|
|
Post by Jack Fenton on Sept 5, 2008 17:07:15 GMT -6
They are actually elected in a way that is much more democratic than MC election process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 6, 2008 4:29:13 GMT -6
But with far more power accruing to each individual vote than one of the 700+ members of the House of Lords before its 1997 onward further reformation. I also would say that many of us students of politics don't mind the idea of an appointed/hereditary/judicial/ecclesiastical mix of unelected officials giving oversight to our Lower House; it provides experienced, expert and often entirely apolitical advice. The Lord Spiritual and the Crossbenchers in the HoL are entirely unparalleled in focus or volume in the elected Lower House.
At this point, the two Houses have a similar number of members (so votes, relatively speaking, are of equal value in either house, within the limitations already mentioned).
Indeed, I'd say *I* personally prefer the model to 7 directly elected Senators having an enormously effective power of veto over 30 odd proportionally elected (a fairer method of election, as it happens, so it hardly makes the Senate more 'democratic', just more provincially accountable) MCs.
It's not an official plank of the PP or anything, but it might be worthwhile in the next Ziu to investigate the 75% Cosa/100% Senats override Tim postulates, or perhaps a limitation on the number of vetos the Senats can effectively give. We'll see how that goes when we get to November!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2008 7:58:52 GMT -6
But with far more power accruing to each individual vote than one of the 700+ members of the House of Lords before its 1997 onward further reformation. I also would say that many of us students of politics don't mind the idea of an appointed/hereditary/judicial/ecclesiastical mix of unelected officials giving oversight to our Lower House; it provides experienced, expert and often entirely apolitical advice. The Lord Spiritual and the Crossbenchers in the HoL are entirely unparalleled in focus or volume in the elected Lower House. At this point, the two Houses have a similar number of members (so votes, relatively speaking, are of equal value in either house, within the limitations already mentioned). Indeed, I'd say *I* personally prefer the model to 7 directly elected Senators having an enormously effective power of veto over 30 odd proportionally elected (a fairer method of election, as it happens, so it hardly makes the Senate more 'democratic', just more provincially accountable) MCs. It's not an official plank of the PP or anything, but it might be worthwhile in the next Ziu to investigate the 75% Cosa/100% Senats override Tim postulates, or perhaps a limitation on the number of vetos the Senats can effectively give. We'll see how that goes when we get to November! Obviously I support a measure that I recently proposed (75% of the Cosa can override Senate, 100% of the Senate can block the override). My problem with limiting the number of vetos the Senate can give is simply that we would be structuring the system on the assumption that the Cosa is right and the Senats (when it disagrees with the Cosa) is wrong. Let's think about this. To become an MC is not a terribly difficult procedure. So let's say we get 10 guys (or gals) in here one day who become citizens, join a party and are now members of the Cosa. Now. These 10 new citizens don't really have much experience. Maybe they are making their decisions based upon what they perceive to be flaws in the systems of the U.S. and Britain. So, they begin to pass large volumes of legislation that are detrimental to the stability of our government. Such destructive measures could be: 1) Frequent, unnecessary changes to the OrgLaw 2) Frequent changes to the way the Ziu conducts business 3) Anything damaging the Royal Household 4) Measures which make it difficult to welcome new citizens 5) Measures which make it difficult to punish crime and enforce our laws. So, these 10 people basically say that it is wrong that we have a King and we should be a Methodist Theocracy. Of course, these are exaggerated examples. However, the criteria for MCs and Senators are different. To be a Senator you cannot have just become a citizen two days prior. There is a reason for that. We are trusting the experience of the Senators. We are trusting that a small group of elected officials with a certain level of experience will help keep the Ziu balanced. And why not? How long do you have to be a citizen before you can be an MC? With our present level of participation, the majority of active members hold seats in the Cosa. In many ways we are functioning as a pure Democracy, virtually every person has a vote here on basic things. Is it so wrong to have senior statesmen have the ability to say