How the Senate could look like

[DAVOUT]

Senate Rules of Procedures

In application of the Constitution (Article II, §11), the Senate organizes its works according to the following Rules of Procedure.

1. The Senate Archives Office (SAF) keeps records of all laws, motions, resolutions, and otherwise that are passed, amended, or removed, as stated in the Constitution (Article II §12), as well as reports, minutes, treaties, and documents of any kind, created by the Senate. The Keeper of the SAF organize the filing in multiple criteria, mainly chronological, nature, subjects, and any other he finds appropriate.

2. The Secretary of the Senate (SecoS) maintains the Agenda of what is currently in progress and what is to be done but not yet started.

3. The Senate Commission of Laws (SenCL), in view of ensuring a high quality of all legal writings, offers to all Senators, individually or in commissions, to review the text of any poll, laws, orders, etc, they intend to publish; once the review is passed, the text will bear the stamp Reviewed by The Senate Commission of Laws. A text not reviewed is normally published, but do not bear the stamp.

4. The Senate Commission of Domestic Affairs (ComDAf) controls the Government action; in order to reduce duplication of efforts its members accept that all threads they would have previously opened under their name be discussed by the Commission, and, if agreed by the members, be published under the heading of the ComDAf, with them as Rapporteur.

5. The Senate Commission of Military Affairs (CoMil) controls the Government action; in order to reduce duplication of efforts its members accept that all threads they would have previously opened under their name be discussed by the Commission, and, if agreed by the members, be published under the heading of the ComMil, with them as Rapporteur.

6. The Senate Commission of Foreign Affairs (ComFA) controls the Government action; in order to reduce duplication of efforts its members accept that all threads they would have previously opened under their name be discussed by the Commission, and, if agreed by the members, be published under the heading of the ComFA, with them as Rapporteur.

7. The Senate Commission of Economy and Finance (ComEF) controls the Government action; in order to reduce duplication of efforts its members accept that all threads they would have previously opened under their name be discussed by the Commission, and, if agreed by the members, be published under the heading of the ComEF, with them as Rapporteur.

8 All Senator can become a member of one or several commissions, permanently or temporarily; as a consequence, the internal polls that the commissions could decide to make will not refer to any quorum, but only to voters.

9. Each Commission nominates a Secretary to keep track of the members and maintain a list of current members.

10. Internal polls in commissions are not automatically counted; each Senator posts his vote which is public.

11. The rules of procedures describing how each Commission intends to organize its works will be annexed to and part of the present Senate Rules of Procedures.

12. The incumbents of the posts opened in §1 and 2 are nominated then approved in a poll. These functions have no effects on the Senators rights.


What do you think ?

[Arnelos]

I like it.

Only a few (mostly cosmetic) things:

The titles all sound RL U.N.-ish... I'd personally different titles (this is admittedly ENTIRELY cosmetic):

* Senate Archives Officer -> Senate Clerk

* Secretary of the Senate (this is fine, as President of the Senate could get confusing)

* The comissions would best be re-worded to committees, as that's what they are The references to rapporteurship can probably also be reworded for less confusion to those not familiar with the term (you'd be surprised...).

* The "Secretary" of each "Commission" would instead be the "Chairman" of each "Committee".

NON-COSMETIC ISSUES:

Senators could (and perhaps should?) still be permitted to submit bills that DO NOT go through the committee process, but I'd generally say that (especially given current trends with people posting polls) this is unlikely to be very frequent and I'd think would be generally avoided due to the usefulness of the committee system. In this manner, committees could ADD to the effectiveness of the legislative body on a voluntary basis without actually hampering senators' rights in the process. That's a highly negotiatable issue, however

Otherwise, I love it

[DAVOUT]

Thank you Arnelos for your comments.

I would not argue for the titles, except for the Secretary of the committees : Chairman evocates power, but all senators are equal, so I think that secretary is more innocuous, but an other word (more exotic like questor?) could be fine.

In my intent the project does not reduce the capacity of the Senators to submit bills under their name alone ; those bills would only be deprived of the expected credibility of the committees. You will notice that in §3, the review of the Commission of Laws is offered to individual senators ; but it can be stated more clearly.

