[2nd Euro Census] April 8-12, 2020

Prim

Prim

Chief Justice
Security Council
Citizen
Discord Moderator
Pronouns
He/Him, They/them


2nd Europeian Census
April 8-12, 2020

Modernization of the Executive Branch: Shifting Expectations and Streamlining
​


Demographics

Total Respondents: 55
Citizen Respondents: 41 (74.5%)
Resident Respondents: 7 (12.7%)
Foreign Visitor Respondents: 7 (12.7%)

Foreign Ambassadors and Residents Demographics

This Census had a much stronger response from ambassadors and residents compared to the previous Census. There were seven Ambassador responses and seven Resident responses. Out of these, the broad takeaways, demographically speaking, is that the vast majority of ambassadors have been active in Europeia for under 3 months, but they tend to have between 1-2 and 3-5 years of experience in Nationstates. Residents of the region tend to have more time in the region, between recent joins to 1-2 years in Europeia. These players tend to be younger than most citizens and are almost all recent newcomers to Nationstates as well.

Ambassadors check our forum somewhat infrequently, where residents tend to never check the forum and stick to the RMB only. When asked what sort of activities might bring Ambassadors and Residents to the forum or the discord server:

Debates! Roleplaying events! (Ambassador response)
I do this on my phone, so I can’t really do anything on the Forum. (Resident response)
When I was on the forum I never could find what I was looking for, the layout was pretty confusing, so I just stopped visiting. (Resident response)
Trivia's always fun. I enjoy a lot of the games. (Ambassador response)
I already am! (Ambassador response)
Maybe do some endorse for endorse, and add some more channels. (Resident response)

Citizen Demographics
We are seeing that our citizenry is skewing toward newer players, with just over half of all respondent citizens having been in Europeia for 2 years or less. The situation is even more clear when it comes to the question of how long citizens have claimed to have been active. Around 60% of citizen respondents have claimed to be active in Europeia for 2 years or less, with a full third having been active for under one year. On the other side, less than a quarter of citizen repondents have been here for over 5 years. However, even though there is a significant amount of newer players active and responding to polls in Europeia, there is still a strong mix of players from all eras of Europeia. Despite the shift toward newer players in Europeia, we do still maintain a rather mature player base, with the majority of citizen respondents being over the age of 22, and less than 10% being between 13 and 15 years old.


We can see the clear shift toward newer players happening over the past six months, since the last Census in September 2019, with the "Under 3 months" category almost doubling in percentage of the citizen respondents. The other categories tend to remain stable, with some notable shifting from the "5-9 years" category to the "10+ years" category. In the Citizen Age over Time graph, however, there is a clear decrease in players between 13-15 years old, with an increase in the 16-18 category as well as the 22-25 and 26-30 years age groups.
---


Citizen Opinions

We see quite a strong shift toward discord activity desired, with most shifts coming from a change in emphasis from forum activity to a neutral or equal emphasis now in the majority. While there is not much call for sole discord focus, it does seem that there is a trend toward more social aspects and discord activity being seen in the past six months.

---
While the changes in the past six months have not been very large, there has been a noticeable shift toward believing that citizens have more opportunities for advancement and pathways to leadership. This is a very encouraging trend for the region.

---
Again, this is not a significant shift, but it does show a trend in the right direction, people are more confident in our staffing capacity across the ministries and councils than they were six months ago.
---

Overall Comments on Citizen Opinion Section
  • Broaden the variety of options/activities - it can feel a little "same old" at times
  • Less ministries and more specialized civil servant roles
  • More outreach and interaction for the longtime not as active citizens
  • Maybe reduce the divisions of ministers and powers? As a newer citizen, I feel like it's a bit complicated sometimes.
  • More elections, shorter terms
  • Find ways to lure the social players into the political side of things, and work on directing a lot of energy that goes into Discord to our forums instead (or in addition to)
  • I'd say given that many people that just joined Europeia. The brass should try finding them mandatory easy training to learn like IA, FA and so on. That will then allow them to be somewhat integrated into Europeia. With that in which ever field they are interested, they can then apply for that certain field with a certain amount of confidence.
  • Focus on regular and more universal cultural activity, such as games. Perfect chance for people to bond and have a connection with the community.
  • more interaction between countries within Europeia
  • A buddy system where people paired up to help each other be more active
  • More variety of weekend games and times
  • interesting activities within ministries
  • Improve interaction with the gameside.
  • Advertise areas based on interest more than just pressuring people to move up.
  • Have a guide for new players/new citizens
  • Build from the bottom up. Encourage people by leaving a comment at the end of an ENC article, thank people for recruiting, get to know people in a weekend game etc.
---


