Discussion on a future Senate

[Duddha]

I propose moving the debate on the future powers, and roles of the Senate to this thread. It will get too bogged down in the Constitutional Discussion thread.

Article II. The Senate
1 All citizens who are not currently a Minister, President, or Judge are Senators
2 Any Senator may propose a law.
(a) To propose a law, a senator must post a poll that is clear, unbiased, states the proposed law in its entirety, and gives three options: “yea”, “nay”, and “abstain”.
(b) The poll’s subject must begin with the text “SENATE BILL:”
(c) The first post of the poll must clarify the options if clarification is needed and state the expiration date.
(d) The poll must be open for at least 72 hours.
(e) To pass, the proposed law must receive more “yea” votes than “nay” votes. It must also meet the quorum.
(i) The quorum: The total number of votes cast in the poll for passage must be greater than or equal to 25% of the total number of votes cast in the most recent Presidential election.
(ii) Any “abstain” votes are considered solely for quorum purposes. “Abstain” votes may not be considered “yea” or “nay” votes.
(iii) The Senate has the power to modify the quorum requirements or to perform a census without amending the Constitution.
(f) All citizens, not just senators, are allowed to vote in any poll.
(g) Proposed laws may not violate or change the Constitution. Proposed laws may change any existing laws, Judicial decisions regarding laws, or Executive orders.
3 Senators may also propose motions, resolutions, orders, and decisions of the Senate. These are proposed in the same way as laws and follow the same rules. These carry the same authority as a law.
4 The Senate has the power to declare war.
5 The Senate must approve all alliances
6 The Senate has the power to authorize drafts of citizens
7 The Senate has the power to change to a wartime economy
8 The Senate has the power to change the form of the government.
9 The Senate has the power to decide how Great Leaders are used
10 The Senate has the power to determine how money is spent. The Senate is not required to use this power. Should the Senate fail to act on any spending matter, or should a spending matter be vetoed, the President may decide.
11 The Senate may make its own laws regarding Senate procedure.
12 The Senate must keep records of all laws, motions, resolutions, and otherwise that are passed, amended, or removed. It may appoint a Clerk to do so.
13 All powers not specifically given to the other branches are hereby given to the Senate.

Cluase 13 means the that the places a future senate could go are limitless.

Much of what the Senate is capible of does would only require a bill so we can discuss this seperatly from the constitutional debate.

Unortho pointed out that the laws and actions of the senate would have to keepen track of.

Thud's solution

Senate Chats

I think we should have some Senate Chats, in which people could discuss proposals and get stuff done quickly without the slow reaction and debate times of the board.

Particularly, Senate Chats should be used in a situation that is imminent (as Unortho describes) and does not have time to go through the debate process before the next Turn Chat.

Of course, a change to the constitution is not necessary to have these

Supreme Speaker

The Senate should have a Speaker; in order to organize senate chats, organize senate votes and debates, and appoint my proposed Special Adviors/Committees.

This post may require an amendment, but perhaps just a bill.

I proposed:

Thud, we may be from different parties but we think alike. I second Thud's idea. The Speaker should be elected by a majority of the Senate. I also feel there should be a majority and minority leaders granted some minimal powers.

I feel there is real potential with the new senate to promote debate and the lives of parties and interest groups.

Arnelos:

The purpose of a legislative speaker and of majority/minority leaders in Real-Life legislatures (the model you're both drawing from) is to schedule legislation because a RL legislature can only discuss one thing at a time in full session.

That problem is irrelevant here because ANY Senator can post a poll that says "SENATE BILL" at any time and multiple bills can be debated on and passed simultaneously in different threads... as such, there is no need for a single person to schedule legislation - making the role of Speaker ceremonial at best (unless you want to give them unecessary powers they probably shouldn't have).

Ghegis:

I agree. I was thinking there should be a definition of a 'political faction" as in a set number of members required and once the definition was met that faction would be allowed to select a leader.

Arnelos:

The BIG BIG problem with this suggestion is that it assumes that Apolytonians will be willing to group together into distinct factions/parties and that each group will delegate its decision-making voice to a single member of that group... this is far from certain.

I think there is room and time for discussion on what the nature and structure of the senate will be. Ofcourse it will basicly remain the same old forum but I don't want this dying like the last Senate (if you remember, you know what i'm talking about).

Should there be semi-ceremonial positions created to promote discussions and parties? What kind of process for electing these positions?

[Apocalypse]

I think you are all thinking the senate will have a huge amout of influence. It was designed to be able to be able to have great influence, but there is nothing that says it must.

[Meshelic]

I think the process of elections WITHIN parties should be agreed upon by a majority of members within that party. How they or we would want to choose leadership should be up to the parties themselves.

(I hope I didn't miss the point, at least not too much)

Semi-ceremonial? Sure why not. It's discussion is it not?

