Speaker Race Underway; Aex And Noto Weigh Their Chances

[HEM]

​

ENN - "Speaker Race Underway; Aex And Noto Weigh Their Chances"
Written by HEM Tiberius

Europeia's incumbent Speaker — and only returning Senator — is facing a run for his money in his bid for re-election to the Speakership. Despite receiving the most votes of any Senate candidate, Aexnidaral Seymour is facing a credible challenge from elder statesman Notolecta.

Historically, the Speakership has been an anointed position, oftentimes handed back and forth between a select few Senators. Many people suspected that this election would continue that tradition, with Aexnidaral easily returning to the Speakership.

The election was triggered when Notolecta put himself up for consideration:

​

"Given the circumstances of the last term, I think it would be best for us to have a fresh face as Speaker, not someone that was part of the last Senate," Notolecta told the Senate earlier today. He went on to position himself as the best suited candidate to oversee the proposed law reform process, "I think we would get immense value out of having a Speaker who is passionate about a law review. In fact a significant factor in the success of our massive law reforms in 2012 was the dedication and passion of speakers like Malashaan. A law review is something I've wanted for a while now and I would be glad to be able to facilitate starting it off strong as speaker."

Aexnidaral fired back, rebutting the notion that a failed Senate was an individual failure, rather than a collective one:

​

"While I respect your opinion, I do have to disagree here. While I understand where you are coming from, and I have all but admitted the last term was lackluster, that wasn't the fault of the Speaker, that was the fault of individual Senators, and to insinuate the blame on one person individually is unfair."

When ENN talked to Aexnidaral, he said that the call for a fresh face was an example of "rhetoric over substance," citing the voters' overwhelming response to his re-election bid. He went on to talk a little bit about his chances:

"Well, look, nothing's ever for certain. I'm so grateful for the support that PASD and Shufie gave me early on, and I hope I can maintain their support. My hope is that a clear 'winner' comes out of this nomination so we can avoid a messy tie."

Notolecta, for his part, doubled down on his argument that he was the most appropriate person to lead the law reforms, arguing that, "I'm the best person to spearhead them thanks to my experience being around and involved during most of the 2012 law reforms, my experience as mayor of the then CC driving discussion of constitution V in the CC in 2012, and because it will be difficult to find another as dedicated and passionate about this matter. I've championed law reforms and have been wanting to see us take a crack at a wholesale review for a long while now."

Notolecta took a realistic view on his chances, saying that Aex's early endorsements hurt his chances, he also said he hoped to change minds:

"I do hope I can convince the senate to let me take the reigns as a fresh face that lead us efficiently towards an active and productive term hopefully involving the start of a massive law review/reform of some sort."

The region's last competitive Senate election was two candidate was last summer, between Senator Kraketopia and myself.

###​

 

[Calvin Coolidge]

#GetNotty. I don't think it would be a crazy idea to give Noto the reins in this Senate. While I do believe last Senate did not fail because of Aex, it showed something about his Speakership abilities. At this point, Noto is the candidate with specific experience for what the Senate plans to achieve this term (the law reforms), and if we really want the Senate to achieve this goal as best as it can, we should put that candidate in charge, and it really has nothing to do with Aex as a person.

 

[Aexnidaral]

I don't think it's really fair for the acting President/VP to take sides publicly in this given that it genuinely seems like it could wind up being a tie and you may have to cast a ballot if Trinn isn't back.

I would really like to pushback on a portion of your post that is very clearly a dogwhistle insinuation:

... the last Senate did not fail because of Aex, it showed something about his Speakership abilities.

It's borderline dishonest to say that-- "it doesn't have anything to do with you as a person" -- the implication that is not even subtle here is that while the Senate didn't fail because of me, it (apparently) revealed how shitty of a Speaker I am. That style of dogwhistle politics is unfair, and I want to push back on that strongly. I did well with the cards I was dealt. If you want to say something, say it, don't try to subtly insinuate it and hope the readers catch on with a wink wink and a nudge nudge.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

I think it's folly to view the speaker as a whip. He's not and really never has been. Realistically, there's nothing a speaker can do to combat inactivity other than facilitate the removal of the senators in question.