Service in Office and Voting

Most of these polling questions had very little changes over the past 6 months, we will forego showing the changes over time for the poll questions in this section unless there were significant changes.

Service in High Office
Around a quarter to a third of all citizen respondents have served in high office, in any of the branches, slightly lower in the Legislative and Judicial branches to be expected. These are pretty strong numbers and have held rather steady in the past 6 months.
---

Service in other Office
With around 60% having served as a Senator and around 20% having served as a Justice, these numbers have held relatively stable over the past year and seem about in line with the number of seats and frequency of seats opening up: the Senate has much higher turnover than High Court positions.
---

Election Turnout
Election Turnout numbers have improved slightly over the past 6 months, with just over 75% saying they "always" or "often" vote in these elections. Strong numbers, but shows that there are still some citizens who can be reached who are not voting regularly.
---

Service in Ministries and Councils

These are where the polling really shifts in a positive direction. The polling questions about specific domestic versus FA departments is new in this Census, so we only have Trend data for the overall service in departments, but the trend is very encouraging, with a slight increase in percentage of citizens who are members of at least one department, but a strong increase in citizens who are members of multiple councils. While there can be concerns about staff being stretched too thin and not being as productive in each department, this can also lead to better cross-collaboration between ministries in a more efficient manner in some circumstances.

The one notable weakness here is the disparity between service in Domestic Ministries versus service in FA Councils. Domestic Ministries are seeing more than 75% of citizen respondents being members, while Councils have only around 60% membership among respondents, a significant gap. Comments below help explain how we can improve membership in FA Councils.

  • I've done it before but it's just not an area that particularly interests me. As for why other haven't taken an interest, I think partly it's because the work is pretty dull and non-active (observing a region for example) at least to begin with (it gets more interesting later on) and compared to the domestic side where activities are very active and you can physically see the work you've done and feel a sense of pride.
  • Not that interested
  • They aren't visible - I never think about them
  • Foreign affairs is a mixture of scary and daunting, but also the mail delivery system (ambassadors) are a bit boring
  • No
  • Time, and what I feel is a knowledge requirement for that job area.
  • I found being an ambassador boring.
  • I don't really want to represent 2 regions abroad, since I'm FA officer somewhere else which is also the region I have my WA nation in.
  • Foreign Affairs don't interest me
  • Just my lack of time .
  • Because i'm a college student i don't have the time for that. I play Nationstates for fun but i get that simulating politics is fun for other people but i don't think it is that interesting for me.
  • Seems too big.
  • Don't really know
  • Host more events
  • Expand and further publicise the watchers program
  • Perhaps a location where there is a comprehensive summary of our foreign relations with the primary regions and their government leaders. So newcomers can get an overall grasp of our regional situation.
  • No ideas personally.
  • understanding what they do
  • IDK like a referendum to the citizens or something?
  • A pat on the back and some cookies I guess idk

---

Executive Modernization and Streamlining
This survey shows that the region has become more divided on the question of Executive Modernization, with a little over one-third of citizen respondents supporting the re-merge, a little under one-third opposing the re-merge, and just under one-third neutral or undecided on the question. Delving into how each generation of Europeians feels about the split, there are some noticeable differences. Very new players are more likely to be unsure, understandably. Players who joined Europeia after the Executive Split had already occurred are somewhat split on the re-merge. Players who have been here for 1-2 years tend to be against the re-merge, drifting back toward strong support for the re-merge among older players in the 3-4 and 5-9 year ranges. Players who have been here for 10+ years, always enigmatic and rebellious, have bucked that trend and slightly oppose the re-merge overall. However, there is a strong cross-generational mix of opinions on the re-merge and no one generation breaks decidedly in one direction or another for the most part.

