept 4, 2008 19:53:50 GMT -6
I can't believe I'm wasting some of my ubber limited bandwidth on this discussion again. Exactly Timotgi! So... if I am really dissatisfied with Senator Malada, I can get a certain number (to be determined) of signatures to have a vote of confidence. If he loses that vote of confidence then I guess we would have either a special election or the Cunstaval would appoint someone. What if your Cunstaval thought the Senator was doing a great job, and vote positive in the VOC ? What would keep him from just renaming the Senator to the position? What if the Cunstaval WAS the Senator?
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Sept 4, 2008 20:22:56 GMT -6
Then he'd be really, really mad?
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Sept 5, 2008 5:32:11 GMT -6
Fine then... special election it is.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2008 7:17:40 GMT -6
So that's it, eh Dreu? If I'm a Senator and my conscience tells me to vote for or against a bill and doing so is unpopular, I can just be removed from office. Not for misconduct, but for voting a particular way. I have no opportunity to redeem myself. Whether I'm one or 23 months into my term, one vote can just result in a removal from office.
That isn't a democracy, that is placing a strangle hold on Senators and forcing them to vote like the majority, whether they like it or not. Democracy is simply not re-electing Senators who consistently vote against their people. Your idea has unlimited potential for abuse, as under it, I may decide to campaign for the removal of a Senator for no reason other than I want to be a Senator and I don't want to wait until the next election. Save special elections for misconduct or leaving office early due to death, disability or what-have-you. But do not, do NOT put Senators in such a position that they have to worry that each vote is going to end, not in their failure to be re-elected, but the utter humiliation of being stripped of their office.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 5, 2008 9:14:36 GMT -6
If you give the Senats certain powers, you must allow them to exercise them. Doubling the number of Senators might begin to dilute the overcharged power of an individual Senator, but we don't have the personnel. The only possible reform is one of reformation of powers.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2008 9:27:08 GMT -6
I understand that some things need reform. Is this really one of them?
Yes, we were all very upset about the Saffron Act. And with elections coming up in two provinces, voters will have the opportunity to make changes if they should desire. I was extremely upset over the Saffron Act being shot down. But not so upset that I demand the immediate removal of our Senator. I may vote in a different way come next election, but I am in no way after an impeachment.
I oppose overriding Senate votes by the Cosa because it would offset the checks and balances. If the Cosa can override the vote of a Senator, the majority of the power is shifted to the Cosa. Presently, we have nice balance. The Senats and the Cosa need to work together to get anything done. If we maintain that balance, then I support a change there. For example...
If a bill passes the Cosa but the Senats rejects it, perhaps it can override the rejection by the Senats if over 75% of the Cosa voted in favor of the bill.
HOWEVER, if we add the simple stipulation that the Senats can block an override by voting 100% against the bill, I think we have a nice balance. The Cosa has some recourse (recourse that would have resulted in the passage of things like the Saffron Act), but the Senats also has protection.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 5, 2008 10:28:02 GMT -6
Oh, I would say that's more or less exactly what I had in mind, actually. =)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2008 10:41:09 GMT -6
Glad to hear it, Owen. I don't like the idea of giving one house of the Ziu a power over the other unless there is some way to balance out those powers. Otherwise, Senators have no choice but to follow the majority of the Cosa, which may not always be the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 5, 2008 12:13:54 GMT -6
The parallel I've used (and Cresti quoted me on earlier in this mind-numbingly long thread) is the UK Parliament Acts, which reduced the power of the House of Lords - the Lords can still block Bills, but can only block the same Bill three times in the same year before it is automatically sent to the Queen (when it is passed in the Commons for a fourth time). Thus the Lords provide valuable oversight and advice, but cannot completely override the wishes of the popularly elected lower house. Etc.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2008 13:58:41 GMT -6
A very good parallel! One must not forget, however, that our Senators are also elected.
|
|