Midterm Senate Poll

Senate Mid-term (ish) Polling

We had 31 respondents to this poll. I tried to spell out more info where I could, but feel free to ask questions, and I can try to do more stats-stuff if needed.

I also give up on pretty/perfect formatting because I've been working on this for a few hours now and my eyes are starting to blur. *faints* Hope this is interesting enough to make up for the less than perfect presentation style?

Demographics

Senate Discussions this term

What comments do you have on how this Senate has acted in confirming the President's nominations for Cabinet and Judiciary positions?
(See the Swakistek Conference Hall to review these confirmations)

While I agree with the recent confirmation of the various Presidential appointees (Cabinet and Judiciary), I think that more questions should have been asked. I also wish that the public had taken a larger role in asking questions in either the Grand Hall or the CA subforum as these are their Cabinet Ministers too. While Kraken was elected President - and he was questioned on the plans for each Ministry within his platform - the Cabinet nominees did not get the same questions or scrutiny than is perhaps warranted, especially with such a close Presidential race.
No difficult questions asked. Bar CSP, all were happy to confirm President's nominees without much engagement. Think Senate confirmations should be less of a rubber-stamp and more rigorous.
I'm glad people have recognized a separation of powers as important even if we can only implement it imperfectly. Mal is great, but I don't really think anyone should serve across all branches. We should preserve some kind of independence in the Senate, Cabinet, and Judiciary. Too much crossover between the Senate and the Cabinet especially bothers me, more or less giving the President a reliable group of Senators who would support him. This is not currently a problem per se, but something we should keep in mind.
I think they had the right amount of scrutiny.
Ask more questions.
Solid nominations.
All seems good and normal.
His plan seems to be ok
Even if/when the nominee is superbly qualified, I would still like to see more questions presented on course of action, activity levels, ability to work with others.
As always the senat just have a free pass without actual scruitiny, confirmations are nothing more than a formality these days.
Too little scrutiny
It was disappointing to see a majority of the questioning coming from a few Senators.
They did question and get concrete plans from everyone. There was a little bit of drama in the threads, but I liked that the discussion happening actually spurred into the general forum area for everyone to discuss. That was a good change!
The Senates job is not to check what the nominee wants to do during the term or anything like that but to make certain that the nominee has the required knowledge and abilities to fulfill the requirements of the Office. This term there was no question as to the nominees abilities, since they have all been filled high offices in Europeia for years. Yet people still felt more questions should be asked. Those people miss the point of confirmations.
CSP promised to be hard on the senate confirmations in his last senate platform and didn't follow through. Wish they'd questioned Mal more thoroughly. When there are enough capable people to fill the positions someone, no matter how amazing, should find themselves in all branches of the government at the same time.

This term was the first time that a Speaker was selected by unanimous consent. Do you have any comments on the utilization of that process?
(View the thread here.)

It's fine.
Mal is the greatest.
I think it's fine and speeds things up.
It speeds up the process and allows the senate to get to work faster.
I had no issues with this, and would've given consent myself if I had been in the Senate.
The process is good.
No.
I'm fine with that. Last term everyone was unanimous and they had to wait. The delay was silly since everyone was on board.
When the Speaker is Malashaan, it makes sense. I don't know that I'd feel as comfortable with the process were any other individual in such a position.
Useful to expedite the process. We got Mal into office less than twelve hours after the election closed.
It is much more efficient.
Maltatorship. No questions asked. Seriously though, Mal is a tried and proven Speaker and there'd be no reason to delay his appointment with procedures.
No real comments. Mal has proven to be super effective in the role as speaker
We often have Speaker nominees that have everyone's support, so I'm glad this procedure can happen now.
It was the first time the specific mechanism was used because it wasnt provided for prior to this term but it wasnt the first time a Speaker was elected unanimously. What this does is just let the Senate get to work quicker when there is no discussion to be had anyway because everyone is already on the same page.

What comments do you have on the Reduction of By-Elections Amendment (2015) ?
(View the thread here.)