A strong plurality of the citizen respondents were not here when the Executive Split occurred. The opposition to the Executive Split in green and red with 32.5% and the support for the Executive Split in blue and yellow with 30%, this graph shows that there have been some significant changes and shake-up in opinions on the split over time on both sides. With a different viewing angle below.
This graph compares how someone felt about the Executive Split when it occurred versus support for the Re-Merge now. There have been more shifts from the support camp that now oppose the Executive Split than the reverse. Those who still support the Executive Split tend to be more neutral or unsure about the Re-merging of the Executive branch, showing that their support is likely softer than among those who opposed the Executive Split. Among the citizens who were not here when the Executive Split occurred, there is a strong split in support and opposition shown, with a strong number of those unsure of the re-merge.


The region is still divided on how streamlined the cabinet-level positions should be, but there is a strong takeaway here that most people do not support any official or legislative restrictions on the Executives' ability to create their cabinet. On the streamlining side, the clear support is for stronger Senate oversight to control and streamline the cabinet-level positions.
This question largely falls along political lines regarding the re-merge, with those opposing the re-merge citing burnout concerns, and those supporting the re-merge saying there will likely not be concerns with burnout. Those who are neutral on the re-merge are almost completely neutral on the possibility of burnout as well.
Those citing possibility of burnout after re-merge tend to span across the generations of Euroepia pretty evenly, while those claiming no burnout concerns after the re-merge tend to clump around the 3-4 and 5-9 year categories.

Overall Comments on the Re-Merge

  • While some Presidents complained of burnout, there were some Presidents who said that the job was manageable. The President can delegate tasks to the VP and could even nominate a Chief of Staff to take on some responsibilities if they felt that the job was too demanding.
  • The re-unified executive would massively increase the burden on the leader, and completely discourage me from running. I don't understand why people think it is going to be any easier now, nor do I understand why people think that reunifying the executive will actually make any improvements
  • The workload and expectation was very high and the turnover was reaching comical levels.
  • As was pointed out in the GH thread, most Presidents left because of FA sanfus.
  • I experienced a grear burnout just serving as a Minister and I think the opportunity for burnout is much greater with a re-unifed executive. It would take a very special person to hold the office of President and do it well.
  • We clearly saw a unified executive was unsustainable, I don’t see why we should go back.
  • It was never that difficult to be President.
  • A Presidential role has the potential to be more demanding on both aspects of our government, requiring more oversight and higher workload. This isn't always bad, but I can see elections being filled with fewer fresh faces, and more with experienced hands that have tackled both sides of our executive over a period of time.
  • Both jobs together is too big for one person in my opinion, especially for a region that has been struggling with burnout. I think it's a recipe to discourage people from running, and to see those who do run quit midterm more frequently.
  • If the President is supposed to run both foreign affairs and domestic affairs, it seems they cannot focus on either with as much depth as they could if they were tasked with only one.
  • There's always burnout concerns with any position, but I never saw a presidency in action.
  • As long as the deputy is depended on and effectively does their job in the first place, there shouldn't be as much burnout.
  • This is more about delegation and expectation management than the specific structure used.
  • I think the split right now has a nice balance of responsibility, as well as encourages people to run for higher offices because there is more opportunity.
  • The President never had too much work
  • It's inevitable that burnout will be a real issue, but there are pros and cons to everything and the positives outweigh the negatives in bringing the executive back together
  • One single executive just seems like too much work for one person. I couldn't do it.

---

Participation in Europeia (Ambassadors and Residents included in this section)

Forum Participation

  • Roleplay, Games, Memes, and friends
  • Debates! Roleplaying events!
  • I do this on my phone, so I can’t really do anything on the Forum.
  • I mean, I visit the Forum daily more than RMB. I'm pretty sure I have more than what I need ?
  • Games! Open discussions! I also suggest perhaps having a debate a week! Choose a topic, real life or not, and have an open discussion from all sides on it. Allows us to learn and enjoy debating.
  • Crosswords
  • Idk
  • N/A
  • Nothing?
  • More interesting games and events, maybe.
  • When I was on the forum I never could find what I was looking for, the layout was pretty confusing, so I just stopped visiting.
  • My duties to the ministries I am apart of
---