 

[Possibly this]

I don't feel it to be the fault of Aex that the senate was not particularly successful and I believe that he is highly capable of the role but in volunteering for speaker if anyone would be seen to be at fault it would be the speaker. If you volunteer for a leadership role then you could be held accountable when things go wrong, if you can't take the criticism you shouldn't volunteer. Although I am still not sure how I feel about this, I do feel that the previous Senate did not run smoothly. While I do not get a vote, some may say my opinion does not matter, but it does, as the Senate affects all of us, Senate speakership is vital to the very fabric of Europeia, we can not let this fabric be torn apart.

 

[zapper]

Am I the only person that thinks that General Patton looks a lot like Donald Trump?

 

[shufordbrian]

An awesome article indeed HEM.

 

[Aexnidaral]

An awesome article indeed HEM.

I'm happier than I should be that someone else used Charlie Crist to represent me.

 

[hyanygo]

A good Speaker does make a large difference. When HEM was Speaker he clearly wasn't interested in some things and more interested in others, this led to more time being devoted to, at the end, ineffective things. How a Speaker organises the time and structure of the Senate is important. A review done without a formalised method of amendment and checking is bound to produce a flimsy product. Notolecta has done well in highlighting his past experience in the discussions on Con V as that was particularly well done.

You can clearly be a good or bad Speaker and I think Aex was too many times on the wrong side. This is because there was mismanagement in effort and time. Procedurally, from what I recall, it was suspect from time to time and the high rigour of checking was absent. The Speaker is a bit more than someone who pins threads and ideally the Speaker should be experienced enough to give things a check and utilize the legal officers available to him (or her).

The issue of time and issue management is an important one given that ideas are being "lost" (see http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/8928334/1/?x=90#new hidden away in the archives). The Speaker has about 500-odd collective hours to play around for the term: does the Speaker waste Senators' time or does he realise the triviality of the issue and call a vote on the principle and steam ahead? The situation for Aex or Noto is bleak if a law review is really going to be pushed. There just isn't the strength in depth to debate such a wide variety of issues carefully and speedily. This Senate will have trouble even going through the Judicature Act (Kazaman will frequently outshine either candidate for Speakership but I don't know whether he can sustain it and carry the Senate on his brilliance) with its membership including a recent former assembly chair who couldn't follow up on literally the handful of ordinances he was supposed to.

Whoever wins the Speakership is going to have a tough time not only cajoling members but marshalling enough intellectual support to carry out possibly one of the most difficult, challenging and time-consuming Senate maneuvers there is.

Good luck

 

[HEM]

A good Speaker does make a large difference. When HEM was Speaker he clearly wasn't interested in some things and more interested in others, this led to more time being devoted to, at the end, ineffective things. How a Speaker organises the time and structure of the Senate is important. A review done without a formalised method of amendment and checking is bound to produce a flimsy product. Notolecta has done well in highlighting his past experience in the discussions on Con V as that was particularly well done.

You can clearly be a good or bad Speaker and I think Aex was too many times on the wrong side. This is because there was mismanagement in effort and time. Procedurally, from what I recall, it was suspect from time to time and the high rigour of checking was absent. The Speaker is a bit more than someone who pins threads and ideally the Speaker should be experienced enough to give things a check and utilize the legal officers available to him (or her).

The issue of time and issue management is an important one given that ideas are being "lost" (see http://s6.zetaboards.com/Europeia/topic/8928334/1/?x=90#new hidden away in the archives). The Speaker has about 500-odd collective hours to play around for the term: does the Speaker waste Senators' time or does he realise the triviality of the issue and call a vote on the principle and steam ahead? The situation for Aex or Noto is bleak if a law review is really going to be pushed. There just isn't the strength in depth to debate such a wide variety of issues carefully and speedily. This Senate will have trouble even going through the Judicature Act (Kazaman will frequently outshine either candidate for Speakership but I don't know whether he can sustain it and carry the Senate on his brilliance) with its membership including a recent former assembly chair who couldn't follow up on literally the handful of ordinances he was supposed to.

