How does our region feels about reducing position overlap? Part 1

Monkey

we want YOU to be a dee gee too
Citizen
How Does Our Region Feel About Reducing Position Overlap? Part 1
Written by Monkey with Special Thanks to Calvin Coolidge, Darkslayer, and Drecq for Poll Feedback

Published 29 July 2020

Introduction:
Senator Verteger

In a private discussion with Senator Mr. Verteger about a week ago, I learned about his idea of proposing a new bill that would place further restrictions on officials serving in more than one position. I reached out to Senator Mr. Verteger recently for comment regarding his intent to propose such a piece of legislation for the purposes of this article, and here is what he had to say:


"I think it's important to have these types of discussions on a routine basis, even if it doesn't lead to changes in legislation. I believe it helps to start an important dialogue on where the region is at, what our philosophies are, and if improvements can or should be made.
The region seems to be having a boom with an involved number of citizens, and while it might not be feasible to ban minister-senators, I hope it will at least create some introspection with regards to "what's our bench of ministers? If we don't have enough people to fill all the slots, why not? Can we change anything?"
It's not always about the legislation itself but rather creating ongoing conversations and a culture of continuous improvement."



This issue was also discussed on Discord in a more open and public discussion. Following that discussion, I decided to do some investigation into what our current law dictates, and how our regional feelings over this element of the game has influenced elections or appointments.

Current Law and Recent Changes
Currently, our law bars our President and Vice President from serving in the Senate and Judiciary concurrently, as well as barring the AG from serving as a justice, with no other restrictions. The barring of the Vice President from serving in the Senate was a recent addition passed by this term’s senate, the Vice President Restriction Amendment Act, proposed by Calvin Coolidge. Senator Calvin Coolidge offered the following reason in his proposal:


“As a reminder, under Constitution V both the President and Vice President were barred from serving as Senators, so this would return us to that system. I believe it is a good idea to restrict the VP from the Senate particularly when it comes to executive appointments or treaties, that would almost guarantee an extra affirmative vote for the administration if the VP were in the Senate for those votes, as we can assume the VP was heavily involved in each Cabinet pick and treaty, it would stack the deck in the executive's favor, when the Senate is supposed to be a check on the executive's power.”


5 senators voted in favor of this amendment, with Senators Pichto and Darkslayer voting Nay on this amendment. The opposition argued that the vice president and the electorate should be able to decide on whether they wished to serve as senator as well, and failed to see an immense conflict of interest in allowing the Vice President to serve as senate.

Regional Tendencies for Separation
Upon an unrelated discussion with Senator Calvin Coolidge, he overviewed the tendencies of our region to keep our governmental branches separate, pointing to Maowi’s nomination as Councilor of World Assembly Affairs, under the split. The nomination was ultimately withdrawn due to pressing Senator concerns about burnout that would result from serving as both a Minister and Councilor. More recently, this questioning of dual roles was reflected in Peep’s First Minister candidacy, with one of the first questions asking if he intended to remain Councilor of Coordination, upon being elected. Interestingly enough, he pointed out that our region seems to lean towards separation so much that we even separated the executive branch (executive split).

Judicial Independence
Oddly enough, a few days ago I stumbled upon a statement about judicial independence made by our very own Chief Justice, OnderKelkia. His full statement from his ovation is linked here, but to sum up his statements:


“I have never been a leading politician or even really a politician at all within Europeia's domestic politics. I have never sought election to the Senate or high executive office. As a Justice, I have always strived to be rigorously impartial: to be neither for nor against applicants, defendants, the government or the private citizen, but instead committed solely to the correct interpretation and application of law as I understand it (to the best of my limited capacities). One consequence of this is that I have been relatively divorced from large parts of Europeian political society while being continually present in the background. An effective and fair judicial system is an important element in the institutional framework of any state.”


The desire for an impartial judiciary is one that is reflected through this poll, although there seems to be low support for legal restrictions that would actually serve to bar justices from serving in other branches.


Whether there are concerns about burnout, or conflict of interest, or simply being restricted by time, it’s evident that our region has kept this topic in the back of their minds, whether it comes out during confirmation threads, campaigns, or even approval polling. I’ll now move on to the results of the poll that I ran regarding this possible legislation.

Poll Results:
This poll received 25 responses, with 5 senator responses (which were identified with a key/password). As this legislation has not yet been formally proposed, I wanted to determine how senators might lean when it is proposed. A follow up article analyzing senator stances will be released shortly.