Discord Participation

  • Roleplay, Games, Memes, and friends
  • I already am!
  • Aforementioned games! The Discord kinda generates itself tho. If officials are active in chats, it will thrive, promise.
  • Sometimes it's just a bit daunting and I feel like I get overlooked on there
  • Trivia's always fun. I enjoy a lot of the games
  • Maybe do some endorse for endorse, and add some more channels.
  • nothing
  • Nothing for now, since I chat everyday and there's plenty of activity.
  • My duties to the ministries I am in
  • Specific interest channels I can engage with. The main chat channel is too full of noise.
  • Duck hunt, hunger games, sopo
 
Last edited:
Very interesting results. I was surprised, and maybe shouldn't have been, at the relatively strong opposition to a re-emerge within those groups who joined pretty recently and those who were either "children" of the reform debate or arrived just afterwards.
 
The two things that stand out most to me here are two comments that are repeated (presumably by the same players):
I do this on my phone, so I can’t really do anything on the Forum.
Click to expand...
I always thought our boards were fairly mobile-friendly (thanks to @Darcness ). I'm curious if the comment was directed at the forum interface being difficult or if it relates to the second comment below re: difficulty navigating.
When I was on the forum I never could find what I was looking for, the layout was pretty confusing, so I just stopped visiting.
Click to expand...
I certainly think our forum's main-page layout is odd (I hate having all the ministries buried at the bottom of the page), but how is the layout confusing?

I obviously don't expect either respondent to "out" themselves and answer my questions, so my questions are more aimed at the general readership/audience. Let's discuss!
 
Just a quick comment for tonight, I'll have more to say tomorrow.

Thanks for doing this Prim! There is some really interesting and important information here. The main takes I get from this are 1) the region is more optimistic about its future than it was 6 months ago. 2) Both sides of the argument are going to have to fight hard in the debate around reunifying the Exec, and the potential burnout of a President will likely be a major factor in that debate.
 
Whew, that's a lot of work you've done Prim!

I found the number and consistency of the comments for "why did you decide not to join an FA council" pretty remarkable, definitely something to take note of.

Lethen said:
The two things that stand out most to me here are two comments that are repeated (presumably by the same players):
I do this on my phone, so I can’t really do anything on the Forum.
Click to expand...
I always thought our boards were fairly mobile-friendly (thanks to @Darcness ). I'm curious if the comment was directed at the forum interface being difficult or if it relates to the second comment below re: difficulty navigating.
When I was on the forum I never could find what I was looking for, the layout was pretty confusing, so I just stopped visiting.
Click to expand...
I certainly think our forum's main-page layout is odd (I hate having all the ministries buried at the bottom of the page), but how is the layout confusing?

I obviously don't expect either respondent to "out" themselves and answer my questions, so my questions are more aimed at the general readership/audience. Let's discuss!
Click to expand...
I don't know how true this is for others, but when I first joined it was just the sheer size of the forum that confused me a little. It didn't take me long to adjust, but I think it can be off-putting for a brand new member. I'm not sure that's anything we can or should do something about, though. The descriptions under each sub-forum are clear and helpful already; I think it's mainly just a question of engaging with people straight away as soon as they join/make their first post so that they feel welcome and motivated to stay those extra few days to work things out.
 
I'm frankly not surprised to see public opinion swing against the re-merge, but this is a dramatic turn-around. If we look at the Senate race poll I did before the previous Senate election, only 19% were satisfied with the split. Nearly half were dissatisfied. Now it's one-third approves, one-third disapproves, and one-third isn't sure.

We have to remember that the vast majority of Senators who were elected said that they were in favor of reform, and where has that effort gone? DH tried to ask some clarifying questions to get a sense of the Senate on Monday, and here we are nearly a week later and no one has responded? As someone who was very much in favor of this reform effort, I'm disappointed to see the Senate get stuck in the muck.

To be entirely honest, my support for reform has softened because it doesn't seem like there's a clear plan. In my opinion, the effort has to go back to the drawing board and focus on big-picture goals. What are we trying to accomplish? The region wanted to see progress, and now that it's stalling the public is turning away from it.
 
