All arguements aside This is what needs to be accomplished to get the senate up and ready for elections.
We need to determine how many seats there will be initially
We need to organize how the majoity and Minority interact.
We need to come to terms on how many parties the senate will initially be comprised as.
Meaning there may be 500 parties available for the election but how many parties do we want taking part in the actual senate.
We need to structure the initial voting arrangement ( ie yay, nay, abstain) and how ties will work and or what happens when a bill becomes defeated..will it come back next session. We also need to know what constitutes a bills passage to law...will it be a simple majority vote to win or other.
We need to determine the actual period of time that an elected senator will serve for. Will we have elections every four months, six months, or more.
We need to determine what administration roles are necessaryand how they are staffed. Will the elected senate hold elections amongst themselves for these positions or will the majority party and minority party be assigned positions based on being either the majority or minority.
There will be other things to decide but these things are where I think we need to start
The floor is also open to name suggestions for those that feel that Senate isn't a good choice...let the fun begin
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Senate Disscussion |
|
|
Talen Morgan
Amused
Join date: 2 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,097
|
11-19-2004 08:44
|
|
Talen Morgan
Amused
Join date: 2 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,097
|
11-19-2004 09:42
This was posted by Ulrika in the consitution thread so I thought I'd bring it here.
1. We need to determine how many seats there will be initially I like the 10% rule with a minimum of 5. No limits on parties. 2. We need to organize how the majoity and Minority interact. I was intrigued by the d'Hondt method but it seems to favor large parties over small. I'd like just the opposite and am willing (as demonstrated previously) to create a system where smaller parties exercise more power. I'll think need to think about this more. 3. We need to come to terms on how many parties the senate will initially be comprised as. Meaning there may be 500 parties available for the election but how many parties do we want taking part in the actual senate. We need to start a faction thread and see how many different parties are interested. Would you like to do that Talen? Once we see how many serious parties there are with enough members, we can decide if it's too many. I don't think it will be though. 4. We need to structure the initial voting arrangement ( ie yay, nay, abstain) and how ties will work and or what happens when a bill becomes defeated..will it come back next session. We also need to know what constitutes a bills passage to law...will it be a simple majority vote to win or other. Yes. I am all for simplicity, given that this is a small group. We can let the system grow in complexity later. I like simple majority for laws and 2/3 vote for constitutional amendments. 5. We need to determine the actual period of time that an elected senator will serve for. Will we have elections every four months, six months, or more. I'd like to have 2 month terms of service. This is because our lease is on a 4-month schedule. I'd hate to see a single government take out the entire city due to a bad term. 6. We need to determine what administration roles are necessaryand how they are staffed. Will the elected senate hold elections amongst themselves for these positions or will the majority party and minority party be assigned positions based on being either the majority or minority. This is up in the air as it depends on the structure of the Representative branch. I'll revisit this in detail this weekend. ~Ulrika~ __________________ |
|
Satchmo Prototype
eSheep
Join date: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1,323
|
11-19-2004 10:24
I was intrigued by the d'Hondt method but it seems to favor large parties over small. I'd like just the opposite and am willing (as demonstrated previously) to create a system where smaller parties exercise more power. I'll think need to think about this more. Maybe I'm confused Ulrika. Your proposing a system that gives the minority more power than the majority? Is that a reverse Democracy. Wouldn't I try to vote in the party I hate as the majority so they have less power? Maybe I misread, "smaller parties exercise more power". Can you explain (or point me towards the post that explains)? |
|
Talen Morgan
Amused
Join date: 2 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,097
|
11-19-2004 11:26
1. We need to determine how many seats there will be initially I like the 10% rule with a minimum of 5. No limits on parties. I can live with that ...but I think for a party to be recognized they should have a minimum number of people involved...5 was brought up at one point. 2. We need to organize how the majoity and Minority interact. I was intrigued by the d'Hondt method but it seems to favor large parties over small. I'd like just the opposite and am willing (as demonstrated previously) to create a system where smaller parties exercise more power. I'll think need to think about this more. I don't think any party should wield more power especially a minority party...I think we should set this up in a way that will force people to work together and come to terms for the betterment of the city. 3. We need to come to terms on how many parties the senate will initially be comprised as. Meaning there may be 500 parties available for the election but how many parties do we want taking part in the actual senate. We need to start a faction thread and see how many different parties are interested. Would you like to do that Talen? Once we see how many serious parties there are with enough members, we can decide if it's too many. I don't think it will be though. Faction thread started..I will post about my party tonight or tomorrow. But what I was getting at was how the house seats will be distributed. I don't like the idea of 2 party senate I think it should be at least 3 parties involved. 