Not a good idea. Things change fast enough in Europeia.
Correct decision taken to table - undemocratic and unfair proposal suggested.
Properly tabled and moved on by the Senate. Drecq had the right of it in his comment here: http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/single/?p=8250124&t=8950228
It was a terrible idea.
It was a terrible bill. I'm glad they tabled it.
Good that is was tabled. Fewer votes means less democracy. Less democracy is generally bad.
Silly. Kill it.
I agreed with their assessment that this was unneeded and am glad they tabled it.
Never was a problem in my opinion so I'm glad it was tabled.
Unnecessary amendment that was properly tabled by the Senate.

What comments do you have on the Senate's actions on the Line of Succession Act (2015) that was passed as pre-legislation by the CA?
(View the thread here.)

Destroy it.
Well, what was passed by the Senate and what was passed by the CA has little to do with one another beyond the fact that both have to do with the LoS. And the fact that the veto didnt cause a renewed discussion of the bill speaks volumes about how much the Senate would have cared if the CA had not forced the pre-legislation onto it.
It's not exactly what the CA passed, but that's probably for the best.
I think this is a subject that I'm glad got another look.
Way too much time was spent on something that is of very little importance.
Very thorough debate and discussion. What should be expected from the Senate.
While I am glad to see the Chief Justice pulled out of the LoS, I don't think they ever really settled the issues related to the LoS itself especially since the Senate hasn't requested/forced a President to present a Ministerial LoS in some time now.
I believe it was a mistake for it to be veto'd.
It got passed, and that means it probably won't be a thing people are bugged with when it's obviously such a divisive topic.
The LoS is a mess that everyone thinks that they can fix but there's no easy fix. I didn't support the CA's pre-legislation because I failed to see how it was better than the status quo. Someone will always be unhappy with something, and a part of me wonders if we should just make the President self-designate an LoA upon election that includes at least X positions/players that could ascend the Presidency if needed. But that's probably even more of a clusterfuck.

What comments do you have about the passage of the Amendment to the Elections Act (2015) ?
(View the thread here.)

Right decision in the end, but I think debate was rushed.
I'm glad that it at least opened up the discussion and work on the Review of Elections Act.
It was a good short term fix. I am glad that the Senate is tarting work on a complete overhaul.
None at all.
I think the amendment as passed is fine.
I'm kinda mad Kaboom, and Fort folded on the spacing part when CSP came out against it.
I viewed this Amendment as a good example of CA-Senate partnership. The CA successfully identified a problem with the previous Elections Act. However, because the CA is a "training legislature" (of sorts), they weren't really able to properly "fix" it. While the changes the Amendment made were vastly different from what was originally proposed by the CA, they resolved the problem that needed to be fixed - which is the important thing in my view.
Bad.

What comments do you have on The Succinct Elections Period Amendment (2015) ?
(View the thread here.)

Like the topic, discussion was succinct also. While tabling unnecessary measures is important, shutting down debate and discussion so soon isn't.
Agree with Mal's sentiment here - if the Citizenry wish to vote/support someone that decided to stand at the last hour, then that's their choice.
While I don't necessarily agree with last-minute candidates, I respect the people being given the choice to vote or not vote for them.
This is a concept that I supported in the CA, but Mal makes a very good point here: "If candidates stand very late but the People choose to elect them, I don't think we should present a procedural block to the People's will."
It provided way too many ways for the law to be broken with little to no counter-benefit - the Senate was right to table it quickly.
Bad.

What comments do you have on the Two-Candidate Runoff Amendment (2015) ?
(View the thread here.)

Awful.
This led to the Review of the Elections Act.
Not a particularly good idea, since people can change their minds after campaigning. Frankly, you can probably do better with a shirt continuation-campaigning.
I support it. If two candidates are tied, the people are split and a run-off isn't likely to change that. We're then handing the election to a psychological coin toss.
Against, and I'm hopeful that the Senate eventually does take a look to see if the Elections Act needs a total rework vs. the "band-aid fixes" as Malashaan puts it.
It was a pointless bill that rehashed an old debate. It was long-ago decided that a second round of polling before relying on the Senate is a good idea. No circumstances had changed since then, and no evidence of any substantial problem caused by a second round of voting was presented.
I'd like to see some changes to the Elections Act, but not this change.
As I stated above:"Fewer votes means less democracy. Less democracy is generally bad. "

What comments do you have on the Date and Time Clarification Act (2015) ?
(View the thread here.)