[Duddha]

I think you are all thinking the senate will have a huge amout of influence. It was designed to be able to be able to have great influence, but there is nothing that says it must.

I'm not thinking the Senate has more power than it does, I would just like it to promote parties and fun discussions. Otherwise the people will basicly be left out of this future 4 member government. Clause 13 gives the Senate huge possiblities. Like I said, I don't want this to see the same fate as the last Senate.

[Duddha]

I think the process of elections WITHIN parties should be agreed upon by a majority of members within that party. How they or we would want to choose leadership should be up to the parties themselves.

This new Senate gives us the possibility of making party and issue polls like the ones me and Arnelos have done mean something on some level.

[Arnelos]

As for handling party leaderships in a common manner and instituting the party system within the Senate itself, I suggested a workable Real Life model in the other thread.... parliamentary coalitions established by "direct proportional representation" voting... That model COULD be adapted to Apolyonia, but doing that would depend on whether you like the role-playing or the actual Civ3 game more... because doing this is likely to make the role-playing more involved, but at times cause breaks in playing the game to resolve crises in the role-play I'm not sure on whether people want this, but I'll lay out what it would look like below for public comment...

* Members could group into parties or remain independent (essentially acting as parties unto themselves). In Apolytonia, it's likely there'd be a high number of independents (parties unto themselves) so our "Senate" is more likely to end up acting like the highly unruly Israeli Knesset (with zillions of one-member parties and a few slightly larger parties) than the highly orderly German Reichstag (with 2 huge parties and 3-4 much smaller parties)

* The Senate could establish a governing coalition of party leaders as negotiated by the various parties which are willing to join together in the governing coalition... that coalition would have to win a vote of confidence (a simple up/down vote on whether a majority considers itself a member or supporter of that coalition) in order to begin work on introducing legislation.

* The designated leaders of the "governing coalition", could then go about organizing debate and introducing legislation (including, most importantly, the power to introduce the official budget for Senate approval).

* Those who are not members or supporters of the governing coalition are the members of "the opposition", though the opposition might certainly be fragmented.

* If any bill officially introduced by the governing coalition's leadership (such as the official budget) loses in a vote of the Senate, then the governing coalition has two options...

1. Alter the bill in open discussion of the full senate and then submit a new bill which they believe can get majority support.

-OR-

2. Offer up the same bill as they originally offered up, but this time it is treated as a "vote of confidence". If the bill fails to pass this second time, the governing coalition "falls" (a result sometimes referred to as a "vote of no confidence") and all parties (both from the original governing coalition and from the opposition) again bargain to work out a deal to establish a NEW governing coalition... of course, each new coalition must be confirmed by a simple majority vote of the Senate before introducing official legislation.

* Presidential vetoes of things actually passed by the Senate still count as passing the Senate, so introducing them a second time does NOT count as a vote of confidence (only if they actually FAIL in the Senate is their unaltered re-introduction considered a vote of confidence). That said, a presidential veto would obviously necessitate either the matter being dropped OR the bill being altered so that either a majority of the Senate AND the President OR 2/3 of the Senate w/o the President can support it.

* In the case of the "official budget", an inability to pass this bill would be treated as a need to temporarily stop the game just as a crisis in a turnchat/turnthread would necessitate stopping the game until it can be resolved...

* Under the following two conditions, the President may create the budget rather than the Senate:

1. A majority of the Senate votes, as proposed by the governing coalition, to allow the President to either present the budget for majority Senate approval OR to allow the President to create a budget on his own w/o then needing Senate approval on ratifying it.

2. Two seperate Senate governing coalitions "fall" due to an inability to pass the same turn's budget... if this happens, the President receives the right to simply make the budget on his or her own and move the game forward.

* Concerning "cabinet" positions within the governing coalition, including a prime minister position, that is an additional level of complexity that may be pushing it too far even if you don't think what's above is pushing it too far. That said, IF you think it's NOT pushing it too far, the various party leaders that form the governing coalition leadership could designate among themselves who is in charge of introducing different areas of legislation (economy, science, etc.). That "cabinet membe" would then have sole ability to introduce legislation in their area, though the "Prime Minister" would likely have veto power over any piece of legislation introduced (since the coalition members choose the Prime Minister-figure so that a check exists on individual cabinet members for introducing legislation willy nilly that may endanger the governing coalition to a vote of confidence). Of course, this means that cabinet members (who are likely also party leaders) can resign in protest to such decisions... which could mean the coalition is likely to fail a vote of confidence... which means a new coalition might have to be formed, etc, etc, etc.

----------------------------

Now, personally, I think this is an excessive level of complexity that I feel is more of a distraction from the game than I'd want. However, since OPD (in particular) provided a rather good argument last week (or was it the week before?) that THE GAME OF CIV3 may be in the bag at this point and it might be more fun to distract ourselves more with role-playing a democracy (even if it gets in the way of playing the actual game of Civ3 at times), I'm willing to suggest this as a possible way of doing that....