Not much to see here. It looks like we have a pretty even age distribution, possibly skewing a little bit to the older side.


Responses lean towards supporting separation among branches of government




Interestingly, only about ¾ of responses marked that they thought it was important for our region’s branches to remain separated, lower than I thought. Nearly a quarter said that they felt it was not important.


Conflicts of Interest and Burnout Lead top Reasons for Restrictions


Possible conflict of interest - 17 (68%)

We need to give newcomers a chance - 5 (20%)

Burnout/Overload - 13 (52%)

It is difficult for people to do more than one job well - 5 (20%)

I do not support any restrictions - 4 (16%)


Comments:

  • I'm not so sure
  • 'Burnout/Overload' is no different than 'It is difficult for people to do more than 1 job well'. They both boil down to 'too much work'.


Perhaps unsurprisingly, on further analysis, it appears that most of the ‘Give newcomers a chance’ came from the newcomer age cohort. Overall, it looks like conflict of interest and burnout were the leading reasonings for separation. One of the comments argued that burnout and being unable to take on more than one job were similar issues, but it seems that the latter was selected less often. These are often cited as complementary reasons for those advocating for more restrictions, but it’s likely that burnout/overload is viewed as more severe and damaging than just a mediocre term due to poor time management and taking too many things on at once.


Overwhelming Majority of Europeians Satisfied with Current Law*




Our current laws bars our President and Vice President from serving in virtually any other capacity outside the executive branch, with no other restrictions. (Addendum: The AG is also barred from concurrently serving as a justice) Interestingly, followup questions that ask about other restrictions also gain a decent response/approval rate. *I probably should have clarified this question, or asked it later in the poll after other options were presented. This question should most likely be viewed through the lens of “Do our citizens agree with not allowing the President and Vice President from serving in the other branches” and not “Should we keep the current law as is?”


Europeians Maintain Support for Current Legislation, limited support for other restrictions




Comments:

  • I probably lean towards a more independent judiciary, if anything.
  • Separation should be important. We have enough active members to be able to do so.
  • Attorney General shouldn't be a Justice.

It looks like the highest categories maintained support for our current laws, barring the high executive from serving in other branches. Other popular restrictions were barring the justices from the senate, barring justices from the ministries, and lastly barring the ministries from the senate, although none of these responses received a majority. Something interesting is that the number of people who are ‘against’ or opposed to restrictions keep fluctuating throughout the poll. In the first question 6 responses marked that they felt separation was not important, which dropped to 4 responses marking that they do not support restrictions in the second question, and that drops down to only 1 response marking that they don’t support restrictions in this question. Puzzling.


Leadership responses lean towards maintaining current law, banning double dipping in leadership positions, small movement towards ‘independent judiciary’


  • No one should be able to serve on more than one leadership position (President, Chief Justice, Speaker) - 16 (64%)
  • No one should be able to serve in more than one branch - 3 (12%)
  • The Speaker should not be able to serve in any other branch 3 (12%)
  • The Speaker should not be able to serve in another 'leadership' position - 7 (28%)
  • The Chief Justice should not be able to serve in any other branch - 7 (28%)
  • The Chief Justice should not be able to serve in another 'leadership' position - 11 (44%)
  • The President/Vice President should not be able to serve in any other branch - 12 (48%)
  • The President/Vice President should not be able to serve in another 'leadership' position - 16 (64%)
  • Ministers should not be allowed to serve in another 'leadership' position - 2 (8%)
  • Senators should not be allowed to serve in another 'leadership' position - 3 (12%)
  • Justice should not be allowed to serve in another 'leadership' position - 6 (24%)
  • No restrictions - 3 (12%)


Comments:

  • President is too 'full' of a job to do others. But the others are low-key enough that you can double-dip. VP probably shouldn't be Speaker/Justice due to conflict of interest.... the rest is no big deal.

The leading responses here are barring double dipping in leadership positions, with 16 responses calling for a blanket ban, and 16 responses supporting barring the President and Vice President in serving in another ‘leadership’ capability (which is already enforced under our current law). Notable runner-ups include barring the Chief Justice from serving in another ‘leadership position’, barring the high executive serving in other branches, and barring speakers and justices from serving in another leadership position. It looks like most of the responses trend towards a) keeping our current laws in place, b) possibly restricting the possibility of a branch ‘leader’ from serving as another branch ‘leader’, and c) limiting justices from serving on other branches, possibly because of a desire to have a somewhat ‘independent’ judiciary.