4. We need to structure the initial voting arrangement ( ie yay, nay, abstain) and how ties will work and or what happens when a bill becomes defeated..will it come back next session. We also need to know what constitutes a bills passage to law...will it be a simple majority vote to win or other. Yes. I am all for simplicity, given that this is a small group. We can let the system grow in complexity later. I like simple majority for laws and 2/3 vote for constitutional amendments. I agree with this comopletely 5. We need to determine the actual period of time that an elected senator will serve for. Will we have elections every four months, six months, or more. I'd like to have 2 month terms of service. This is because our lease is on a 4-month schedule. I'd hate to see a single government take out the entire city due to a bad term. I dont think 2 months is enough time. We love this world but we all have different schedues and real life things to handle. I think 4 months should be the term time. Being that it coincides with the lease I think it even more appropriate 6. We need to determine what administration roles are necessaryand how they are staffed. Will the elected senate hold elections amongst themselves for these positions or will the majority party and minority party be assigned positions based on being either the majority or minority. This is up in the air as it depends on the structure of the Representative branch. I'll revisit this in detail this weekend. ~Ulrika~ once we hammer out the system then we can fine tune these parts. |
|
Satchmo Prototype
eSheep
Join date: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1,323
|
11-19-2004 11:48
dont think 2 months is enough time. We love this world but we all have different schedues and real life things to handle. I think 4 months should be the term time. Being that it coincides with the lease I think it even more appropriate I agree with Ulrika's point though. If the lease is only for 4 months, it would be sad to see one ruling government ruin it. At least at the 2 month mark, if things are looking grim, we can get a new enthused and dedicated leadership. I also agree that 2 months isn't much time, but given the realities of our lease, I think it is just. If our first 2 leaderships strengthen the city, to a point where it has long term viability, this would probably be the first change made to the Constitution. |
|
Talen Morgan
Amused
Join date: 2 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,097
|
11-19-2004 11:56
I agree with Ulrika's point though. If the lease is only for 4 months, it would be sad to see one ruling government ruin it. At least at the 2 month mark, if things are looking grim, we can get a new enthused and dedicated leadership. I also agree that 2 months isn't much time, but given the realities of our lease, I think it is just. If our first 2 leaderships strengthen the city, to a point where it has long term viability, this would probably be the first change made to the Constitution. I think our lease is ongoing depending on a progress check every 4 months...and if we are going to do this we should expect to be here long term lease or not. If something were to happen to the lease then I can reasonably assure that a sim would be purchased for the community to continue and with tier donations we would be at the same point we are now...a disscussion for another time though. Just going by disscussions here theres a real likelyhood that some measures might take time for the senate to come to terms on and I feel that 2 months just isn't enough. |
|
Kendra Bancroft
Rhine Maiden
Join date: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 5,813
|
11-19-2004 12:01
I think our lease is ongoing depending on a progress check every 4 months...and if we are going to do this we should expect to be here long term lease or not. If something were to happen to the lease then I can reasonably assure that a sim would be purchased for the community to continue and with tier donations we would be at the same point we are now...a disscussion for another time though. Just going by disscussions here theres a real likelyhood that some measures might take time for the senate to come to terms on and I feel that 2 months just isn't enough. How about quarterly elections -- with some sort of vote of confidence to take place half way thru one's term of office? |
|
Talen Morgan
Amused
Join date: 2 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,097
|
11-19-2004 12:18
How about quarterly elections -- with some sort of vote of confidence to take place half way thru one's term of office? aThis could work but I think I'd only like to see a vote of confidence given to the people somehow....this way if they arent happy with their elected representitives theay can challenge them at the halfway point or perhaps even before. * just so everyone knows both my home keyboard and work keyboard are messed up and make me miss spaces and letters....actual spelling mistakes are still me though  |
|
a lost user
Join date: ?
Posts: ?
|
11-19-2004 12:50
How about quarterly elections -- with some sort of vote of confidence to take place half way thru one's term of office? I would not be for this. I think that 3 months is not long enough and an impeachment process will replace the need for a confirmation vote, which would be VERY messy. I also think it would be better if the government officials didn't have to always be in the campaign mode. I like a 6-month term. _____________________
|
|
a lost user
Join date: ?
Posts: ?
|
11-19-2004 12:51
I posted this on the constitutional thread before I realized this thread existed.