While it would be nice to at least have a common definition, it is just another case where the attention needs to be given to the Elections Act itself.
Okay, but... why?
Do people know what is meant by the times? Yes. Has there ever been a problem? No. Will changing 7 days to 154 hours make it harder to understand? Yes. Will it increase the likelihood of something going wrong because the exact hour wasnt kept to instead of having some leeway? Yes.
This led to the review of the Elections Act as well.
Pointless.
It did not seem like most of the Senators really engaged with the ambiguities that imprecise language regarding timing ha caused. Hopefully this will be addressed in the new elections act that the Senate is working on.
Bad.

What comments do you have on the Repeal of the Constitutional Convention Act (2015) ?
(View the thread here.)

suport
Awful.
Pointless act to begin with and a pointless repeal. If we start repealing things because they arent of use to us we might as well get rid of the Commutations Act, the Emergency Powers Act, the Holiday Act, etc. And like the CCA the Holiday Act for example isnt just unused but also doesnt have any real effect. Yet we dont. You want to know why? Because Holidays are nice for everyone, while structured discussion sounds like a chore.
We need to eliminate pointless acts like this.
Glad to see the repeal pass the Senate, and signed by the President. While the CCA gave certain amount of structure, it wasn't anything that Citizens and the Government couldn't do already through other means.
It was a useless bill, but it provided some framework. It wasn't anything that hurt the republic if it was left on the books, but it a doesn't really hurt that it was repealed.
Fantastic. We got rid of an absolutely pointless statute that should never have been passed in the first place.
Bad. Constitutional Conventions are useful to bring the region together toward a common goal. Very short sighted on the Senate's part.
Sure, it's legislative deadweight. I'd support a convention with actual authority.
It's a waste of space-time and simply constrains us if we need to hold one in the future.
This seemed like it might have traction at first but got some surprising opposition. The motion to table seemed a bit rushed as well. I know it passed, but I understand why those who didn't want a repeal didn't want one.
I wrote it, so defer to the thread for my judgment.
Correct decision taken. Superfluous piece of legislation.

What comments do you have on the current Review of the Elections Act (2015) ?
(View the thread here.)

I think they're right to go about it as a complete rewrite rather than a section by section review
Awful.
I'm glad that the Senate is taking a look at the Elections Act, and agree that it needs to be a wholly new piece of legislation, not just rewording the old one. This may have been better as a preliminary discussion to determine what they needed to legislate, as I have concerns that they may still get tripped up by the old legislation.
did we not just have one?
I hope to see a 24-hour delay instituted before a runoff is conducted to give the candidates/tickets an opportunity to reopen campaigning and try to sway either undecideds (i.e. voted for a third candidate or didn't vote) or even those that are soft supporters for the other side.
Would definitely add some political flavor to our elections - and would also (hopefully) make the likelihood of the additional tie-breaking procedures being needed less likely.
This is still on-going....
It's too early to say how it will go, but it's a very important project that I'm glad to see (finally) underway.
I don't see it likely the Senate will get much done considering the lack of progress on the review of the judicature act. We need a full law reforms mark 2.
A thorough review of the Elections Act is necessary, and it's good to see the Senate acknowledging a piecemeal approach isn't going to cut it.
There isnt anything yet. Ask again when theres been more than two Senators telling the other that his way of working it is likely to result in the same problems he wants to fix.
The reality is the election law is a mess; the review is necessary. This is indicated by the number of election-related amendment proposals.

What comments do you have on the Regional Officer Amendment (2015) ?
(View the thread here.)