There are some really interesting comments here, particularly in regards to the forum. When joining Euro one of the things that I liked most was how user friendly the forums were - but it is easy to get lost, and almost lose track, if you haven't found Discord. The reason I stayed so involved was because of people reaching out in Discord, and then figuring out the forums in more depth. Personally this has given me a few things to look into as FM, as I can see some of the activities being achievable at the very least.

Overall though, this provides some solid data to draw from in regards to reform, and whether or not people want it to go ahead. It does seem that there's been a drop in momentum regarding the debate, as McEntire has mentioned, and if that's because people actually do like our current system, or there's not as many voices for reform, it remains unclear.
 
McEntire said:
I'm frankly not surprised to see public opinion swing against the re-merge, but this is a dramatic turn-around. If we look at the Senate race poll I did before the previous Senate election, only 19% were satisfied with the split. Nearly half were dissatisfied. Now it's one-third approves, one-third disapproves, and one-third isn't sure.

We have to remember that the vast majority of Senators who were elected said that they were in favor of reform, and where has that effort gone? DH tried to ask some clarifying questions to get a sense of the Senate on Monday, and here we are nearly a week later and no one has responded? As someone who was very much in favor of this reform effort, I'm disappointed to see the Senate get stuck in the muck.

To be entirely honest, my support for reform has softened because it doesn't seem like there's a clear plan. In my opinion, the effort has to go back to the drawing board and focus on big-picture goals. What are we trying to accomplish? The region wanted to see progress, and now that it's stalling the public is turning away from it.
Click to expand...
To note here though, the shift to support was shown to be somewhat soft and undecided. The opposition to the split tends to be very sure of the re-merge, while those who support the executive split are more split on the re-merge, showing a less certain and solid support for the Executive Split.

1587300263997.png


This is also the same thing we saw during the reform process last year too -- the support near the beginning was astronomical, HEM mentioned that he had never seen the region that decidedly in support, it was over 80%. By the time 6 months of reform talks had passed, I think only 60-65% of the region voted for the final Split bill.

Also, the original executive split took 6 months, I think any expectation that the re-merge was going to be quick is a bit of a misunderstanding. This was never going to be, and shouldn't be, a "fast" process. Especially, as you are seeing, there is no clear consensus on how to move forward. We all mostly supported the re-merge, but not the details. And that's what we saw with the reform process last year, most people loved the idea of reform but then when it bogged down in the details, no single plan really rose above to gain popular support except for the Executive Split without any other reforms.

I was personally waiting for the results of this Census before moving forward on DH's question, since it directly asked about cabinet restrictions, and this poll shows that the hunger for any legislative restrictions just isn't there.
 
Last edited:
I would hesitate to put too much weight on the current state of the region. While promising, a lot of the increased activity and returning citizens can be credited to COVID-19, which, God willing, is not a permanent condition. I imagine we'll regress quite a bit as restrictions are loosened, so I'm taking current activity levels with a grain of salt (especially in terms of ministry staffing).

I have more to say in terms of progress toward the re-merge, but I'll do that elsewhere so my comments aren't lost.
 
Sopo said:
I would hesitate to put too much weight on the current state of the region. While promising, a lot of the increased activity and returning citizens can be credited to COVID-19, which, God willing, is not a permanent condition. I imagine we'll regress quite a bit as restrictions are loosened, so I'm taking current activity levels with a grain of salt (especially in terms of ministry staffing).

I have more to say in terms of progress toward the re-merge, but I'll do that elsewhere so my comments aren't lost.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'd have to agree with this here. With everyone working from home or students back home with lessened work loads and no friends to hang out with, we're sort of the next best thing. I agree that once restrictions start lifting, we may see people ghost Euro a bit, or some returning players may depart again. I personally support the re-merge because I overall feel that NS and, by extension, Europeia are declining in participation and struggling for "replacement" numbers to our normal attrition. I would rather face another staffing crisis with a unified executive branch than with a divided one, I think we would be able to press on and distribute manpower more effectively in a unified executive.
 
