How Does Our Region Feel About Reducing Position Overlap? Part 2
Written by Monkey with Special Thanks to Calvin Coolidge, Darkslayer, and Drecq for Poll Feedback
Written by Monkey with Special Thanks to Calvin Coolidge, Darkslayer, and Drecq for Poll Feedback
Published 30 July 2020
Preface:
This is a continuation of my previous article which was published yesterday. This article will specifically examine senatorial responses to see how a possible bill would do in the senate. For this survey, we had 5 senate responses. Another senator indicated that they responded to the poll and did not mark the senator option, but stated they were against making any further changes.
Questions:
Q1: Do you think it is important for our three branches to remain separated?
Yes - 4
No - 1
Overall, it looks like the majority of senators see value in separation amongst our branches of government.
Q2: If you think there should be restrictions on positions, which of the following are the most important reasons for your positions?
Possible conflict of interest - 5
Burnout/Overload - 3
We need to give newcomers a chance - 1
It looks like all of the senatorial responses pointed to a conflict of interest as a reason for separation, although burnout/overload were issues as well. Giving newcomers an opportunity in government did not seem like a highly-picked option.
Q3: Are you satisfied with the current law? (Bars President and Vice President from serving in the senate and on the high court)
Yes - 5
No - 0
All senators marked that they were satisfied with the current law. Again, it’s important to note that this question could have been asked better. Keep in mind that this should be interpreted as “Do you think our current law is acceptable?” and not “Do you think our current law is sufficient/enough?”, since many of the further responses support more restrictions.
Q4: Ideally, which restrictions do you think should be in place?
President (P) =/= Senate - 5
P =/= Justice - 5
VP =/= Justice - 5
Vice President (VP) =/= Senate - 4
Justice =/= Senate - 3
Minister =/= Justice - 2
Minister =/= Senate - 1
Seems to be inline with the last question. Almost all responses uphold the current law, with some going further to limit the justice specifically. Nothing too surprising.
Question 5: Should there be restrictions within serving on leadership within the branches? (e.g. Speaker of the Senate, Chief Justice)
The President/Vice President should not be able to serve in any other branch - 5
No one should be able to serve on more than one leadership position (President, Chief Justice, Speaker) - 4
The President/Vice President should not be able to serve in another 'leadership' position - 3
The Speaker should not be able to serve in another 'leadership' position - 2
The Chief Justice should not be able to serve in another 'leadership' position - 2
The Chief Justice should not be able to serve in any other branch - 2
Justice should not be allowed to serve in another 'leadership' position - 2
The Speaker should not be able to serve in any other branch
Ministers should not be allowed to serve in another 'leadership' position
Senators should not be allowed to serve in another 'leadership' position
Once again, not surprising as the top responses show that most senators are willing to uphold our current restrictions. Another top options is barring double dipping in leadership positions, while unlikely in the current political scene, is not prohibited by law (in regards to serving as Chief Justice and Speaker concurrently).
Q6: Would you support legislation that bars Ministers from serving in the senate?
Yes - 1
No - 4
Q7: Would you support legislation that bars Ministers from serving on the court?
Yes - 2
No - 3
Q8: Would you support legislation that bars senators from serving on the court?
Yes - 3
No - 2
These aren’t too interesting, and not surprising either. (PS: Currently 2 of our senators serve as Ministers, and 1 as a justice). These numbers however, see an increase from the last time this was previously asked, about what restrictions they would be willing to support. For example, only 1 senator marked that they would be willing to bar senators from serving as justices in question 4, but in question 8, 3 marked that they would support legislation.
Q9: Does the inclusion of some sort of 'repealing' or 'modification' clause sway your previous answer? (i.e. repealing the legislation or not enforcing the restrictions if our activity sinks below a certain level.
No, I do not support the legislation in any way. - 3
Yes, I would support the legislation if this was included. - 2
This was the only question so far that really threw me for a loop. The answers almost cluster around opposite ends, with 2 senators saying they would support the legislation if a ‘repealing’ clause was included, with 3 marking that they do not support it in any way. Even though we only have 5 responses, it seems like the inclusion of a clause would be an uphill battle still, even with 2 senators supporting such a provision.
Q10: If our activity sinks below a certain level and the clause was to be activated, which of the restrictions should STILL remain in place?
P/VP =/= Senate - 4
P/VP =/= Justice - 4
Senate =/= Justice
I do not support this clause/any limitations
Once again, most senators are supportive of the current law. Not much to see.
Q11: Should the Vice President be a minister?
Yes - 2
No - 3
Not sure if there’s much to see here. The senator leans more towards yes than the general population, but we’ve seen that based off of the debate. I actually went back to the older data for the whole poll, and it looks like only a total of 3 people marked that they continued to support the nomination...and 2 of them are a senator. I know my poll isn’t a representative sample, whatever, but out of the 25 responses, only one other person outside of the senate felt that the VP should be nominated and confirmed to a minister appointment. Just saying.
I’m not going to post the fun matchup results here because at such a small sample size it’s really just a matter of personal preference, but I thought it was hilarious that all 5 responses marked they would rather be a minister than a senator. The other general trends stay the same, usually justice gets beat out by the other positions.
Conclusions:
I don’t have any big conclusions from this, I’m not sure if the senate will go anywhere with this, and I’m not sure if it’s a big enough idea that the senate needs to spend more time debating it. I would say that the most likely to happen scenarios are probably taking a look at leadership positions (involving the speaker, chief justice, president/vice president), or thinking about way to keep the judiciary independent from the other branches. Even though we only have 5 (technically a 6th response saying they would be against expanding restrictions), I doubt that any of these ideas would easily reach a majority, and it’d likely be an uphill battle for any of these to get passed. It’s an interesting proposal by Senator Mr. Verteger, I just don’t know if there’s enough momentum and flame to follow.