I generally approve of the proposal that Ninja Kittens put worth, though with the broader/less role specific language as mentioned by other Senators. Generally, I feel that it is an aspect that the Senate should only loosely legislate, giving discretion to those with Executive power gameside (the Founder and the WAD).
I am uncomfortable with the attitude that we should just leave this area of the law undefined and "see what happens." We legislate the WAD position and the forum administration position. While excessive bureaucracy is not appropriate - we should have a basic framework in place recognizing the existence of ROs and providing a means for legal control should it ever be required (e.g., prosecution for abuse of power, which ROs are currently exempt from).
Once we see how ROs are used, we'll know more about where this should go.
It was put off until a new president was elected. Nothing to do but wait for Kraken to weigh in.
Awesome.
Pointless, we can manage regional officers better without a law.
Handle it like admins; HEM is the chief administrator (in this case, founder) and will grant at least one other person each area of authority. He can appoint and remove ROs at his discretion.
Discussion was good until it seemed to just end suddenly.
It's a complicated state over how to run things, and I don't really have any answers. I'd like to see the Senate address it somehow, but
I'm not sure how.
There isnt one yet. But I think the powers of the founder and possibly codifying them is a good discussion to have.

What comments do you have on the current Review of the Judicature Act (2015) ?
(View the thread here.)

I'd like to see a return to single justice AOs, for starters.
Judicature Act is broken and we need a new one. Anything would be better than what we have in place.
Necessary action.
This is still on-going.
Senat really dropped the ball on it, no real progress has been made.
It reminds me that I made the right choice when I decided that I wasn't going to go to law school. I will state that I am supportive of returning to single AOs versus the en banc system currently in place.
It is going too slowly. Fort is meant to be leading the discussion, but doesn't seem to have any clear ideas or direction.
Good.
I look forward to discussion being continued in the new term.

What comments do you have on the Naval Amendment to the Citizenship Act (2015) ?
(View the thread here.)

Not sure if it's needed, frankly, but whatever.
I support it. Our sailors should always be using a puppet. The clause would make sense if WA membership was required for citizenship.
I don't like the current wording that's being discussed, but that's probably because I don't really understand legal writing. I think NK had a good point when he brought up how the removal/reinstatement system would effect the president and stuff.
CA passed it with a large margine.
Why oh why must we have overly complex responses to relatively small/minor issues? Personally, I think it's on the individual to maintain Citizenship, but as an act of kindness I am alright with Lethen (as he does the Citizenship checks) to send a PM and say you have "X hours to remedy this or your Citizenship will be revoked."
I think these are overall good changes, but some Senators are arguing for way more complications than are really necessary within the Act. How hard is it to keep a nation in Europeia and keep it alive? The game will email you 1 week before you CTE if you tick the box appropriately.
I'm glad this is being reviewed per Lethen's requests.
It' moving along nicely, if somewhat slowly due to many Senators not participating.
Great.

What comments do you have on the Extent of Legal Jurisdiction (2015) ?
(View the thread here.)

An good discussion, the jurisprudence surrounding it is very interesting. I'm not going to comment on the veto by the President, but I do think further in-depth and thoughtful discussion by the Senate would be appropriate and worthwhile.
It's been an interesting debate. I believe that the Senate will get there, but it's a fine balance. The execution will be challenging of course
This is still on-going.
I'd like to see Euro's legal jurisdiction expanded to include the RMB, IRC, EuroChat, and Mixlr broadcasts at minimum.
I think this is taking a good turn. A general rule wasnt working, at least not for the President. This way there is more nuance.
It is moving in the right direction. Drecq seems intent on making it more complicated than it need to be, and many other Senators are unfortunately not getting involved.
I think we should limit jurisdiction to only what happens in relation to Europeia. If we give ourselves jurisdiction over the actions of our citizens regardless of circumstance then we could end up prosecuting people for heated disagreements in other regions that have no relation to euro.
The latest wording seems workable.
It needs to be legislated, but I'm not sure how.
Great.

What topics would you like to see this Senate address yet this term?

I thought there were going to be senate reforms discussed, but I guess not.
Treaty Law.
I know discussion has already begun, but I think resolving the issue of the Court having no jurisdiction over CA Ordinances should be remedied. I also believe Senate Election reform should be reviewed, particularly how the number of seats is set. Again, I understand this is under discussion.
Just finish up what's in front of you.
Classified information and intelligence law.