McEntire said:
To be entirely honest, my support for reform has softened because it doesn't seem like there's a clear plan.
Click to expand...
And this kind of thing is why we shouldn't have opinion polls driving debates like the one going on in the Senate. I could build you a graph of what it is that each Senator wants, but I'm feeling kind of lazy here, so I'll just get to the point: Each person (with the exception of maybe Lloenflys?) walked into this term knowing what they wanted, and everyone's version of the 'right' thing is a little bit different. There's a lot of compromise that needs to happen, and that compromise, while it's being brokered, is going to look messy. There's a reason why building laws IRL is referred to as 'making sausage'. But when change doesn't happen fast enough people start getting cold feet.

I'm not the best politician, mostly because I'm too honest, but here's what I think and why:

We try to do WAY TOO FUCKING MUCH for how many people we have. There is no way for me to say this any more clearly and with enough stress. This is my north star. The Executive shows no sign of the necessary self-awareness it takes to make these sorts of changes (Cabinets have exploded!). Since the Executive isn't doing it, the Senate needs to slash and burn. So what does that look like?

One single executive head. ONE. Having two is A) too many jobs for not enough people, B) confusing to other regions diplomatically, C) causes each 'head' to feel they need a 'full' Cabinet, and we don't have the manpower for that nonsense.

No Deputy. Every time I've been a VP I've been itching for things to do, the job doesn't really train you for anything. Ministers at least have to manage people, let that be your 'stepping stone'.

Five Ministries. Five. No more than that. What those five ministries are doesn't really matter, what matters is that we're only really expecting five 'major' initiatives from a particular Executive. If Prim really likes Radio, he can make sure that Radio is it's own Ministry (or is what Comms leans on heavily) during his term, and I can lean on the EBC for Comms because that's what I like during my term. But we're just not trying to do both at the same time, just because I liked one and he liked the other. This is the primary thing that the Executive has been failing at (having focus for its priorities) so there should NOT be any flexibility on this until the culture has appropriately shifted... until we as a region have established the 'new normal'.

But that's just me. There are eight other Senators with 8 different ideas, and we all got elected on our ideas, so making those all merge will not have a 'clear plan'. This is how compromise works. </grump>
 
I mostly agree with Darc. To be clear, I don't think the ministry limit should be codified in law, but culturally we should accept that is where we are at right now. In future, the right number might go up or down, depending on the number of active people we have. The correct number is a balancing act. On the one hand, we want there to be opportunities so people stay motivated. On the other, if everybody who wants to be in the cabinet can be, it devalues the position and likely means the ministers will not have enough staff.

I do disagree with Darc about the vice presidency though. I don't question that that was his experience, but mine was very different. Several of terms as VP were some of the most productive periods I've had in the region. I had a president who just said "take up whatever projects you care about and run with them" and mostly left me alone to do things. It allowed me to take on big, necessary infrastructure projects with the authority to make decisions and, honestly, without the distractions of being head of state and thus the person everyone goes to when they want something. I found being VP a great way to engage with and manage cross-ministry projects and build new systems.
 
Last edited:
Darcness said:
McEntire said:
To be entirely honest, my support for reform has softened because it doesn't seem like there's a clear plan.
Click to expand...
And this kind of thing is why we shouldn't have opinion polls driving debates like the one going on in the Senate. I could build you a graph of what it is that each Senator wants, but I'm feeling kind of lazy here, so I'll just get to the point: Each person (with the exception of maybe Lloenflys?) walked into this term knowing what they wanted, and everyone's version of the 'right' thing is a little bit different. There's a lot of compromise that needs to happen, and that compromise, while it's being brokered, is going to look messy. There's a reason why building laws IRL is referred to as 'making sausage'. But when change doesn't happen fast enough people start getting cold feet.

I'm not the best politician, mostly because I'm too honest, but here's what I think and why:

We try to do WAY TOO FUCKING MUCH for how many people we have. There is no way for me to say this any more clearly and with enough stress. This is my north star. The Executive shows no sign of the necessary self-awareness it takes to make these sorts of changes (Cabinets have exploded!). Since the Executive isn't doing it, the Senate needs to slash and burn. So what does that look like?

One single executive head. ONE. Having two is A) too many jobs for not enough people, B) confusing to other regions diplomatically, C) causes each 'head' to feel they need a 'full' Cabinet, and we don't have the manpower for that nonsense.