from time to time, "Hey wait a second, this is just not a good idea." If a Senator abuses that privilege. We can cast our votes for another candidate at the next election. Let's take the Saffron Act for example. Over 75% of the Cosa voted for it. The Senats shot it down. With that 75% the Cosa could have overridden the Senats unless the Senats had voted unanimously against the bill. That's pretty fair. It doesn't take away power from the Senats. Instead, it redistributes it among the existing members. The Senats still has the power to block a bill, but in certain cases, they all need to agree before that will occur. I will absolutely vote against any measure which allows for petitions or a voc against a senator to remove him/her from office early for no reason other than voting in a way that the people don't like. That's what regular elections are for. |
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 6, 2008 19:00:55 GMT -6
Ministreu Asmourescu has just expressed very well the reasons why I feel the system is not in any need of change. Instituting a new set of conflicting vetos that still give the Cosa more authority than the Senats ignores the reason why we have bicameral legislatures in the first place. If too many people in the individually-elected Senats think something is a bad idea, it is probably a bad idea. If it isn't, those Senators will be replaced at the election. No amount of Cosa votes should be able to make the Senats votes meaningless, or ratchet up the standard for their voting to an absurd unanimous level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 6, 2008 19:36:56 GMT -6
2 years as 1/7 of the effective decision-making body of Talossa is a very long time for a 29 year old nation. Some people plainly think too much power is invested in that body. You're not addressing that issue. I also frankly don't think you universally believe your own statement "If too many people in the individually-elected Senats think something is a bad idea, it is probably a bad idea.". In fact, I know you don't. I also would argue it being individually-elected doesn't make it any better, except insomuch as it makes it SOUND better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2008 20:50:34 GMT -6
And if my Senator votes for a measure along the lines of something that allows the public to remove a Senator or the Cosa to override the Senats with no recourse for the Senats....I will be sure to vote against them in the next election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 6, 2008 20:54:54 GMT -6
2 years as 1/7 of the effective decision-making body of Talossa is a very long time for a 29 year old nation. Some people plainly think too much power is invested in that body. You're not addressing that issue. I also frankly don't think you universally believe your own statement "If too many people in the individually-elected Senats think something is a bad idea, it is probably a bad idea.". In fact, I know you don't. I also would argue it being individually-elected doesn't make it any better, except insomuch as it makes it SOUND better. No, I do agree with it. In fact, it's why I believe that the turnover for the Senats will be very high for the next few elections. I could understand, however, if there was serious discussion about lowering the time period for each Senator's term. That would be reasonable and a sensible approach to the matter, perhaps best accomplished by increasing the number of seats up for contest from two to three per dissolution. |
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 6, 2008 21:16:09 GMT -6
Tim, I agree completely: I don't think a sort of provincial VOC etc adds anything meaningful to the system and does make it less stable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2008 8:39:32 GMT -6
Now if you wanted to draft something along the lines of what we said earlier, I'd be glad to help with it.
|
|
Trotxâ
Talossan since 10-17-2005; Knight since 11-5-2006
Deo duce, ferro comitante
Posts: 1,574
|
Post by Trotxâ on Sept 7, 2008 22:25:02 GMT -6
On an already mind-numbingly long thread, Dréu gets it wrong: Perhaps the election of each senator should be staggered? So that they are not elected at the same time? Sorry, Dréu. They already are. In an attempt to bring the truth to the argument, here is the relevant part of the Organic Law:
Section 3. Each time the Cosâ shall be dissolved, there shall be an election for the Senäts in two provinces. For purposes of elections to the Senäts, the provinces shall be listed in the following fixed order: Mussolini, Vuode, Atatürk, Cézembre, Florencia, Maricopa, Maritiimi-Maxhestic. Following the passage of this Act, the next elections for the Senäts shall be held in the two provinces for whom the greatest amount of time has elapsed since the last regular election for the Senäts.