Evaluating the Current Senators

Mean - 4.35 (highest rated)
Median - 4
Mode - 5

What comments do you have regarding Speaker Malashaan?

Simply the best, no way around it
MalSpeaker is BestSpeaker.
He's the one really keeping the boat afloat.
I would vote for him, but he's not running. I'll miss the Mal/Drecq arguments.
I say "no" even though I gave Mal a 5 because I don't think he should serve in all three branches simultaneously, also with the knowledge that he's not running again.
Malashaan has the knowledge and experience and is extremely active. He's a good mediator, doesn't insult anyone because he has no need to, and keeps things on track and moving when they need to be.
G'job.
Speaker Malashaan is the best Speaker the region has seen, period.
Fantastic as usual.
Maltatorship continues, praise be.
Great Speaker. Too bad he isn't running again.
Not sure how he'll do being pretty much everything all at the same time, but I guess he's not running for senate again next term so meh.

Mean - 3.48
Median - 3
Mode - 3

What comments do you have regarding Deputy Speaker Common-Sense Politics?

CSP has lots of knowledge and experience, just like Malashaan, but he's also no yes-man. He states his opinions, sometimes a little coarsely, but always with a stance toward filling in all the blanks and presenting perspectives that might otherwise be missed.
Deputy Speaker, ok.
Did great but activity withered out due to his MoFA position.
CSP needs to be more active.
He was a steady hand
He knows his stuff but I am not sure how strong his contributions have been.
CSP has talked since the last election about how he was going to introduce some legislation to the Senate floor. I trust that he's working on it, but it would be nice to actually see that since he campaigned on it. Additionally, I worry that he's spreading himself too thin as MoFA and Senator since his activity level has been a concern in the past. We'll see how he performs over the rest of term - and if his activity as MoFA/Senator is under where I think it should be, I may vote against his re-election regardless of his skill as a legislator.
I'm very disappointed with CSPs performance this term. He's been the least active of the three experienced legislators. Not sure if he can handle all the positions he's trying to take back on.
Where's the MSA draft? It's been four weeks since he last mentioned it.
G'job.
His comments sometime seem like they were typed without his prior thinking and they can seem quite brash.
CSP seems to have a holier-than-thou attitude. Otherwise I respect him and his service.

Mean - 3.81
Median - 4
Mode - 4

What comments do you have regarding Senator Drecq?

I didn't know Drecq was speaker this term.
Frankly, he has gotten worse and worse with his poor legislative wording selections, and he has a tendency to propose new wording versus Mal's without there being a need to do so.
No issue with Drecq, think he's a great Senator, but just a personal belief that CJ shouldn't be making laws he may later have to rule on!
A senate without Drecq isn't the senate.
I feel uncomfortable with the Chief Justice ruling on the Senate and making suggested Amendments to legislation that directly tie in to rulings he's issued within the High Court. Drecq is a great Senator, but this seems like a Conflict of Interest issue that he's having problems navigating.
Drecq's smart.
Usual greatness
As far as I'm concerned, Mal, Dreq, and CSP make up the triumvirate that really flesh out the Senate and make the arguments and discussions a learning place for those keeping up who aren't on the Senate. He holds as much knowledge and experience as the other two, with the same coarseness that CSP carries. Somehow though, no one's nose ends up bloodied and stuff gets done.
Drecq is normal Drecq.
"I don't want to do it because it's too much work" seems to be his motto this term.

Mean - 2.58
Median - 3
Mode - 3

What comments do you have regarding Senator Fortunado?

I don't see much activity or significant contribution from Fortunado.
Very good in my opinion, getting involved in debate and really putting his voice out there.
Not memorable.
He needs to take a more active part. A lot of the discussion was between Drecq and Mal and sometimes youd forget any other Senators even existed.
Please, god no.
I don't see him having done much of anything this term.
Unimpressed. Sort of underwhelming, as I expected.
While Fortunado has made some contributions to the Senate this term, they have been largely cosmetic at best. I get that he's still learning as a new Senator, but I've been wholly underwhelmed.
Elected a term too early and seemed lost at times.
He's hardly there
Could see a bit more activity from him, but strong mind.
He's been okay but he and kaboom should show more backbone against the more experienced members if they believe in something
Has he... accomplished anything? He doesn't really seem to take being in the senate very seriously.
He seemed a little quiet after a while. I saw some activity, and he definitely comments, but I don't feel like he had a viewpoint that added to the Senate. I did expect him to be more vocal and have more ideas.