1. We need to determine how many seats there will be initially I like the 10% rule with a minimum of 5. No limits on parties. I think this is good. We will want to cap this as the population grows as we do not want a really huge governing body. Productivity declines rapidly in large groups. 2. We need to organize how the majoity and Minority interact. I was intrigued by the d'Hondt method but it seems to favor large parties over small. I'd like just the opposite and am willing (as demonstrated previously) to create a system where smaller parties exercise more power. I'll think need to think about this more. I agree with you Ulrika. I would be for favoring the minorities making it harder for a large group to run rough shot over everyone else. Personally I like your proposal to have 2 votes. One weighted per the parties and one not. 3. We need to come to terms on how many parties the senate will initially be comprised as. Meaning there may be 500 parties available for the election but how many parties do we want taking part in the actual senate. We need to start a faction thread and see how many different parties are interested. Would you like to do that Talen? Once we see how many serious parties there are with enough members, we can decide if it's too many. I don't think it will be though. I propose a 5 person minimum for a recognized party. I agree that we probably need to see how many the parties form and adjust it with adequate time before the elections. Yes, I agree, start a faction thread and after say a month we will have a pretty good idea of what we will be working with. 4. We need to structure the initial voting arrangement ( ie yay, nay, abstain) and how ties will work and or what happens when a bill becomes defeated..will it come back next session. We also need to know what constitutes a bills passage to law...will it be a simple majority vote to win or other. Yes. I am all for simplicity, given that this is a small group. We can let the system grow in complexity later. I like simple majority for laws and 2/3 vote for constitutional amendments. Thoughts: 1. There should be a senior senator, maybe the one that receives the most votes, who will break ties. 2. If a vote is not passed I think it should be killed. Later we can modify this as the need for complexity arises. 3. A vote is passed with a simple majority unless a filibuster is used in which a 2/3 majority will be needed. 4. Once a bill passes, send it to the Academy where they can veto it under the grounds of being unconstitutional. 5. Once a bill passes the Academy it is sent to the Guild where they can veto it on the grounds of fiscal or possibly moral issues. 6. If either the Academy or Guild veto the bill they have 2 options. A. Kill it right then B. Make changes that would be acceptably and send it back to the Senate where the process starts over with the exception of a 2/3 majority being required to pass. 7. I agree with a standard 2/3 majority for constitutional issues. 5. We need to determine the actual period of time that an elected senator will serve for. Will we have elections every four months, six months, or more. I'd like to have 2 month terms of service. This is because our lease is on a 4-month schedule. I'd hate to see a single government take out the entire city due to a bad term. Seems to me that if we do it every 4 months that there will kind of always be a campaign going on. I like 6 months myself. Maybe we do have a bad term but I would try to have faith in the system and just ride it out if we do. 6. We need to determine what administration roles are necessary and how they are staffed. Will the elected senate hold elections amongst themselves for these positions or will the majority party and minority party be assigned positions based on being either the majority or minority. This is up in the air as it depends on the structure of the Representative branch. I'll revisit this in detail this weekend. ~Ulrika~ I am unsure what administrative positions are needed but this needs to be discussed. Does anyone have any suggestions? _____________________
|
|
Talen Morgan
Amused
Join date: 2 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,097
|
11-19-2004 14:14
I think the Academy should have the veto but I am dead against 2 other branches having veto power over the senate. The philosphical branch deals with the constitution and should have the only veto.
|
|
a lost user
Join date: ?
Posts: ?
|
11-19-2004 14:29
I think the Academy should have the veto but I am dead against 2 other branches having veto power over the senate. The philosphical branch deals with the constitution and should have the only veto. My reasoning for this is to give equil power to each of the 3 branches. The veto would require the Senate to pass laws that they believe will pass in both of the other branches. I am curious why you would not be for the Guild having veto power? _____________________
|
|
Pendari Lorentz
Senior Member
Join date: 5 Sep 2003
Posts: 4,372
|
11-19-2004 15:31
