MM Poll: Senate Reform!

[McEntire]

Monkey's Musings Poll: Region Satisfied with Senate, Significant Minority Seeks Bigger Say in Exec
Analysis and Commentary by Sh*t-Stirrer-in-Chief, McEntire
​

In the wake of Senator Monkey's (now dead-on-arrival) proposal to split the terms of Senators so that some were 70 days and some were 35 days, we decided to do a poll on Senate changes. 30 people responded, pretty well distributed on how long they've been in the region. 80% who took this poll have been Senators before. 96.7% said they always vote in Senate elections, which means only one respondent was honest - get real, we've all missed one or two. I'm not making graphs for the results of any of these questions! They're boring!

​

Now, on to the meat of this thing. Basically, people don't really like this idea. 30% are open to it, a bare majority probably or definitely would not support it. The Senate thought this one was a stinker, and apparently the public (mostly) agrees.

Speaking of things Europeians don't want, the Citizens Assembly. Citizens have no interest in assembling. Only 20% want it back. Although, those who don't want it back aren't a majority, only 46.7%. Due to the fact that 30% couldn't even be bothered to register an opinion, there's still some ambiguity. Keep agitating, you Citizens' Assembly freaks! Maybe you can win 'em over!

In a pretty boring result, 48.3% are "Somewhat satisfied." As a longtime Europeian polling analyst, we would refer to this as a solid "meh."

These two questions show that a decent (but not unshakeable) majority think that the current level of Senate power is enough. 30% of people think that the Senate should be more powerful, which is a decent base to build off of for any of you reform-minded folks out there.

Approximately 10% of people chose to make me regret giving "Other" as an option, and decided to give more ~nuanced~ takes. Here's my take: nuance is overrated. Don't like it? Do your own poll!

This question suggests that if the Senate was more up in the Executive's business, 30% of people would be more likely to run. So if we are trying to get more people to run for Senate, this might attract at least a few more. Although after the last election we had, though, that doesn't really seem to be a problem.

Similar story here, most people are satisfied with the Senate's involvement in Executive policy. BUT (and it's a decent-sized but), some of these questions of involvement are close to even. Although a majority are fine with the current level of involvement, a decent number of people want more involvement in three areas (the top losers in the loser pile, if you will): Foreign Affairs, Interior, and Justice.

People probably voted for Justice out of a sense of "legal this, legal that, yeah they should probably be involved," but a comment from the comment box gives some insight on why people want the Senate involved in FA and Interior:

The areas that ensure the continued function of the region, FA and Interior are the most important ministries and there is a mandate to make sure they are running smoothly for the good of the region.

About 37% of people want the Senate to be more involved in Foreign Affairs. So that's interesting, at least. Bear it in mind as you're writing your Senate platform next time.

You can check out the rest of people's comments below:

Spoiler: Other comments

The areas that ensure the continued function of the region, FA and Interior are the most important ministries and there is a mandate to make sure they are running smoothly for the good of the region.

For me, it all depends on the way the proposal may be executed.

seems like a dumbing down of the senate

Ideally the discussion will at least provide a jumping-off point for other ideas besides staggered seats

LEGISLATIVE SPLIT LEGISLATIVE SPLIT LEGISLATIVE SPLIT

I would support shorter overall term lengths, not staggered terms.

I guess my support of the CA might shift depending on if the short term idea is implemented.

the senate is boring

One of the comments from the people who couldn't be bothered to answer the simple, multiple choice question was interesting too. They said "It is not the job of the Senate to set executive policy and it never should be." And I thought, is it? That's an interesting question. What do y'all think?

***​

Commentary: Europeia says, checks and balances? I don't know her!

The above question, "is it the job of the Senate to set executive policy, and should it be?" really made me think. Yes, the Senate confirms Ministers, but do they ever really turn anyone down over policy disagreements? Well, besides me, apparently (I think I'm the only person to have two failed confirmations - real badge of pride, there).

But then I thought, why not? For real, Presidents don't have to run their decisions by anybody. In real life, most of the things Presidents want to do have to run through a legislative body. That's what's called checks and balances.

In Europeia, the legislative branch deals with prettying up the laws, and the executive branch deals with doing things that people care about. And ne'er the twain shall meet.

Of course, every time that reform is proposed that would actually bring the Senate into doing things that people would care about, those opposed to it say "but we can't make the executive's life harder!" And then they clutch their pearls at even the thought and look around for the nearest fainting couch.

Well I'm old enough now to tell the hard truths, and here's one of 'em: if the Senate is ever going to be interesting, it's got to wrest some power back from the Executive. And that, necessarily, is going to make the Executive's life harder.