The rapporteurship aims to evidence the special effort made by the Senator to propose to the people a bill hardly discussed in commission, and therefore worth the close attention and interest of the people. An other title can certainly be found ; Author ?

Thanks again.

[Thud]

Wow. Even I think this is a little over the top. I think that:

-SAF and SecoS should be combined to General Consul or some such name.

-ComDAF and ComEF should be combined.

-ComFA might be included with Military or combined DAF\EF.

-Also, we might want a science commitee.

-Is SenCL truly needed?

We really only need 3 or 4 Senate commitees and a Speaker.


I actually like the names as is, though it doesn't matter to me if they are changed.

In conclusion, I like the concept of organizing the Senate. You have my vote, but cut it down a little and you can have a majority vote.

[Duddha]

While I like many of the ideas presented by Davout, i think I'm with Thud on this one.

[DAVOUT]

Thank you Thud and Duddha.

I made the choice to make clear 1/ that all Senators are equal so, there is no Speaker who would not have any meaning if he was not granted some powers 2/ that the Senate organization demonstrates that it adresses from the beginning all responsibilities given by the Constitution, and this is why it duplicates the Government.

ComDAF and ComEF can be combined, but considering the workload and the nature really different of the jobs, I thought that 2 persons are needed, and in the Senate, a Senator cant accept an ancillary post such as appointee, because all Senators are equal.

The Science Commitee will be added (simply omitted for reason above).

I believe the SenCL is needed to attract and retain, within the Senate, the best legal qualifications, and avoid in the future the recourse to experts in ad hoc outside commissions.

Of course, this is for a start; all changes, such as uniting two commissions, will be easely done when needed.

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I made the choice to make clear 1/ that all Senators are equal so, there is no Speaker who would not have any meaning if he was not granted some powers

I like the idea of committees which could allow the average citizen (or senator if you want) to get involved and give a degree of organization to the process (if only to make it feel more real).

I would hope, too, that party politics would get involved. A two party system (DIA and Hawks) with independent/moderate swing voters (assuming everyone wouldn't mind being open about their gameplay tendencies) could make senate relations very interesting and could also allow the parties to elect albeit ceremonial leadership positions and institute block voting procedures on issues to influence change.

I also would hope that the senate would utilize not only its power to make laws but also its power of influence by passing non-binding resolutions of support or disapproval of certain actions and which would reflect the will of the people (especially around election time )

[Arnelos]

grrr.....

My "loopholes" thread cloaked

Anyone wanna post a link to it if you can actually see it?

[Thud]

Fundamentally, I agree completely with you DAVOUT. Whether many would actually want to perform this work, and manage to do it, remains to be seen.

[DAVOUT]

ruby_maser,

If we want to play with politics in our demogame, we must begin with developing political arguments in connection with the game and strong enough to divide people. The DIA and Hawks have been unable to do that because they stubbornly stick to concepts of RL not adapted to the game, and nobody was able to segregate realist DIA from realist Hawks on the basis how the game must be played.

We can find lines along which people would divide themselves in two parties : those who give full priority to the CivIII game, and those who give full priority to the democracy part of the game. There are many other possible lines but this one is certainly the more loaded with passion that we can find here, and passion is badly needed in politics...

IMHO, once such parties would be incepted and running, the Senate would accommodate them easily.

[DAVOUT]

Duplicate

[DAVOUT]

Thud,

The fact that the Senate is organized does not mean that the gamers life is more complicated; it could even be easier. The workload is not due to the proposed organization, but to the fact that the citizens exist and that they pass laws which have to be handle all the way to archives.

[ruby_maser]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
passion is badly needed in politics...

IMHO, once such parties would be incepted and running, the Senate would accommodate them easily.

Hopefully, the PTW demo game will give us more along the lines of ethical and moral questions such as:
should we use an opponents workers as a slave labor force? ....human opponents could take more offense to this and would certainly hold a grudge longer too ...and our own people will probably differ but will they differ "enough"?

I'm sure that playing humans will be much more of a tightrope balancing act and will require us to push ourselves more than the computer does. This said, I hope it does help generate more of a need and desire for party affiliation... because, to me, the game is the process.