Mean - 2.55 (lowest rated)
Median - 3
Mode - 3

What comments do you have regarding Senator Kaboom?

Kaboom hasn't been awful, to his credit he's TRIED to do something which is really more that I can say for Fort.
To be fair I would give him a 1.5, but the dude seemed completely lost at times while other times he minorly shined. I don't think he was ready for the position.
He's always trying to improve himself, and his mistakes are usually minor
Kaboom brings what are generally the problems of the CA to the Senate. He simply doesnt know enough yet to be in the Senate.
Sometimes hes fine but most times he doesnt think and just proposes with his gut. And that is the reason why we have tabled more legislation this term than in the last 5 together.
I don't believe Kaboom has the relevant competencies to be in the Senate. A few more terms in the CA, possibly as Chair, would be beneficial.
I gave myself a 3 because I think I can do better, but for a first-timer I think I'm doing OK.
He doesn't seem to understand our own laws and legislative processes.
I'm giving him a higher rating because I feel Kaboom has grown in leaps and bounds in this position. He's presenting ideas, writing legislature, and is making commentary that, if not entirely knowledgeable, shows that he is trying to think of different angles on his own. I did know his reputation first from the GP forums of NS, so I am quite impressed with how he's matured.
His skills still leave a lot to be considered but I do think he has tried hard this term and has improved over time.
He's posted some quite frankly awful legislation that has no need at all and I've been told that he has been rather aggressive and he's had to held back several times.
He's been okay but he and kaboom should show more backbone against the more experienced members if they believe in something
I saw a lot of silly legislation from Kaboom. He's eager but very inexperienced.
Kaboom has shown a willingness to work, which seems to be lacking in the other two new senators. Even though his contributions have been... poor.
Kaboom has been an active Senator this term, and while I don't think that he was a super-amazing Senator by any stretch, I think he did the best out of the 3 Senate newbies. He's an active participant in the Senate and has offered a few of his own pieces of legislation this term - even if many of them didn't end up going anywhere. I think he's got a bunch more to learn (and he could probably stand to receive some more guidance from established Senators), but he's shown some promise at least. He'll have to improve in a hypothetical second term, but if I had to pick one first-term Senator to re-elect, I'd pick him.
Lots of enthusiasm and hard work, even if he's sometimes misguided.

Mean - 3.35
Median - 3
Mode - 3

What comments do you have regarding Senator Ninja Kittens?

NK has significant backbone and will be a leading force in the future
I feel there was a lackluster performance from NK. I know she was campaigning for a bit, but her Senate term seemed quiet compared to all she brought to the floor on the CA. I did like, however, that she took the time to take someone (several someones even) under her wing and mentor them without any prompting. I do link their current successes (Sloosh and Agent Shades) to her work with them.
It seems like NK has hardly been active in the Senate thus far this term. I don't know if she's uninterested or busy IRL or out of her depth or what, but I have not been impressed with what I've seen - or, really haven't seen - from her this term. She shows up for a vote, but she doesn't seem to get involved or engaged in the debates and discussions and generally doesn't offer much in the way of analysis or amendments thus far.
NK doesn't seem to have accomplished much, but that seems to be the way he works. He was terrible in her first term as CA Chair, but then came back to be one of the best and most activity producing CA Chairs on record. He also rand a very prominent presidential campaign which probably at least partially contributed to the lack of senate participation.
Some good input, but activity an issue. More memorable for her Presidential campaign than anything done in the Senate.
NK was in the Senate? Shes good at the job but she needs to speak up and participate outside of votes. When she participates she makes good points. But I know I saw one amendment where she voted against the Bill but had never before posted in the thread. The job of a Senator is not to simply vote against what you dont like, but to argue against it and maybe turn it into something good and productive. If that fails you can still vote against it, but that should never be the first option.
Solid but activity can be better.
Good, intelligent comments, though not as active in Senate discussions as I'd like.
Same as fort.
Not really very active
I don't see her having done much of anything this term.
I love NK but I haven't seen much from her in the Senate. Not sure if I'd reelect her.
Great Senator. Wish she'd contribute more, but still not awful.

