Do we want a Senate in DG5?

[gert-janl]

Here's a poll from the legislative branch discussion locatedhere.

First question we have to ask ourselves is if we want to have a senate where governors can meet. When voting please keep in mind that if there is a senate it doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be in control of the finance. It can also be 'a place to hang out for governors'.

This poll remains open for 3 days.

 

[Black_Hole]

yes, im not sure what is would have power over.. but it could do something...

 

[GenMarshall]

I beleve we should keep the senate around as a council of govenors. Though this is part of me living in the New England area with a history of a yankee tradition of having a small local government to discuss issues in the community. I would see the senate as a council of govenoers to discuss issues within the govenor community.

 

[Noldodan]

Yes, keep the Senate around, but make it so that it's unofficial, just a place for Governors to discuss things about build queues.

 

[GenMarshall]

Yes, keep the Senate around, but make it so that it's unofficial, just a place for Governors to discuss things about build queues.

I remembered when I was a Military Leader in the past Demogames, I usualy use the senate to make a global queue request in the senate rather than spamming in each of the govenor's threads with request if my queue request require a cooperation with all of the govenors rather than just one.

 

[Cyc]

Well, there really wouldn't be a Senate until we've elected two or three Governors in the game. But beyond that point, it would allow Governors to discuss issues on a global level, such as production for war, railroads, etc. It could also be a dedicated forum for the Governors to discuss the President's use of power. Things of this nature may be useful when the game gets rolling.

The Finance and Labor Dept. should control the sliders (if that's what the People choose). That experiment with the Senate failed. It never should have been tried, really. We don't HAVE to give the Senate a job to do, just let them be.

 

[eyrei]

If we end up with one, can we please change the name to something more appropriate? Like council of governors or something?

 

[GenMarshall]

If we end up with one, can we please change the name to something more appropriate? Like council of governors or something?

Perhaps the League of Govenors?

 

[Falcon02]

Perhaps the League of Govenors?

Makes me think of the failed League of Nations

... I'm holding my vote for now....

 

[BCLG100]

Makes me think of the failed League of Nations

... I'm holding my vote for now....

O O O
i learnt about that for my GCSE's, i dont think it is however as it involved whole countries this just involves areas.

i think a senate is a good idea as it gives the citizens more way to express their feelings. as in my feelings governers are more part of the citizenship than say military, trade etc

 

[Epimethius]

No! No Senate! Power to the People!

Besides, the last serious act in DG4 was to get rid of it.

Here are my proposals for governor coordination:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=1990302#post1990302
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=1981421#post1981421

Governors would have an informal place to coordinate their efforts, but would not have any collective powers beyond that which they have as governors. It would just mean that production is better coordinated. This would not be part of the government, much less the legislative branch, but simply a thread where they could gather.

 

[Sarevok]

The senate was completely useless and never did anything in DG4. It was more of a problem than an organization. If the Governors want to have joint discussions, do it in a private chat room. Vote No on this poll.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

No private chatrooms, please(although there's really no way to govern that, I guess).

Keep the Senate so that the Governors have a place to meet. Then if anyone is able to crack the magic code and find a proper use for the Senate, the mechanism is already in place. Otherwise, we can just think of it as a cozy lounge for our Guvs to discuss national interests.

 

[Epimethius]

Fine, but lets drop the name senate, and the official status. I'm fine with having an informal council of governors that isn't an official part of the government (like a citizen group, in a way).

 

[gert-janl]

Now that the vote is tied untill now, I wonder if there are people who are in favor of 'an informal council of governors' but voted against the existence of a senate.

 

[Epimethius]

I did. Because senate implies an elite council with some sort of power.

 

[Sarevok]

I could care less if there was an "informal council of governors" but they cannot have any power whatsoever.

 

[Comnenus]

The senate was completely useless and never did anything in DG4. It was more of a problem than an organization. If the Governors want to have joint discussions, do it in a private chat room. Vote No on this poll.