Whoever wins the Speakership is going to have a tough time not only cajoling members but marshalling enough intellectual support to carry out possibly one of the most difficult, challenging and time-consuming Senate maneuvers there is.

Good luck

Hyanygo has seemingly rediscovered condescension as a rhetorical device.

(Not disagreeing with the assessment of my term, even).

 

[hyanygo]

Rather it is something that is missing from Europeian debate for a while now --- which is why you had to run on a platform of ideas. The idea is pretty simple: you can be a good or bad Speaker. Better ones tend to have a clear and organised agenda that fits the region for that particular time. Good Speakers are also honest about the strengths of their Senate. This Senate on its own is not one you'd pick to do a reform or review (how much collective time is available really? how much support is really available from the active heavyweights of Mal, Drecq and MD?) but it is one you'd pick to look at newcomer integration and legal development (Fortunado being clearly a motivated judicial intern). I hope I'm not being condescending when I'm trying to be obvious.

 

[HEM]

Rather it is something that is missing from Europeian debate for a while now --- which is why you had to run on a platform of ideas. The idea is pretty simple: you can be a good or bad Speaker. Better ones tend to have a clear and organised agenda that fits the region for that particular time. Good Speakers are also honest about the strengths of their Senate. This Senate on its own is not one you'd pick to do a reform or review (how much collective time is available really? how much support is really available from the active heavyweights of Mal, Drecq and MD?) but it is one you'd pick to look at newcomer integration and legal development (Fortunado being clearly a motivated judicial intern). I hope I'm not being condescending when I'm trying to be obvious.

I understand your idea more now that you have clarified, but I don't think your main point was clear in your initial post. Rather, it looked far more like you were disparaging the capabilities of the current Senate

"There just isn't the strength in depth to debate such a wide variety of issues carefully and speedily. This Senate will have trouble even going through the Judicature Act"

and:

Whoever wins the Speakership is going to have a tough time not only cajoling members but marshalling enough intellectual support

This doesn't read as "Oh, I think this Senate will be more effective at other things." It reads as "This Senate is filled with inferior citizens," which is an argument I will be very apt to rebut.

---

Now that I understand your argument, I still don't entirely agree. Yes, we are privileged in Europeia to have some very fine legal minds who we can count on to always produce exceptional work. But to get work that is of the finest quality, with perfect formatting, and language that is both precise and accessible, I truly believe that we are going to need a cabal of Europeians from all backgrounds.

This means new members who aren't as familiar with legislation. Some folks who have experience interpreting the law on the courts, and of course, some folks who have been writing the laws of this region for years.

By saying that certain tasks in the legislature can only be completed by certain citizens is only a few steps away from establishing an oligarchy where we only trust a few highly effective citizens with the keys to the government. I understand Hyanygo, perhaps now more than ever, how much work you have put into our legal system and why you might be antsy to see new members — or those with less legislative experience — toy with it. But I am confident in our Senators to do a good job, because I am confident in the voters who elected them, and in the experienced citizens who can help from the sidelide.

---

And yet, that all being said, I remain unconvinced that law reform is necessary regardless of the composition of the Senate. But that's for another thread perhaps.

 

[Aexnidaral]

This Senate on its own is not one you'd pick to do a reform or review (how much collective time is available really? how much support is really available from the active heavyweights of Mal, Drecq and MD?) but it is one you'd pick to look at newcomer integration and legal development (Fortunado being clearly a motivated judicial intern). I hope I'm not being condescending when I'm trying to be obvious.