We need to determine how many seats there will be initially I agree with the idea of the 10% rule with a minimum of 5. Ulimited parties, but I agree there should be a minimum number of people within the parties. I like the idea of 5, but feel we should be able to change this number in the future as we grow larger. We need to organize how the majoity and Minority interact. I know that I do not like the idea of any "majority" having more power. Even minority majority. I would love to see something in place that keeps things on more equal footing so that there isn't really a majority or minority. But I may not be thinking of some situations where there will be an obvious majority and minority. I suppose we need to just make sure to have checks and balances in place. We need to come to terms on how many parties the senate will initially be comprised as. Meaning there may be 500 parties available for the election but how many parties do we want taking part in the actual senate. I think there should be a minimum of 3 parties. I do not think there should be a cap on the number of parties allowed. Instead there should be min requirements for a party to be considered valid (ie min number of people within that party). We need to structure the initial voting arrangement ( ie yay, nay, abstain) and how ties will work and or what happens when a bill becomes defeated..will it come back next session. We also need to know what constitutes a bills passage to law...will it be a simple majority vote to win or other. I agree with what Ulrika stated for this: "Yes. I am all for simplicity, given that this is a small group. We can let the system grow in complexity later. I like simple majority for laws and 2/3 vote for constitutional amendments." We need to determine the actual period of time that an elected senator will serve for. Will we have elections every four months, six months, or more. I like the idea of 4 months. It gives enough time to get things done, and short enough time that people should be able to commit to it easier, and less chance for disgruntled people to leave the projekt. I would say no more than 5 months max, but even that is pushing it in an online environment. I like the idea of the vote of confidence halfway through, but agree that it should be something we get from the people. Also, will elected be able to run again? Meaning would it be possible for someone to be in the position for two terms? I can't remember if this was already discussed in the constitution thread. We need to determine what administration roles are necessaryand how they are staffed. Will the elected senate hold elections amongst themselves for these positions or will the majority party and minority party be assigned positions based on being either the majority or minority. Not really sure what my thoughts are here. I agree that after more of the structure of the Representative branch is in place it will be easier to work on this aspect. As for the veto power, I'm not sure where I stand just yet. |
|
Kendra Bancroft
Rhine Maiden
Join date: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 5,813
|
11-19-2004 15:41
I think the Academy should have the veto but I am dead against 2 other branches having veto power over the senate. The philosphical branch deals with the constitution and should have the only veto. I agree --The Artisinal Branch should not have veto power. |
|
Talen Morgan
Amused
Join date: 2 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,097
|
11-19-2004 16:30
My reasoning for this is to give equil power to each of the 3 branches. The veto would require the Senate to pass laws that they believe will pass in both of the other branches. I am curious why you would not be for the Guild having veto power? My resasoning is that the Academy is in charge of interperating the constitution...it makes sense that the law once made goes to them to make sure it falls within the constitution. If the Artisinal branch isn't in agreement with a law they have options to change it. They very easily can call for a work stoppage and that would effectively shut down the city. Not that I think it would come to that because as the senate it will be our mandate to do the peoples will...so we should get a sense of things before a bill passes anyway. |
|
a lost user
Join date: ?
Posts: ?
|
11-19-2004 16:42
My resasoning is that the Academy is in charge of interperating the constitution...it makes sense that the law once made goes to them to make sure it falls within the constitution. Then under this reasoning the ONLY way to veto a law is for constitutional reasons. What if a law in not un-constitutional but just a stupid law? The Aritisnal branch could use the veto for non-constitutional reasons. I agree that the Acadamy should only interpret the constitutionality of a law. If the Artisinal branch isn't in agreement with a law they have options to change it. They very easily can call for a work stoppage and that would effectively shut down the city. Not that I think it would come to that because as the senate it will be our mandate to do the peoples will...so we should get a sense of things before a bill passes anyway. Then the only way to overturn a stupid law is to shut down the city. That sounds drastic to me and should be a last resort. There really does need to be a way to veto a law under reasons other than it being un-constitutional. _____________________
|
|
Talen Morgan
Amused
Join date: 2 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,097
|
11-19-2004 18:47
Then under this reasoning the ONLY way to veto a law is for constitutional reasons. What if a law in not un-constitutional but just a stupid law? The Aritisnal branch could use the veto for non-constitutional reasons. I agree that the Acadamy should only interpret the constitutionality of a law. Then the only way to overturn a stupid law is to shut down the city. That sounds drastic to me and should be a last resort. There really does need to be a way to veto a law under reasons other than it being un-constitutional. The Philisophical branch will look at any new law and judge by its merits if its a sound law , if it falls in line with the constsitution, and if its good for the city as a whole. Stupid laws won't make it out of senate and if they should for some reason the Philisophical branch can kill it. If we pass a law that is outrageous to the citizens they will ,or at least should be ,able throw a vote of no confidence and purge the idiots making stupid law. If we anger the artisans by taxing them out the ass you can bet they will stop work....and they should. |
|
a lost user
Join date: ?