Seeing as how this is my first Demogame, I certainly don't have your experience with previous Senates. And this poll is closed now anyway. However, the Constitution does call for THREE branches of government. A Council of Governors cannot replace a Senate since governors are, by definition, executives of states or provinces. Whether a Legislative branch exerts its power or not, whether it is a problem or not, it cannot and should not be thrown away so lightly. Personally, I would vote for a more parliamentarian form of constitution with a Prime Minister instead of a President where the Chief Executive must interact continually with the Legislators. Besides, if you watch C-SPAN at all, the televised coverage of the House of Commons is much more lively than any coverage of the Senate or House of Representatives.

On a separate note, is there any reason why we can't have a House of Lords, too? Now that has to stir up somebody's passions.

 

[Bobby Lee]

HOUSE OF LORDS!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!! That strongly emplies Nobility which is something I'm dead set against. Any minister (or citizen for that matter) who puts thier support behind nobility is a traitor to the idea of democracy. Democracy means equality and equality does not allow for nobility!

This system should be based more on the American System with a House of Representatives (the citizens in this case i guess), and an ELECTED Senate. I can't see how taking power away from elected assemblies can be a good thing.

To answer another question: It was asked what the Senate should do. It should be similar to real life. It should be able to propose laws, ammendments, conduct impeachment trials (after it goes through the judiciary of course), as well as propose government policies. For each point in my last sentence there should be a procedure. For Laws it should be proposed by a Senator or President and passed with a simple majority and subject to veto* by the President. For Ammendments it should be proposed by either a Senator, the President, a Minister, or a Provincial Governor and passed with a 75 pct majority. I'll Adress impeachment lower in this reply. For proposing Government policies** it should be proposed by any member of the government (including the Senators) passed with a 60 pct majority subject to veto* by either the president or the applicable minister. Also the senate should at all times consist of at least 3 Senators at the least and go up at the rate of 1 per province. Ill provide an exaple:

1 province - 3 Senators
2 province - 3 senators
3 province - 3 senators
4 province - 4 senators
5 province - 5 senators
etc.

Impeachment trials run as follows.

1. The question is proposed to the judiciary. If the Judiciary finds the performance of the official warrants possible impeachment then the matter is referred to the Senate for Impeachment proceedings.
2. During the Impeachment Proceedings the official up for impeachment will be represented by anyone he chooses (but by default by the JA and PD). The senate itself will choose a team of up to 2 Senators and no less than 1 to prosecute the case.
3. A special thread (not to be posted in by anyone but the representatives of both parties, witnesses, a judge to be appointed by a joint decision of all representatives, and impeachable official) will be opened and the proceeding shall be held there and if needed in a special chatroom to be named in advance.
4. When the judge (through due procedure) declares the proceedings concluded the Senate will vote on the matter (impeach/don't impeach/abstain) and the verdict of the Senate is final barring a declaration of an unfair proceeding by the Judicial branch of government.

* - vetos may be overridden with a majority of 80% or better
** - government policies should include power of the purse in some fashion?

i dont really see that impeachment trials will happen often or even at all but i felt it should be written in. furthermore, NO NOBILITY!

I would be willing to write something up to be proposed to the people if yall would like.

 

[Cyc]

@ Bobby Lee - Basically it has been decide to detooth the Senate, as just have the Governors form a Council of Governors, where they can gather and talk about the good old days...I mean discuss issues pertenant to Provincial issues. Even when the Senate had teeth, I don't believe they were any kind of Nobility.

The Senate WAS the elected Governors before, and we did take their power away from them.

In your third paragraph, proposed laws and amendments are already handled by the Court, impeachment trials should be voted on in citizen trial polls, not in 3 person committees (more as the game grows). And policies are drawn up by the Heads of a Department or Branch (with regards to the WOTP). This is a perk for taking the Leadership role. Your suggestion of having a minimum of 3 Governors has been tried before and was deemed a failure, as Senators waiting in the wings seldom participated in the Senate votes on slider settings or Budget proposals.

Please feel free to draw up any proposals you wish concerning any part of the government, including the Senate or the Governors. We're always here to help.