Europeian Question Time

Ladies and gentlemen, it is my special privilege and honor to bring back Europeian Question Time.

Here's how it works:

Europeian Question Time is a panel show, with myself as the moderator. I will ask a general question to start off with, then allow the panelists to offer their thoughts and challenge/question each other. Follow-up questions, clarifications, and so on will also feature.

At some point during the discussion, I will open the questioning up to you, the citizens of Europeia.

Some rules:

1. I encourage debate and challenge, but I will ask that the participants be civil.
2. Unless it is part of the public question section, I would ask that only myself and the panelists post in this thread, please.


With all of that out of the way, let me introduce the panelists!

Associate Justice Skizzy Grey, Attorney General PhDre, World Assembly Delegate Vinage, Minister of Culture Drexlore Greyjoy, Supreme Chancellor Lethen.

Alright, thank you all for agreeing to be here.

First question: This week saw our population drop below 1200 (it is currently at 1201). For the past 3 weeks, both the population numbers and the number of telegrams sent declined (66 nations and 1413 telegrams, respectively).

What do you think is the likely explanation for the decline, and what could be done to help resolve the situation? Is there also an issue in "Citizen Integration"?

 

[Vinage Vinage]

Very, very true. I've often been someone who's believed smaller was better because it promotes competition during the election phase but this Senate has shown that small can be a legislative killer - even holding back the Executive such as what we saw with Remsol's nomination. This has certainly changed my view on things and, instead, something like Number of Candidates - 3 = Senate could be the recommended number. Even - 2 would work. Depending on how many stand.

Adding to that the Electoral Panel process is a bit clunky since, like Skizzy said, you can't predict who will and won't be active so your pretty much guessing a random number and agreeing with it. Also with this current Senate, if I recall correctly, the pool of candidates wasn't the strongest we've seen in a while. That is likely another thing we should be looking at - why aren't as many people running for the Senate now as they did back in August?

Last Senate Election - August Senate Election

 

[Skizzy Grey]

That last election is an interesting study.

It doesn't really prove my hypothesis, as the Senator elected with the lowest vote total (JGlenn) was easily the biggest dud. It does, however, potentially illustrate the wisdom of expanding the Senate -- Bryan would certainly have been a good addition activity-wise this term.

We understandably react against the idea of giving a Senate seat to anyone who wants one, but if shrinking the Senate hurts the institution, wouldn't we be better off accepting a lack of competitive elections for Senate?

Edit: JGlenn is another example of how we should NOT elect people based on promises of dramatically increased activity.

Second Edit: Also, we should probably be wary of drawing too many conclusions from the last election, as it was the first time we voted for Senate at mid-term.

 

[Vinage Vinage]

It probably would which would be a shame on one hand due to the loss of the short term activity boost; but would likely give us a more sustained period of activity in the long run.

However the re-occurring issue is, 'there is nothing to legislate' and I think it is that lethargism that is harming the Senate.

Edit: True but with it being the first Midterm Senate I would of expected it to have gathered more candidates as it was the first of its kind

 

[Lethen]

Jesus, you two have not only said anything I would have said, but you've decided to run some extra mental laps too! flail.gif