Failed Constitutional Amendment (Senate Numbers)
- Thread starter Phoenix
- Start date
The Speaker or Chairperson may assign this to a thread that has failed their respective house's legislative process.
- Status
With Senator Sacento yielding his time, debate is now open.
I am not too certain how I feel about this bill, from a logistical standpoint I feel like we may have enough folks who would be willing to become apart of the Senate but I also feel like it would lose some of its competitiveness. Competition breeds activity, it draws eyes and keeps people's attention for the event unfolding before them. Granted, the way we do our election does hold promise that not everyone would be elected, but I'm not frankly expecting more than 7 people to be interested in the Senate. This may rely heavily on the support of a smaller, more defined General Assembly being done first to keep that "balance".
Also, I strongly disagree with the Preamble of this amendment, knowing full well it does not hold any legal weight. We don't have enough manpower for what exactly? Debate happens. Is it an issue that we don't criticize the living hell out of a bill? If that's how people felt, then why keep this group elected?
I am not too certain how I feel about this bill, from a logistical standpoint I feel like we may have enough folks who would be willing to become apart of the Senate but I also feel like it would lose some of its competitiveness. Competition breeds activity, it draws eyes and keeps people's attention for the event unfolding before them. Granted, the way we do our election does hold promise that not everyone would be elected, but I'm not frankly expecting more than 7 people to be interested in the Senate. This may rely heavily on the support of a smaller, more defined General Assembly being done first to keep that "balance".
Also, I strongly disagree with the Preamble of this amendment, knowing full well it does not hold any legal weight. We don't have enough manpower for what exactly? Debate happens. Is it an issue that we don't criticize the living hell out of a bill? If that's how people felt, then why keep this group elected?
I don't think this is necessary at the moment. Maybe it would be a good thing to do if we had more number of people willing to run but as my fellow senator Phoenix mentioned, increment in number of seats would mean less competitive elections. This might even result in more frequent vacancies in senate.
I don't see how that will affect anything without it being an IC ran effort by the Executive, and even then, the Executive hasn't been looking too hot lately. Yes, I was in charge of the effort but then things stumbled and surcomed in the UD committee to slightly hiccup over the Ushers being used. Just something to better manage in the future. I agree to a certain point with you, but I think that's something the next administration is going to need to work out with the Administrators, or in their last month in office, the Executive can try to sort out.
As far as the bill is concerned, I don't believe this will help it what so ever at the moment.
I don't think that 7 Senators are necessary. As it is, basically every active person in the region has a government role and even just two terms ago, we had multiple people go inactive. While 7 Senators can be useful with committees, the lower chamber (GA) is barely pulling in more votes than the Senate so with 7, the GA would actually be more exclusive than the higher house.
- Status