No Deputy. Every time I've been a VP I've been itching for things to do, the job doesn't really train you for anything. Ministers at least have to manage people, let that be your 'stepping stone'.

Five Ministries. Five. No more than that. What those five ministries are doesn't really matter, what matters is that we're only really expecting five 'major' initiatives from a particular Executive. If Prim really likes Radio, he can make sure that Radio is it's own Ministry (or is what Comms leans on heavily) during his term, and I can lean on the EBC for Comms because that's what I like during my term. But we're just not trying to do both at the same time, just because I liked one and he liked the other. This is the primary thing that the Executive has been failing at (having focus for its priorities) so there should NOT be any flexibility on this until the culture has appropriately shifted... until we as a region have established the 'new normal'.

But that's just me. There are eight other Senators with 8 different ideas, and we all got elected on our ideas, so making those all merge will not have a 'clear plan'. This is how compromise works. </grump>
Click to expand...
Whether you like it or not, any reform proposal will require broad-based public support, because it will be voted on. So the way that you build the reform out and build a public argument for it does matter.

And my problem is that Senators aren't making their views well-known, weren't responding in the thread, and are putting the cart before the horse by not clearly articulating the need for reform. Again, what are we trying to accomplish? I am holding this Senate to a high standard, yes. Because I want the Senate to hold the Executive to a high standard.

So you can grump all you want. I've seen plenty of reform proposals kick the tires for terms and terms before collapsing, and I think for that to happen this term would be a shame given the clear mandate that this Senate was given. And in my experience, the ones that succeed are spurred on by public pressure.

What I'm saying is, the need for reform is not being clearly communicated, and it makes me lose faith in this Senate's ability to execute it. You can choose to be defensive about that or not. But it is the opinion of this citizen. And judging by this polling, this Senate has lost some important public support since the beginning of its term.
 
McEntire said:
So the way that you build the reform out ... for it does matter.
Click to expand...
This is the part I disagree with. How the decision comes together shouldn't matter (unless something super untoward occurs), what should matter is the final product and the logic behind it.

Also, FWIW, it doesn't require votes, just requires a few signatures. I'm a little surprised you'd automatically expect a referendum, considering that you panned me for doing the same thing once upon a time when I was President.

McEntire said:
What I'm saying is, the need for reform is not being clearly communicated, and it makes me lose faith in this Senate's ability to execute it.
Click to expand...
The need for reform was already clearly communicated, when the Senators were voted in. Or did you even read the platforms?
 
And my problem is that Senators aren't making their views well-known
Click to expand...
I don't know where this is coming from. Several times in the Senate thread the Senators are making their views known on the various compromises put forward, and I think every single Senator has chimed in on the GH thread at least once, and many of us do so regularly. If you aren't clear where any of us stand, I don't think it is from a lack of information or effort on our part.
 
Malashaan said:
I had a president who just said "take up whatever projects you care about and run with them" and mostly left me alone to do things.
Click to expand...
But it didn't prepare you for being President, either, because being the President wasn't about those things.
 
Darcness said:
McEntire said:
So the way that you build the reform out ... for it does matter.
Click to expand...
This is the part I disagree with. How the decision comes together shouldn't matter (unless something super untoward occurs), what should matter is the final product and the logic behind it.

Also, FWIW, it doesn't require votes, just requires a few signatures. I'm a little surprised you'd automatically expect a referendum, considering that you panned me for doing the same thing once upon a time when I was President.