This is definitely true, and something that genuinely worries me to a certain extent when it comes to a wholesale review (reform). I've expressed this in confidence to some, but I genuinely would want to hear from people like MD, you, CSP, Mal, and Drecq if a wholesale review (reform?) were to happen. I'm worried that, because this Senate isn't one of experienced legislators, some people could use this as an opportunity to push an agenda rather than legislate well.

 

[Malashaan]

I wonder if there is value in the Senate "appointing" a neutral legal advisor. The executive has the AG, and while the Senate often contains legal experts, it is not required, and the Senators themselves ate often focused on the legislation itself, not ancillary issues. The last term (and I am not assigning blame here) saw confusion about procedural issues, and legislation passed/proposed that was likely unconstitutional on several occasions. Having a neutral advisor outside of the legislative process might help prevent such issues arising.

I haven thought this through, it just popped into my head when reading the article and following discussion. It's worth thinking about.

 

[Trinnien]

The benefit of a system where we allow Honored Citizens to speak on the floor of the Senate is definitely one to our benefit, and in cases such as this, one that I would highly recommend the Speaker of the Senate to utilize.

Also, just as importantly, is that in our system of checks and balances, it is the duty of this Office to follow the discussions and debates and when it comes time, to be able to give an educated and responsible answer in the affirmative or negative on the determinations of the Senate. I do not know yet if I think a law review is the right move or not, but I do know that if it is something the Senate proceeds with, then this Office is a final check on ensuring that not only is the will of the People upheld, but the integrity and dignity of our laws as well.

 

[Aexnidaral]

Mal, I definitely think that would be an awesome idea and something I would love to incoporate. Maybe something like a Senate General Counsel?

 

[Mousebumples]

I wonder if there is value in the Senate "appointing" a neutral legal advisor. The executive has the AG, and while the Senate often contains legal experts, it is not required, and the Senators themselves ate often focused on the legislation itself, not ancillary issues. The last term (and I am not assigning blame here) saw confusion about procedural issues, and legislation passed/proposed that was likely unconstitutional on several occasions. Having a neutral advisor outside of the legislative process might help prevent such issues arising.

I haven thought this through, it just popped into my head when reading the article and following discussion. It's worth thinking about.

*watches as Mal tries to maneuver himself into a speaker-esque position for life*

 

[Calvin Coolidge]

I don't think it's really fair for the acting President/VP to take sides publicly in this given that it genuinely seems like it could wind up being a tie and you may have to cast a ballot if Trinn isn't back.

I would really like to pushback on a portion of your post that is very clearly a dogwhistle insinuation:

... the last Senate did not fail because of Aex, it showed something about his Speakership abilities.

It's borderline dishonest to say that-- "it doesn't have anything to do with you as a person" -- the implication that is not even subtle here is that while the Senate didn't fail because of me, it (apparently) revealed how shitty of a Speaker I am. That style of dogwhistle politics is unfair, and I want to push back on that strongly. I did well with the cards I was dealt. If you want to say something, say it, don't try to subtly insinuate it and hope the readers catch on with a wink wink and a nudge nudge.

Why can't I state my opinion just because I might have a say in the matter? Should Senators not take sides publicly on legislation, since they are voting on them? Can voters in an election not support a candidate? I don't really get what the problem is with me expressing my opinion on this matter.

For the "dogwhistle" claim: I said what I meant. I think last term showed that you have your limits as a Speaker, and I'd like to see if Noto's leadership in the Senate can be more successful, since I think it is more suited to the tasks this term is aspiring to. I really think you're reading too much into my post.

 

[Moronist Decisions]

I wonder if there is value in the Senate "appointing" a neutral legal advisor. The executive has the AG, and while the Senate often contains legal experts, it is not required, and the Senators themselves ate often focused on the legislation itself, not ancillary issues. The last term (and I am not assigning blame here) saw confusion about procedural issues, and legislation passed/proposed that was likely unconstitutional on several occasions. Having a neutral advisor outside of the legislative process might help prevent such issues arising.

I haven thought this through, it just popped into my head when reading the article and following discussion. It's worth thinking about.

I think this would be an excellent idea.