What general comments do you have on this Senate term?

Overall lackluster term.
Pretty good.
Mal and Drecq really made this a great term
Been a slow term. 1/2 the senate didn't seem to be doing much.
I'd like to see an entirely new Senate.
Very good discussions and important debates, but always led by the same people. Imbalance on the Senate this term where you had 2/3 exceptional Senators, and then the others were highly unsatisfactory.
Mal has been on point with some help from Drecq and attempts from Kaboom. CSP has offered quality legislating at times, but it's been spotty activity and contributions. Fort and NK just don't look like they belong in the Senate.
Good. A lot of hard work in fits and starts.
It has been a very poor senate overall, with poor activity from most of the members and a general lack of knowledge of some of the members.
Well... it's not like they aren't doing anything. It's just a lot of meh though.
Not many major milestones this term, needs more action.

Senator Rankings

Malashaan's Rankings:
Mean- 1.3666666667
Median - 1
Mode - 1

CSP's Rankings:
Mean - 3.4
Median - 3
Mode - 3

Drecq's Rankings
Mean - 2.5
Median - 2
Mode - 2

Fortunado's Rankings
Mean - 5
Median - 5
Mode - 6

Kaboom's Rankings
Mean - 5.03
Median - 5
Mode - 5

Ninja Kitten's Rankings
Mean - 3.7
Median - 3
Mode - 4

Write-ins:

Ferdy, Netz, Lethen
Marnip
Anumia Plz
Shuford
Bananius
Bananius, Sopo

Other Questions:

At what point of inactivity should Europeia look to remove an inactive elected or confirmed official?

Anything longer than 2 weeks.
10 days without notice, more leniency if it was announced.
One week (seven days).
Around a week of unexplained absence.
Four days.
About 2 weeks, I'd say
After two weeks of total inactivity
Missing 3 votes or discussions? I wouldn't base it on rl time that passes since the Senate can wane and wax on its own. I can see an active Senate requiring more participation and inactive Senate requiring the region to look into it.
When Noto gets whiny.
Depends to some extent on the position, however, justices (I.e. TAC) deserve a bit more leniency than Senators, Presidents, or Cabinet Ministers. While RL interferes for all of us - and should absolutely come first - we are an active enough region that there should be high standards for unannounced inactivity in the Goldenblock, Senate, and Cabinet. Of course, some Cabinet positions "matter" more than others (an MIA MoFA is more potentially detrimental to Europeia than an MIA Minister of Culture - sorry, Netz). We need to be holding our elected officials accountable, especially those that are holding multiple positions within our region.
A After a week
When it starts to get in the way of the progress of the region. I don't believe there's a good hard and fast rule for it. An inactive president should be removed faster than an inactive senator, and an inactive senator should probably be removed faster than an inactive justice.
Senators: 5 days unannounced. Speaker: 3 days unannounced. President: 3 days unannounced. Cabinet: 7 days unannounced.
Depends on the post the official fills. A Senator can be absent longer than a Minister and a Justice longer than a Senator. Id say 5-7 days for a
Senator. 3-5 days for a Minister. 7-14 days for a Justice.
Probably over a week.
After 5 days. If you haven't posted a LoA or made an effort to participate after a five day span, then you don't need to be given privileges related to it.
It really depends on the post. However, in general (for senate or cabinet), I'd say one week for unannounced, two weeks if it's covered for and planned.
failure to vote or comment (on official governmental forums) for more than two weeks with no leave of absence
After 2 weeks.
Depends on the position. Obviously a justice going inactive for longer periods of time can be overlooked with few consequences when the same is not true of the president or a minister, and senators are in the middle due to the fact that the Senate can function down a senator. Overall I believe any absence of a week or more is unacceptable to me.
7-10 days of unannounced inactivity on the forums.
week
Longer than a week without LoA notice.
A week.
2 weeks
More than two weeks. More than a week if no contact has been made between the head of branch and the elected official.
Subjective
For Ministers? I would say 2 weeks, then a final warning, then kick them. For Senators, that's built into the Senate Protocol Act (vote to remove after 10 days without logging in or failing to comment on three bills in a row). For Justices, I'm a bit more towards the lenient side here. We removed TAC, but he hadn't logged in for a month.
A week and a half of unexplained absence
No contact or indication of return after 10 days.

