- Pronouns
- He/Him
Written by Sopo
Opinion Editor
Yesterday, Senator Common-Sense Politics proposed the Modern Senate Act (2015) on the floor of the Senate. The Senator argued that the MSA would "both increase the quality and diversity of the Senate as well as serve to bolster activity." I agree with the Senator's assessment of his proposal and would like to further explain why the MSA is the most practical way to reform the Senate at this juncture.
Back during the summer, Europeia held a Constitutional Convention which discussed a number of reform proposals for the legislature, none of which gained much traction in the Citizens' Assembly or the Senate. At the time, I proposed my own idea for a grand reform in the legislature, which would have made the Senate and CA two houses in a bicameral system. Although the proposal received an admirable amount of constructive feedback and generated discussion, the CA ultimately rejected a similar plan on its own floor. I admit that the proposal may have been too ambitious. Prominent CA members at the time argued that it would strip the CA of its "purpose" as a training body. I understand that there is little or no will to incorporate the CA into the enshrined legislature, and I now agree with the critics that the proposal may have been unsustainable and could have had unexpected repercussions for the CA. All the same, many Europeians eagerly engaged with the idea of legislative reform, which is more than could be said of most past attempts. Now we need a reform that truly accomplishes what we have an appetite for; that is, a reform that increases newcomer/citizen involvement in the legislature and increases the quality and efficiency of the Senate. I believe that the MSA is that reform.
Already, CSP's proposal has received some criticism from his fellow Senators and from some Assembly members. For the most part, this could be a knee-jerk reaction. I am unsure if some of the Senators who commented actually read the proposal in its entirety, or if they just conveniently passed over CSP's request to "help me make it the best it can be before we move on to deciding whether or not you support the concept overall." Nonetheless, I hope to engage the larger criticisms here and flesh out some of the positives of the proposal as written.
-The objective of this measure is to allow for two Senate elections, one in which the full Senate is elected together where one half is granted a full 70 day term (top vote getters) and the remainder to a 35 day half term; and another where the offices made vacant after the 35 term are filled for the remaining 35 days at which time the process repeats itself.
-Why do I want to implement this scheme? We occupy a time in history where there is, more than ever, diversity in the type of citizens who seek a seat in our Senate. In my view, the Senate term as currently constituted (one size fits all) does not represent a system that maximizes citizen participation in elected government or then by extension, a legislature that maximizes its potential effectiveness.
-By creating two term lengths, we accomplish multiple goals I think we all can agree have their merits. Different kinds of citizens have an easier time getting elected to the Senate. This will serve newer citizens, returning citizens, citizens who have great ideas but can't/won't commit to a full 70 day term. We also increase the profile of Senate elections and the Senate itself by increasing the frequency of election. I think this will both increase the quality and diversity of the Senate as well as serve to bolster activity.
-Why do I want to implement this scheme? We occupy a time in history where there is, more than ever, diversity in the type of citizens who seek a seat in our Senate. In my view, the Senate term as currently constituted (one size fits all) does not represent a system that maximizes citizen participation in elected government or then by extension, a legislature that maximizes its potential effectiveness.
-By creating two term lengths, we accomplish multiple goals I think we all can agree have their merits. Different kinds of citizens have an easier time getting elected to the Senate. This will serve newer citizens, returning citizens, citizens who have great ideas but can't/won't commit to a full 70 day term. We also increase the profile of Senate elections and the Senate itself by increasing the frequency of election. I think this will both increase the quality and diversity of the Senate as well as serve to bolster activity.
For ease of access, I have provided CSP's objectives above. To summarize, they are: 1) split the Senate into two groups, a group of 70-day term Senators and 35-day term Senators; 2) maximize participation in the Senate and Senate effectiveness; and 3) allow citizens to seek election to the Senate more often and allow citizens with less than 70 days to contribute to the Senate the opportunity to seek the office nonetheless.
The main objections from within the Senate and from the CA seem to indicate that the division of the Senate into two groups will somehow make the group with 35-day terms lesser Senators. Multiple people have pointed out that in the last election, Drecq would have been one of these "lesser Senators." To imply that Drecq would be looked down on in the Senate is ridiculous. Drecq is one of our most established and brilliant legislators, and it is incredibly unlikely that he would be taken any less seriously as a Senator because of the length of his term or because he received less votes. He would still be one of the brightest minds of the Senate and treated as such. The same goes for any first term Senator with a good head on their shoulders. Senators are considered better or worse because of their performance and their contributions, and there's no reason to believe it would be any different under this new system.
I believe that CSP has done a good job addressing most of the secondary concerns, so I will instead take this opportunity to mention a few other highlights that have thus far been overlooked. The first is that the MSA system would compel even the established, experienced Senators to campaign hard and work hard. One trend I dislike in Europeia is that well-regarded Senators often forgo a platform during elections or fail to put any significant thought into a platform if they do post one. Since Senators will be divided into two tiers under this system, experienced Senators will be more likely to go the extra mile in campaigning not only so they win, but also so they don't have to run again in 35 days. The same applies to their work throughout the term. Because of tougher competition for full term seats, all Senators will need to work harder in the Senate to get as many votes as possible. Coasting will be a much less appealing option.
The second is that more opportunities to run for Senate means that more people will be able to contribute more often. Yes, CSP highlighted the advantages of more frequent elections, but I want to emphasize that point even further. More elections mean additional opportunities to build platforms, to propose ideas, and to discuss legislation as a region. They also mean that newcomers will be able to jump in sooner after joining. Plus, the added benefit of seeking a 35 day term will allow citizens with a more limited time frame to seek election (I do realize however that running at mid-terms means one could be elected to either length term, but the option is available at general elections when only 35-day seats would be elected).
Finally, I want to stress the benefits for newcomers. The MSA does not confine newcomers to 35-day terms. After all, in the last election NK would have been elected to a 70-day term on her first Senate run. A newcomer with a quality platform, strong activity, and experience in the CA or otherwise would be just as capable of winning a full 70-day term as a more experienced Senator, as the Drecq/NK example shows. At general (Presidential) elections, when only 35-day terms are up for election, the electorate may be even more likely to take a risk on an unestablished newcomer, given the shortened term length. The MSA is an encouraging development for newer members, providing more opportunities for and increased likelihood of election.
The system that we have developed over the years works well, but it could work better. As we seek new ways to better incorporate newcomers into the region, we need to be looking at the Senate and its relationship to the general populace. The Modern Senate Act will provide new and ample opportunities to newcomers to seek election to the Senate, and it will discourage complacency among more established Senators in regard to their legislative work and their campaigning. All in all, the MSA is exactly the kind of reform that Europeia needs right now: pointed, simple, and effective. I fully endorse the MSA and hope all Europeians give it the consideration it deserves.
) for me.