Posts: ?
|
11-19-2004 19:26
The Philisophical branch will look at any new law and judge by its merits if its a sound law , if it falls in line with the constsitution, and if its good for the city as a whole. Stupid laws won't make it out of senate and if they should for some reason the Philisophical branch can kill it. Now you are contradicting yourself. See “if it falls in line with the constitution” yes, that is what it is supposed to do. But, see if “it is good for the city as a whole” no, that is not a constitutional matter. What we are doing is creating a system of checks and balances to even out the power of the respective branches. I see nothing wrong with trusting the Artisinal branch with the power of veto regarding non-constitutional issues. I am still unsure why you are insistent against that. If we pass a law that is outrageous to the citizens they will ,or at least should be ,able throw a vote of no confidence and purge the idiots making stupid law. If we anger the artisans by taxing them out the ass you can bet they will stop work....and they should. Now you want to give the citizens a vote of no confidence (kind of like a veto) instead of the Artisinal branch. That just does not make sense. In either case it really shouldn’t get that far. I do not want to see the Artisinal branches only remedy being to shut down the city and I sure as heck don’t want the citizens to have to vote on this stuff too. That is what the legislature is for. Impeachment is the citizens remedy and the added layer of veto power for the Artisinal branch makes sense for non-constitutional issues. _____________________
|
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
11-20-2004 00:46
I'd like to focus on checks and balances. One of the biggest arguments for the creation of a multibranch government is the presence of checks and balances. If we are going to have a multibranch government, we must concretely establish the checks and balances.
On this web page you can see the checks and balances employed in the U.S. system. They are:
For our government I propose:
We must have checks and balances. Additions are welcome. If you disagree with a particular item please suggest a replacement. Gwyneth, as a European your input is invaluable, given your novel experience (relative to us USers). ~Ulrika~ _____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
11-20-2004 01:09
I would like to second Gwyneth's proposal to call the representative body the "Representative Assembly" or RA for short instead of the "Senate". It just sounds unexpected and impressive, whereas "Senate" is common. Hey, I can make proposals based on cool factor if I want!
 ~Ulrika~ _____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
11-20-2004 01:31
I was delighted with Gwyneth's post concerning the D'Hont method of tallying votes. As a USian, I'm quite ignorant of how one would assign seats to an assembly. I've since educated myself on various methods of tallying votes and have created a table of comparisons, followed by some recommendations based on personal preferences.
The methods that were of most interest to me were the D'Hondt method, the Sainte Laguë method, and the Largest Remainder Method using either Hare or Droop quotas. (Follow the links for details.) In the table below I assume there are 7 seats in the Representative Assembly (RA) and 49 total votes collected. The conclusions drawn from the data below are independent of the number of seats and votes collected. It's just an example and the RA could be bigger or smaller. CODE
As can be seen above, the Sainte Laguë method distributes more seats among smaller parties than other methods. I feel providing all parties with a voice is a critical check for the Representative branch. Let's do a run through of a vote using the various methods of RA seat selection. Since some had the same seat allocation, they have been lumped together. CODE
I'd like to point out two interesting things above. First there are factions that have no say in the vote at all (in fact they are excluded from the RA altogether). Additionally, two factions are sufficient to render the remaining smaller factions irrelevant. This is why I suggested a second "minority vote" previously. I've since decided that it should be called a "faction vote", where every faction receives a single vote. Below is an example of a faction vote which shows how it would overturn the above votes (both are required to pass a law). CODE
As can be seen, this second vote gives a voice to parties which would otherwise be excluded by other methods and encourages a group which works together to meet the needs of all parties. With that said, I would officially like to recommend the Sainte Laguë Method with the addition of a second Faction Vote required to pass a law. ~Ulrika~ _____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
|
Satchmo Prototype
eSheep
Join date: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1,323
|
11-20-2004 07:11
I would like to second Gwyneth's proposal to call the representative body the "Representative Assembly" or RA for short instead of the "Senate". It just sounds unexpected and impressive, whereas "Senate" is common. Hey, I can make proposals based on cool factor if I want! ~Ulrika~ I third it... Representative Assembly sounds more diplomatic than the (Imperial) Senate. |
|
Satchmo Prototype
eSheep
Join date: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1,323
|
11-20-2004 07:57
As can be seen above, the Sainte Laguë method distributes more seats among smaller parties than other methods. I feel providing all parties with a voice is a critical check for the Representative branch. I'm all for a sound mathematically proven system that provides a reasonable but maximum number of voices. With that said, I would officially like to recommend the Sainte Laguë Method with the addition of a second Faction Vote required to pass a law. ~Ulrika~ I would second that (officially). |
|
a lost user
Join date: ?
Posts: ?
|
11-20-2004 09:45
I would like to second Gwyneth's proposal to call the representative body the "Representative Assembly" or RA for short instead of the "Senate". It just sounds unexpected and impressive, whereas "Senate" is common. Hey, I can make proposals based on cool factor if I want! ~Ulrika~ Call me crazy but I kind of like calling it the "Senate". _____________________
|
|
Talen Morgan
Amused
Join date: 2 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,097
|
11-20-2004 12:35
I prefer the Senate as well ...
I do not agree with the Sainte Laguë method at all and do not support this. I also dont support a second minority vote or Faction vote. |