[jdjdjd]

Now that this question has become much more pertinent....

I agree with Thud, we need to some how reduce the number of commissions. But, I like the fact that one Senator could in fact be on multiple committees. There are only so many people out there, not ministers or asst ministers or judges, so you have a limited supply of possible secratary's around.

As a Senator, I would being the nomination process of asking Davout to be our first Secratary, so we can begin the hashing out of these procedures.

I would gladly be on the SenCL, to assist in draft of rules, amendments, laws, etc.

[Kloreep]

I like Davout's plan, but I frankly don't see the reason for some of the committees like the ComDaf (Domestic), CoMil (Military), and ComFa (Foreign Affairs); these areas are already controlled and supervised by elected ministers under the constitution. Unless you want to amend all power to the senate, I don't see a reason for these. ComEF (Economy and Finance) would only be needed if we want to take our financial power rather than passing it on to the Prez (which I don't see much need for, unless we disapprove of the Prez's MoE-type deputy/lack of one).

BTW, I'd be happy to work in the SAF (Archives Office); I'm already managing the archives in the directory.

[DAVOUT]

Thank you Kloreep,

Whereas the Government is in charge of the country for one term, the Senate is responsible for the long term. In this respect it could not be useless that Senators interested in some particular area follow together the state of affairs and prepare from time to time a law in view of improving the future of the Nation. It is probably among those well informed citizens that particularly well prepared candidates will be found for the future elections.
But dont worry, the Senate will not create by its sole existence bureaucracy or complexity, it will be just what the Senators will enable it to be.
Incidentally, I see as a good omen that the important job in the DAF has attracted such a serious applicant.

[Thud]

1. Supreme Bigwig (aka SAF, any name will do) :
keeps records of all laws, motions, resolutions, and otherwise that are passed, amended, or removed, as stated in the Constitution (Article II §12), as well as reports, minutes, treaties, and documents of any kind, created by the Senate. The Keeper of the SAF organize the filing in multiple criteria, mainly chronological, nature, subjects, and any other he finds appropriate.

2. Senate Majority\Minority Leaders : A referendum will be taken to determine the party or bloc of voters that is most popular. i.e. people will say the Hawks have more power than the DIA or independents. The Hawk representative or leader will become the Senate Majority Leader, and the DIA and independents will share a Minority Leader. Each Leader would draft Agendas. Differing Agendas would lead to real purpose to opposition, and would clearly expose issues to the public eye.

3. Senate Oversight Committee : A comination of ComDAf, ComFA, ComEF, and retaining those organizations as subcommittees. This is to simplify the process: any thread regarding domestic or nonmilitary foreign affairs will be submitted to the SOC.

5. The Senate Commission of Military Affairs (CoMil)

6. Commision on Science, Technology, and Development : Examines the method the President and Ministers take in futuring progresive growth and choosing techs.

All commisions will serve pretty much the same purpose and work pretty much the same way as Davout suggests.

[Kloreep]

I'm against having majority/minority leaders. For one thing, independents should not be lumped in with parties (or one party with another, for that matter); nor would independents be in a good situation in the majority, as any "leader" of the inds would be powerless and without any ability to form a majority agenda.

Also, where does that leave third parties? Civ is much simpler than RL, yes, so it is unlikely we'll see a major third party rise to power; but it could happen. In that situation, would you really want to lump two parties and the independents together?

I'm fine with formalizing party leaders in some way, and perhaps giving them limited powers. But we are a small enough senate that I don't think we need party grouping; issues can be debated by the entire floor, and if it's a major issue (switching govs, emancipation, etc.) temporary affiliations will form till it is decided by vote. And I doubt many issues will split cleanly along party lines; I'm sure some DIA members would be against emancipation, as slaves require no upkeep but workers do, and we'd thus have to spend more money on native workers. Hawks might think we should be benevolent to members of our own empire, even if we're hostile to the outside world. And that example doesn't include independants.

Anyway, this post is already much longer than I meant it to be. My point is, issues of any importance or controversy will be discussed, highlighted, etc. on their own; we don't need parties to define the agenda, and so I think they shouldn't.