Now, I am fully aware that most people don't want this to happen. Which is why things probably won't change. But goodness me, we should at least have the discussion on honest terms. The Senate taking some authority from the Executive would be a whole lot of fun, and now we'll see if anyone cares enough to do anything about it. Again, probably not, because who feels like getting chided by the Executive-centric scolds of Europeia?

Certainly not me, which tells me it might be time to wrap this thing up. Until the next time, ta-ta!

 

[Prim]

10% of people chose to make me regret giving "Other" as an option, and decided to give more ~nuanced~ takes.

Every time I give an "other" option, it's either useless or even a hindrance to analysis. The people who use it only use it as a comment box, instead of giving an actual third option that wasn't thought of by the pollster.

 

[Kazaman]

Interesting poll, although I don't think it sheds much light on what to do for oversight, engagement, or broader reform.

 

[Seva]

Nice analysis! On the last bit I have a personal example. I am a Member of Parliament in Thaecia, and Thaecia is incredibly legislative-centred, with half of the voting population Senators or MPs, not to mention that they also have restrictions that don't allow MPs or Senators to be ministers. Result? The Executive's life is incredibly hard, and they barely have the staffing for ministries. That is an extreme example, but this is just to say that I know how it's like on the other side

 

[GrandfatherClock]

Honestly I really love the way this is written. Also, the results here are pretty much what I would have expected, gauging that based on the conversations that have been had, now in multiple threads and in the discord server.

 

[Peeps]

For the love of everything good in this world, don’t try to have the Senate be involved in FA.

Great article though!

 

[Monkey]

Great article, McEntire, I was very excited to see what would come out of this poll when you approached me!

I liked the commentary a lot, made me chuckle a few times. I think some of the ideas proposed here are really interesting; I'm not entirely sure how I feel about them, but I think they're worth a discussion at some point in the future for sure.

 

[McEntire]

For the love of everything good in this world, don’t try to have the Senate be involved in FA.

Great article though!

For the sake of discussion, why not? Why have the Senate approve treaties at all if Senators aren’t expected to have some knowledge of or involvement in foreign policy?

 

[Peeps]

For the love of everything good in this world, don’t try to have the Senate be involved in FA.

Great article though!

For the sake of discussion, why not? Why have the Senate approve treaties at all if Senators aren’t expected to have some knowledge of or involvement in foreign policy?

It’s their job to ratify treaties as they have the force of law, in fact they override normal law so the approval of the Legislature is very needed.

As for why it shouldn’t be their job, it is because none of them are required to be FA experts so adding in that job for them (no idea what said job would be, inexperienced EAAC?) would just be unnecessary and lead to confusion while not really helping anyone. If Senators would like to be involved in FA I would recommend signing up for the watch.

 

[Gorundu]

The real question is this: how could the Senate get involved in shaping executive policy? Perhaps it could use non-binding resolutions more often to express opinions on executive policy. That would likely at least cause some stir and discussion.

In terms of FA, perhaps the Senate could demand (by law or otherwise) to be included in treaty negotiations, although those tend to be pretty boring (unless it's a somewhat novel proposal like the IRC). A more far-fetched thing to do would be to demand (by law) to open embassies or enter negotiations with certain regions, although this obviously has plenty of potential pitfalls.

Not many people want the Senate to be more involved in the Navy or Intelligence, but these are areas where I can actually think of things that the Senate could do. The Senate could perhaps make a law to require the Navy to withdraw from an operation if the Senate demands so, or, say, they could ask for briefings from Intelligence and decide to potentially disclose information. Obviously these also have downsides - security being the main one.

I'm pretty clueless on how the Senate could get involved in Interior or Justice. These two ministries seem to be less about policy and more about improving efficiency (whether it's recruitment, training law clerks, etc.). Perhaps someone else have the answers to this.

Most of what I've talked about are just ideas and most will probably stay as just ideas, but I thought I might be able to start the conversation this way.

 

[McEntire]

I'm pretty clueless on how the Senate could get involved in Interior or Justice. These two ministries seem to be less about policy and more about improving efficiency (whether it's recruitment, training law clerks, etc.). Perhaps someone else have the answers to this.

One example here was the Mandatory Recruitment Act. Certainly there are examples of the Senate mandating certain Executive functions or practices.

I think this is exactly the sort of brainstorming we ought to be doing.

 

[Prim]

I think this recent Embassy raid has highlighted an example of how the Senate could be either: setting codes of conduct for the military, or at least conducting oversight on what standards we have in our military.

I've been accused of being a defender moralist in the past over an Op where RMB natives were being harassed and belittled during an Op (after which I resigned from the ERN), and I'm sure that some will paint this current opposition as defender moralism as well, as some have insinuated already. But I do think we should have a larger discussion on what policies the ERN should have regarding targeting and conduct during an Op, without having others claim we're leading to a slippery slope of defender moralism just because we want to draw a line on raiding etiquette somewhere....