PERSONALLY, I don't really want to do that, but I think I'm hearing several people suggesting that THEY might and I'm trying to provide them some ideas to play with

I do think it could be a whole lot of fun, it's just that I'm concerned that many people here are more interested in the game of Civ3 than the democracy game and those people might be put off by going to something like the above...

[Arnelos]

Those of you who are Europeans probably understand the system in my last post intuitively. So...

If people from my side of the Atlantic (or other SMD/2-party systems) are confused by my long-winded explanation, PLEASE feel free explain it in a less-confusing manner if you think it would help.

That said, keep in mind that I'm saying the Israeli Knesset or the Italian Parliament (both highly unruly because of the sheer number of parties) are likely better models to the independent-voter nature of Apolytonia than more orderly and organized bodies like the German Reichstag or other bodies with 5% minimum rules (I hope you understand how a 5% minimum rule would likely be VERY UNPOPULAR for Apolyonia's independent-minded voters - even if it would make things FAR more organized)

------------------------------

All of this said, PLEASE understand that I'm actually not very enamored myself about doing this... I'm just trying to give a workable model to the people who DO want something like this... because if they end up winning and we do something like this, I at least want it to be workable and interesting

[Togas]

I am utterly fascinated at where the Senate discussion is going and encourage such discussions. I just want to stress a few things:

1) If you discover, prior to ratification of the NewCon, that there is a gaping loophole that needs to be closed, please let us know.

2) When all the dust settles, my hope is that the our Senate becomes a body that allows anyone who is not elected the ability and power to be directly involved in our government ... even some people we'd rather not see involved.

3) Let's have fun with this, but let's be careful to not make this such an intimidating and procedurally laiden institution that new people couldn't participate in and that it would be inable to act in times of emergency due to red tape.

--Togas

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Duddha
I think there is room and time for discussion on what the nature and structure of the senate will be. Ofcourse it will basicly remain the same old forum but I don't want this dying like the last Senate (if you remember, you know what i'm talking about).

Mwahahaha.

Believe it or not, I did not propose the Senate, nor it's powers. I can't say I am unhappy with the proposals though.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Togas
3) Let's have fun with this, but let's be careful to not make this such an intimidating and procedurally laiden institution that new people couldn't participate in and that it would be inable to act in times of emergency due to red tape.

As I stated, I personally think what I'm posting above is excessively complex... that stated, however, it seems people are interested in doing that and I want them to do it in a potentially workable and fun manner if they're going to do it at all

[Duddha]

Arnelos has proposed a very good description of a parliamentary system (me being an amercian, I am utterly amazed that form of government works).

Few things:
As spelled out in the constitution, if the senate does not create a budget then the Prez gets to decide. I don't think this needs to be changed. It keeps the game moving even if there is a political fight going on.

Basicly a coalition would form and propose a budget or other bills, while not inhibiting any random person from proposing a bill. I believe a Prime Minister would be necessary inorder to bring order and direction to a coalition. The prime minister would have power to form cabinets for bill creation, advising and investigations.

This system is interesting but I worry it might lead to a one man rule.

[Duddha]

I will propose a more American system.

1. A Speaker would be elected to facilitate discussion and keep track of polls and bills. The Speaker would effectively run the forum directory. The Speaker would also run elections for Senate positions.

2. A majority leader would be elected. All are allowed to run, parties would probably only field one candidate. If no majority candidate was found a run-off would decide. The loser of the run off or the next highest vote reciever in the firt election would become the minority leader.
-both leaders would have the power to create and appoint senate bill commitees, advisory commitees, and investigative commitees. The majority leader would have the power to disband committees.
-the majority leader would create and propose the budget to the senate for approval.

The powers of the majority and minority leaders would not inhibit upon the right of any senator to propose a bill.

Senate elections would take place at the same time as executive elections. I'm not sure if someone should be allowed to hold a exuctive position and a senate position at the same time.

This system might do well with our majority independant populous.

[Apocalypse]

Ahh good. More elected people.

Exactly what we did not really want.

[Duddha]

Ahh good. More elected people.

Exactly what we did not really want.

The speaker is the only important one. The senate can keep on going without everything else.

1. A speaker is needed to keep track of bills and the workings of the senate.

2. A majority leader, or prime minister could spearhead activism, propose bills, and create a budget (which we all know if left to the masses will never be completed on time.)

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Duddha
2. A majority leader, or prime minister is need to spearhead activism, propose bills, and create a budget (which we all know if left to the masses will never be completed on time.)

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...

The reason I identify as to why we'd even consider establishing such things is that it be sorta cool to model something of how a real legislative democracy works... this WOULD, in my opinion, cause the role-play democracy elements to take on a heightened focus compared to what they've had in the past, perhaps at the expense of focus on the Civ3 game itself... however, there are those who feel they WANT that.

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

[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.

[GhengisFarb™]

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.