Reforming the Senate

[Octavian X]

I was working on my Vice Presidential proposals when I remembered the other body whose duties are as menial as the VP's.

Have we any ideas on more things the Senate can vote on? Appointee approval? CoS change? CoL change? Ratification of treaties?

Those were my ideas, and I don't know if they are workable. Are than any ideas?

 

[Cheetah]

Ratification of treaties?

So the senate shall vote over treaties with other civs? Like if the Babylonians offer peace the senate could debate wheter or not to accept?

The in-game senate often gets in my way when i play a warmongering civgame, so this does sound interesting

I support that idea.

But won't we remove some of the Foreign ministers powers if the Senate gets this power? Or is it the peoples right to vote over treaties?

 

[eyrei]

Absolutely not. That would make the foreign minister's job literally impossible.

Each senator is also a governor, so I see no need to assign more power.

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by Cheetah
Ratification of treaties?

So the senate shall vote over treaties with other civs? Like if the Babylonians offer peace the senate could debate wheter or not to accept?

The in-game senate often gets in my way when i play a warmongering civgame, so this does sound interesting

I support that idea.

But won't we remove some of the Foreign ministers powers if the Senate gets this power? Or is it the peoples right to vote over treaties?

No way! For several reasons -

- This was annoying in Civ2.
- If you decide to end a war after 2 turns, and the AI doesn't (i.e., refuses your envoy), then what? PI the DP because they won't stop the war?
- If you do stop the war, you could be breaking treaties, and making it much hard for FA and Trade to even function.

This isn't Civ2 where your reputation repairs over time. Plus, it would make the FA job much more difficult. Interesting idea, yes, but it takes out the practicality of the game, and only adds more read tape. Most people want to finish the game in less than a year, not be bogged down in a quigemire of rules, and red tape. If we were to vote on every miniscule thing, the MSDG would be over before this game is even halfway through!

 

[Cheetah]

Originally posted by Chieftess

- This was annoying in Civ2.

Hehe. I know

Originally posted by Chieftess

- If you decide to end a war after 2 turns, and the AI doesn't (i.e., refuses your envoy), then what? PI the DP because they won't stop the war?

Although PI'ing the DP could be fun for some, I was thinking that the Senate would discuss POSSIBLE treaties. If the Babs dont want peace, the Senate cant do much.

Originally posted by Chieftess

- If you do stop the war, you could be breaking treaties, and making it much hard for FA and Trade to even function.

This is a very big concern. I would think that the Senate would have to take other treaties we have into consideration when discussing any treatie. What powers and responibilities does Trade and Foreign have? (I'll look it up for myself after I post this)

Originally posted by Chieftess

This isn't Civ2 where your reputation repairs over time. Plus, it would make the FA job much more difficult. Interesting idea, yes, but it takes out the practicality of the game, and only adds more read tape. Most people want to finish the game in less than a year, not be bogged down in a quigemire of rules, and red tape. If we were to vote on every miniscule thing, the MSDG would be over before this game is even halfway through!

It is absolutely not my intent to prolong the time of the game unnessesary. If the senate haven't reached an agreement before the turnchat, we would need to do something else...

 

[Goonie]

"the MSDG would be over before this game is even halfway through!"

 

[Noldodan]

actually, the MSDG being over first might very well happen if we get more red tape. Right now we are at 2 t/c's a week in the Demogame with 3 or 4 turns each (on average). We play an MSDG turn almost everyday. The timetables are VERY close to each other... except the the early Demogame will tend to go faster, and the late Demogame to go slower.

 

[Babbler]

The Senate should ether be abolished or be reformed. The Senate should be a group of wise, active and experenced citizens, like the Senate of Rome [or at lest the way it was intened to be like]. They not be drawed from the body of city governors.

They would elected for a term but first have nominated to a list by the people of Fanaticia. They would perhaps sutdy issues and make a report to the people and Cabinet. They also hold vetos on Consititional Reform.

Any way, just an sugesstion

 

[Octavian X]

Electing the Senate as an entity seperate from the Governors? An interesting proposition. I believe we used Governors as Senators to give Govs a more definite place in government: As Senators, they are members of the legislative branch, rather than executive or judicial branches.

My belief is that governors generally know what they are doing, and should be entrusted with this job. A seperate Senator position would not only add to our already position-heavy government, but would turn into something newbies gravitate to, and vets stay away from.

Actually, I have an idea that would allow the Senate another thing to vote on involving expelling deadbeat leaders. More discussion to come...

 

[Chieftess]

There's a problem there... That means even more posistions to fill, which won't happen. We just had over 22 posistions, and we barely filled them all! If this means another 22 posistions, then we'll NEVER fill it. Maybe in a Multisite single player demogame (where each civ site can be their own province).

 

[Ehecatl Atzin]

I agree with Chieftess, there is no need to open more positions when there is obviously not enuff people to fill them. The Senate is, more or less, fine as it is. Just beacuse there are ups and downs in that thread doesn't mean the governors/senators have "nothing to do" but rather there is nothing that we see that affects the way we do bussiness

EA

 

[FortyJ]

Mandating that the Senate vote on ratification of all treaties would cause serious delays in the execution of the demogame. If you are not convinced, take a pencil to paper next time you play a game with sixteen civs and just make a tick mark on the paper every time the AI approaches you with a treaty proposal. I'm fairly sure that you're going to run out of paper long before you reach the Middle Ages, which is when the offers for alliances and MPPs and such really get going....

<><><><>

So, let's throw this on the fire and see if it cooks...

If we are determined to reorganize the senate, then perhaps we should consider the idea of allowing the senate to vote on declarations of war. The citizenry (aka Congress) already votes for this in the standard FA. Adding a Senate vote on this matter would be a logical next step.

Considering that their jobs will be most directly affected by such a declaration, it seems only fitting and proper that they have a direct say on matters such as these. Furthermore, this vote can be taken concurrently with the citizenry poll or immediately upon conclusion of that poll, so any potential delay will likely prove minimal.