McEntire said:
What I'm saying is, the need for reform is not being clearly communicated, and it makes me lose faith in this Senate's ability to execute it.
Click to expand...
The need for reform was already clearly communicated, when the Senators were voted in. Or did you even read the platforms?
Click to expand...
Of course it matters how you conduct a process, especially when you're reforming our democracy fundamentally. As I said, you want to do something like this with broad-based public support so that citizens have faith in the integrity of our system of government. I'll borrow a framework here, from Eugene Bardach's eightfold path of policy development. Bardach says that policy development should go like this:
  1. Define the problem - what do we have too little or too much of? What's the problem we are trying to solve? Too little coordination between halves of the Executive? Too few competitive elections?
  2. Assemble some evidence
  3. Construct the alternatives - what could we possibly do? One Executive? Two Executives? Some compromise? Elected VP? Etc.
  4. Select some criteria - by what standard will we judge any reform?
  5. Project the outcomes
  6. Confront trade-offs - as pointed out elsewhere, any major reform will have trade-offs. We will lose some of the benefit that we derived from the split, which some people are fine with because we gain more benefit from re-merging, but that is a trade-off that should be expressed and confronted.
  7. Decide
  8. Communicate the decision
My problem, and what I'm trying to get through to you, is that all you're doing is digging into the nitty gritty of alternatives (step 3) without unifying the Senate around a common purpose and setting broader goals for reform. That's why the process seems like chaos and you've lost net-20 points of support since the beginning of the term. When I say that Senators aren't communicating the need for reform, what I'm saying is that Senators aren't telling us the "WHY", all we're hearing is "MERGE". It's dismissive and it's bad policy development.

As for the referendum thing, I'm saying that if you aren't persuaded by good policy practices alone, a more robust reform process will also help with the feasibility of reform. Many major reforms have gone to referendum, and I'd be in favor of this one doing the same. I'm not in favor of sending minor bills to referendum, which you did in your Presidential term, but no one cares about that anymore so I'd rather not re-hash it. My point is, I'd be in favor of either the Executive or the people sending this to a reform. And then you will need the people's support. Currently only about a third support it.

And yes, I did read the platforms. I wrote an EBC article where I talked about the likelihood of reform based on the number of candidates that supported it. And I don't appreciate that snark.
Calvin Coolidge said:
And my problem is that Senators aren't making their views well-known
Click to expand...
I don't know where this is coming from. Several times in the Senate thread the Senators are making their views known on the various compromises put forward, and I think every single Senator has chimed in on the GH thread at least once, and many of us do so regularly. If you aren't clear where any of us stand, I don't think it is from a lack of information or effort on our part.
Click to expand...
Again, see the above. Communicating a position on an issue is different than clearly making a case for reform. This debate has been sort of chaotic. As evidenced by the fact that we may be about to change the mechanism by which we elect the CoS, which wasn't really on the table 24 hours ago. My point is it seems like the Senate is being reactive rather than proactive. Does that make sense?
 
McEntire said:
When I say that Senators aren't communicating the need for reform, what I'm saying is that Senators aren't telling us the "WHY", all we're hearing is "MERGE". It's dismissive and it's bad policy development.
Click to expand...
Except you already did hear the 'why'. It was all over the platforms for the officials you elected. By voting for those officials you've already signed off on the 'why'. This is why I say it sounds like you didn't read them. Reasons for restructure have been stated, and you've given your approval for those reasons, and now you're saying that nobody is explaining the value. How can it not be reasoned that you're either being ill-informed or disingenuous?
 
Darcness said:
McEntire said:
When I say that Senators aren't communicating the need for reform, what I'm saying is that Senators aren't telling us the "WHY", all we're hearing is "MERGE". It's dismissive and it's bad policy development.
Click to expand...
Except you already did hear the 'why'. It was all over the platforms for the officials you elected. By voting for those officials you've already signed off on the 'why'. This is why I say it sounds like you didn't read them. Reasons for restructure have been stated, and you've given your approval for those reasons, and now you're saying that nobody is explaining the value. How can it not be reasoned that you're either being ill-informed or disingenuous?
Click to expand...
What incentive to I have to be either of those things? I'm in favor of reform. I'm saying the Senate isn't taking the time to get the region on board and it's led to a chaotic process that's caused declining support. Getting voted in doesn't mean you're immune to criticism.
 
McEntire said:
What incentive to I have to be either of those things? I'm in favor of reform. I'm saying the Senate isn't taking the time to get the region on board and it's led to a chaotic process that's caused declining support. Getting voted in doesn't mean you're immune to criticism.
Click to expand...

I resent that you say that we are somehow making this process chaotic and not getting the region on board. Besides the possible exception of the CoS Election Amendment everything we have discussed has had poll after poll made about it. The discussions have been going on for a month and a half at this point. We still don't have a concrete plan. We are taking are time on the broader reform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top