Should the Senate work to increase participation?

Well, I think the question is important. It's possible to be content with low participation if you feel that the participation does not matter. If so, then you do not think the Senate should increase participation. This can also be true if you feel the body should be low key and simply be caretakers of legislation. Does the participation matter? Should we care and should the Senate work to do something about it?

I think another interesting question is something Skizzy alluded to... which is whether or not we are putting too much focus on the Citizens Assembly and not enough in the Senate.
 
Well I think a large part of the problem is we elect people who simply run on "Ill be good at asking questions and debating!" and not based upon specific legislation they would introduce. When the Senate doesnt do anything really important except tweaking old legislation and confirming cabinet choices, I can see why many might be not interested.

Personally, I think the Senate shouldn't exist.
 
Back when the Senate would sometimes refuse to approve nominations or when they senate VoNCed my first term.... I think you'd realize the Senate does have an important function. There must be some balance of power, duties and responsibilities.
 
Zenny Anumia said:
Personally, I think the Senate shouldn't exist.
Click to expand...
I couldn't disagree with that sentiment more. What the Senate does may appear "dry and boring" but it's important to the preservation of the region nonetheless.
 
After my time away, the biggest thing that surprised me was that there was no change whatsoever to the Senate
 
Why? :p

There haven't been drastic changes to the Senate... ever. All of this is making me really want to run for the Senate though....
 
I think everyone should run for the Senate. EVERYONE. I might make that a requirement for CA membership. *ponders*
 
This question is pointless as the answer is obviously yes. It lacks any meaningful context or nuance.
 
Kraketopia said:
What the Senate does may appear "dry and boring" but it's important to the preservation of the region nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Indeed. While little new is passed there, the situation is the same in the Assembly. I like to think of it as an extra safeguard against careless change.
 
Participation in what sense? As in more people vying for positions in the senate, or more citizen involvement in the Senate outside of the elected Senators? I feel that the most political offices could use more competition, I personally was very surprised to gain a seat in my first attempt by default. From what I understand though most of the recent elections have come down to one or two people vying for positions for the presidency and most recently in the CA. I don't think its a problem unique to the Senate.

 
PhDre said:
I think everyone should run for the Senate. EVERYONE. I might make that a requirement for CA membership. *ponders*
Click to expand...
Haha, and make the goal of the CA "to go out of business" by having all of their members become Senators? :wink:
 
I voted yes in the poll, because obviously the Senate should do everything it can to increase participation, but the question is flawed.

There's only so much the Senate can do to increase participation in the institution as it currently exists. We can't force anyone to run for the Senate, and part of the reason individuals are not running for the Senate, in my opinion, is activity in the Citizens' Assembly. One thing the Senate could do to increase Senate participation is repeal the Citizens' Assembly Act and abolish the CA, but I have a feeling quite a few people wouldn't want the Senate to take that particular approach to increasing Senate participation.

Another approach would be abolishing the Senate and empowering the Citizens' Assembly to fulfill its role. Again, I think quite a few people would oppose that particular approach.

The problem with Senate participation right now isn't something that the Senate, by itself, can easily fix through legislation or even initiative by individual Senators. It's a problem of our political culture. The problem could be remedied but it's going to probably take a more dynamic political environment and a willingness by all facets of the region -- the Senate, the Citizens' Assembly, the Executive, ordinary citizens -- to encourage Senate participation.
 
The primary original purpose of the CA was to groom people for the Senate; problem is it has now become too good an institution for people to participate in, and people want to stay. Damn that Mouse :p
 
Hyanygo said:
This question is pointless as the answer is obviously yes. It lacks any meaningful context or nuance.
Click to expand...
Oops, I guess I shouldn't have voted no.

Not every part of government is charged with generating participation and activity. The Senate's job is to write the region's rules and provide some basic oversight. It should focus on doing those things well. Past efforts by the Senate to generate activity/participation (Oliver's Westminster system, for example) have not worked well.
 
Anumia said:
The primary original purpose of the CA was to groom people for the Senate; problem is it has now become too good an institution for people to participate in, and people want to stay. Damn that Mouse :p
Click to expand...
I think the region is better off, overall, for the changes made in the CA - even if it means the CA is currently outshining the Senate. :wink: (Although, seriously, this term's Senators have been doing well, in terms of activity, so I don't mean to slight them.)

I think having the CA serve as a welcoming branch of Euro - where players can be groomed for Legislative or Executive (or Judicial!) positions - is good ... and, hopefully, fostering friendships and leadership development and overall introductional stuff is worth the tradeoff. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top