Support falls short of majority in barring overlap between senators, minister, justices




Comments:

  • To quote Montesquieu: "Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would be then the legislator."
  • We don't have enough talented people to go around filling all of these jobs.


Overall, none of these restrictions manage to achieve a majority, with the senators/minister restriction receiving the least amount of support. There’s a slight rise when the courts become involved, but they still see low support. Interestingly, barring senators from serving on the court is more popular than barring the court serving as ministers. I would have imagined the opposite, due to ongoing discussions of how we only have so many people with a strong legal skillset, but perhaps having a justice serve concurrently as a senator opens up more opportunities for a conflict of interest, which was the top reason for why responses believed restrictions should be in place. Again, weirdly, it seems that previously people had answered that they felt that we should have separations and restrictions, but they’re opposed here. Perhaps they believe our current restrictions are fine?


Majority of Europeians state that auto-repealing/modification clause based on population is unlikely to affect their opinion





An idea that Senator Mr. Verteger initially suggested was a clause that would relax or tighten some restrictions based on population swings, to help assuage the concerns of those who may have been concerned about natural population declines. The idea was met with opposition initially, and it looks like the opposition is reflected here. Nearly half of responses marked that they do not support any kind of restrictions amendment, while a quarter swings to the opposite end and say that they’ll support the legislation if this was included. A fifth of responses is willing to accept legislation even without it’s inclusion. A pretty big spectrum here, but I’m not sure if it makes a difference. Overall, a majority has stated that the clause will not affect their opinion, and I think that’s the key takeaway. Looking at what restrictions they would want to still keep in place if the restrictions were ‘relaxed’, it looks like most responses cluster around the current laws we have in place. Not surprising.


Wide Majority Feels That VP Should Not Be Minister




Comments

  • We shall see but MWP is certainly useless
  • I say 'No' here because the Vice President shouldn't be a position AT ALL.

I’m not going to say anything on this, there’s already been plenty of debate and controversy in the senate this term. I just wanted to put that question out there. If you want to see more, you can look in the Senate.


High Favorability for Senate, Minister positions, shortage in interest for Justice







These are more fun questions that I included, although I think they provide some insight as well. You can notice that Justice is nearly beat out in every matchup, with most people preferring positions such as minister, senator, or lead executive over serving a term as justice. Weirdly enough, senator beats out lead executive, but minister beats out senator. Perhaps due to how difficult it is to be a President? It may have been prudent to specify that these matchups would be in ‘ideal’ conditions, and not realistic situations where you would suddenly be thrust into these jobs. Overall, I think it shows us that our region’s citizens like the executive, senate, and probably are less interested in the judiciary. Although once again, I didn’t take into account the ‘difficulty’ each job entails (justice involves a lot more background and arguably legal skills than an executive or senator), and that may have weighed into the responses.


Comments:

  • Justices rarely have ongoing work that shouldn't be dropped.





Well, that’s all I have! This was an interesting poll, and weirdly some of the questions didn’t stay consistent in terms of responses and the amount of people clustering around them, but I think this sheds some light into where the public leans around this poll. Based off of what is the most memorable, it seems like there may be a push for restrictions on leadership positions, but overall the public seems supportive of the laws we have in place for now. I also think it’s interesting how there was a push for an independent judiciary (through restrictions), but there seems to be frankly a lack of interest in serving as a justice, as well as the preference for our legal-minded individuals to fill holes in both the judiciary as well as the senate.


If you remember, I also had a portion of the poll asking about senator responses. I received 5 responses, and that portion and analysis will be released in part 2 shortly.
 
What are your thoughts? Was anything surprising in the results? Feedback on my writing? Discuss here!
 
Nothing surprising to me, this is about where we were before the Exec Split -- P/VP couldn't serve as Justices or Senators. That was about it, and that's what this poll shows.
 
Great article Monkey, thanks for doing this! I'm guessing a lot of people's reluctance to add further restrictions beyond the current ones had a similar cause to mine? I.e. that although we're at a high point right now, it would be pretty unhelpful for the low points – particularly given the staggering of terms for e.g. ministers and senators. I think Vert's proposal to somehow allow deactivation of the policy in those situations is well-motivated but it seems unwieldy to me and I just don't think you're that likely to get significant conflict of interest situations worth sacrificing the people power for.
 
Back
Top