This is referenced both on and from the Senäts page: At each general election, two Senators (out of the seven) are elected, which means that the term of office for each Senate seat is three-Cosa-elections one time and four-Cosa-elections the next, alternating. Sorry for the delay in getting this out. As usual, I'd skipped over the blather. On second reading, this error jumped out. Yours in the search for truth and justice, Sir T |
|
Trotxâ
Talossan since 10-17-2005; Knight since 11-5-2006
Deo duce, ferro comitante
Posts: 1,574
|
Post by Trotxâ on Sept 7, 2008 22:32:42 GMT -6
Ministreu Asmourescu has just expressed very well the reasons why I feel the system is not in any need of change. Instituting a new set of conflicting vetos that still give the Cosa more authority than the Senats ignores the reason why we have bicameral legislatures in the first place. If too many people in the individually-elected Senats think something is a bad idea, it is probably a bad idea. If it isn't, those Senators will be replaced at the election. No amount of Cosa votes should be able to make the Senats votes meaningless, or ratchet up the standard for their voting to an absurd unanimous level. Here Here! Sir T |
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 7, 2008 23:17:57 GMT -6
I continue to wonder why 4 Senators voting against something demonstrates that it is a bad idea on, say, 20 or more others' part to vote for it. If those were 4 MCs, their votes would not, most likely, spell doom for the Bill. A person's judgement is a person's judgement; being a Senator does not magically improve it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2008 8:24:25 GMT -6
I continue to wonder why 4 Senators voting against something demonstrates that it is a bad idea on, say, 20 or more others' part to vote for it. If those were 4 MCs, their votes would not, most likely, spell doom for the Bill. A person's judgement is a person's judgement; being a Senator does not magically improve it. It may not magically improve the judgment, however, it is worth noting that the Senators ARE directly elected while becoming an MC is really not that difficult. While I imagine parties have different criteria for handing out seats, it seems to me that most people just get handed a fist full upon joining the party (if there are vacant seats available). I also think that some people have a woeful sense of entitlement with regards to proposed legislation. We present these things in the hopper and if we hear enough praise we gleefully clark our bill, if we hear much opposition, many people scrap the idea all together. We assume that if three people say you did a great job that the bill should pass. But if the bill is so important is the MC who proposes it going out and seeking support before the vote from the Senators? Are citizens of a particular province contacting their Senator saying "We, the people you represent feel you should vote this way?" I haven't really seen that. If I am a Senator and 1/2 of my province PM or e-mails me telling me they'd prefer I vote a certain way, I think it would be career suicide to vote against it. However, I would not base my decisions solely on what the majority of the Cosa says. If we are talking about limiting the power of Senators because they can block a vote or because they didn't follow the majority of the Cosa, then we are defeating the purpose of having a bicameral legislature, we should simply have the Cosa and, given our present population and seat distribution, would make us much more like a direct democracy. Ministreu Owens is correct to say that 4 Senators have a much louder yell than 4 MCs. That's the point. The Cosa is significantly larger than the Senate. The Senate is also comprised of individuals, where the Cosa is divided by political parties rather than directly elected individuals. We can sit here and argue this until we are blue in the face, or else we can propose an amendment to the OrgLaw that allows the Cosa to override a vote of the Senats when 3/4 of the Cosa votes in favor of a bill, allowing the Senats to block that override when they vote unanimously against the bill. |
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 8, 2008 12:06:31 GMT -6
Oh, I'm not debating the specific size of the yell at this point, but I'm suggesting that AD's reasoning that 4 Senators voting against something demonstrates its inherent flawedness is silly. =)
And yes, I'll PM you about the amendment and other stuff.
|
|
Tric'hard Dïeulofaçeva
Citizen since 2-15-2006
Talossan, Deputy Immigration Minister, College of Arms Intern, and DOTTer
Posts: 76
|
Post by Tric'hard Dïeulofaçeva on Sept 16, 2008 15:55:26 GMT -6
I have an idea.
Why don't you just create two senator positions for the colonies and territories of the empire, specifically Pengopats, which is, by land area, large enough to contribute two senators. Thus, we can help our penguin friends enjoy Talossan rights while giving the positions to the 2 largest minority parties. In that way they create a moderate group in a otherwise one to two party system. It also seems to be a good idea in the sense that it will well representing the parties that, even though holding a portion of cosa seats, are not represented in the senate due to dispersion of their party members. In all essence it would be like creating a new province, as done with Cezembre. In all honesty I think its time Pengopats got some recognition for something!
|
|