What comments do you have on activity of elected/appointed officials and/or Leaves of Absense?

Half of your job is to be present. At the point you're absentee you're doing more harm than good.
Where inactivity is an issue, the elected official should be removed. LoAs are acceptable for short holidays or the like, but taking considerable time off for RL events such as studying for finals should be a bar to office.
I said an LoA should be posted for anything more than 2 days, but I'd really say more like 3. LoAs are sort of overused nowadays, even by me, but 3 days is probably a minimum unless you're important (Pres, VP, Speaker) and someone needs to be aware of your absence. Random Assembly members don't need to post LoAs when they'll be gone for less than 48 hours, that just wastes everyone's time.
Everything seems to be fine. I've not seen any glaring difficulties with inactivity this term.
They were elected; they should show up to work.
I think I made all my comments above.
I mean, it happens. If it's manageable, then we should butt out.
Everyone has things pop up and they can't be stopped. They're only human.

What comments do you have on the separation of powers referenced in the above question?

If somebody takes up 3 high level positions, they're taking opportunities from other bright people to prove themselves.
Separation of powers can be important in some cases. I do wince at the fact that a Cabinet member and a member of the Senate might be a little too close, depending on what kind of Cabinet member they are, but I think any true conflicts of interest would be brought to light and discussed with amendments to law made as necessary.
Generally I'd rather you keep to your own space but I understand that there aren't enough qualified people for all positions and people need to take up those spots.
Not only is it a seperation fo powers issue it's a time issue as well
It's a debate that is simply not relevant to our region, or NS, really.
Anybody who has actual concerns about the "separation of powers" in a simulated government made up of a couple dozen active citizens beyond time constraints is actually just sour about not being nominated.
People should be best for the job regardless, however other responsibilities are a factor in whether someone is best for a job.
In general, we should try and keep the Judiciary separate from the Executive/Legislative as much as possible.
I like to keep it limited, but I'm not overly opposed and especially if an individual will not be in all 3 branches for an entire term (of any branch)
Who cares if they're qualified there's a reason they're in all of the branches. If they have the time and capability let them.
If people think they can do a better job, they should stand for such.
The next Senate needs to ban the practice.
I think I answered this in the Mal section. But when there are capable people who can hold positions, we should avoid overlap as much as possible to maximize involvement with the region.
It is generally not a good idea, but bear in mind that (a) if this is the case, keeping active, experienced people on the court will be a challenge due to its reactive nature; and (b) it depends on what the combination is.
Just pull my response from the earlier comment on Senate confirmations.
I believe no person should serve in all three branches of government.

Any final comments?

Pls Anumia
Great poll. There were some definite typos.
I think we need a fairly good balance of active and knowledgable new members with veterans.
I think we'll have a highly competitive election for the next Senate race. And I hope that any sitting Senators running for re-election will be prepared to answer questions about their level of activity - or lack thereof in some cases. There'll be enough interest, I think, that Senators should show why they deserve to be in the Senate and not expect to be re-elected because of name recognition.
Lovely poll mousy

As a reminder, we had 2 Mixlr shows earlier this week to discuss some of the results. You can find the first show here and the second show here. My thanks to Cpt. Carrot, Malashaan, and Sanctaria for joining me on-air for the analysis!

Click to expand...

Midterm Senate Poll

Mousebumples

Shin

Active member

GraVandius

Retired Troll

Mousebumples