GC Running for Senate

[Zimmerwald]

Realistically, most of us have at least a passing familiarity with one another and posting a cutesy introduction is both unnecessary and just a little beyond me right now.  I have confidence that you can see past the dourness and see real seriousness and commitment to this project.  And I think part of what we're trying to rebuild here is the sort of community that fosters that kind of confidence.  Lawmakers can't do that on their own, but they can help form, and restrain, and make open, available, and welcoming, institutions, regulations, practices, and norms.  And I'm sounding like a bloviating shitbag super-conventional politician.  I'll stop. 

...Feel free to ask a question or seventeen.

[Sovereign Dixie]

  Lawmakers can't do that on their own, but they can help form, and restrain, and make open, available, and welcoming, institutions, regulations, practices, and norms. 

...

You, also are among those I respect most. What I want to know is, how do you feel the Senate can foster the kind of environment of which you spoke?

[Zimmerwald]

First of all, it can be as open and transparent as possible in its own institutional life.  For example, I would like to establish a Gazette of the Senate, in which, every week or so (or some other time interval) the Speaker would summarize the business and the debates that led to whatever legislation the Senate produced during the time covered.  What alternatives were proposed, which considerations were given weight, how the eventual text was arrived at, things like that.  I believe this would encourage people to take an interest in the business of the Senate, and encourage the Senate, which has the potential to become an insular talking shop or elite club, to be solicitatious to the whole citizenry.  By being open, the Senate can be seen - and be - trustworthy, and a trustworthy central body is a powerful glue.

There's also an idea I just had - quite literally, within the last thirty seconds as of my typing this - of Senators taking on aides.  A smaller Senate will necessarily be harder for newcomers to break into, since incumbents might not want to leave, or might not trust whoever replaced them to be as contientious.  An aide would be introduced to a Senator's duties, and possibly assist the Senator with them or take on legislative projects of their own, but would have no vote: essentially, it would be a way to facilitate the entry of new people into the Senate.  I can see some problems with this idea, such as a Senator attempting to maneuver an aide into his seat and then exercise influence over that person from outside the Senate, but like I said, it just came to me.

[Sovereign Dixie]

First of all, it can be as open and transparent as possible in its own institutional life.  For example, I would like to establish a Gazette of the Senate, in which, every week or so (or some other time interval) the Speaker would summarize the business and the debates that led to whatever legislation the Senate produced during the time covered.  What alternatives were proposed, which considerations were given weight, how the eventual text was arrived at, things like that.  I believe this would encourage people to take an interest in the business of the Senate, and encourage the Senate, which has the potential to become an insular talking shop or elite club, to be solicitatious to the whole citizenry.  By being open, the Senate can be seen - and be - trustworthy, and a trustworthy central body is a powerful glue.

There's also an idea I just had - quite literally, within the last thirty seconds as of my typing this - of Senators taking on aides.  A smaller Senate will necessarily be harder for newcomers to break into, since incumbents might not want to leave, or might not trust whoever replaced them to be as contientious.  An aide would be introduced to a Senator's duties, and possibly assist the Senator with them or take on legislative projects of their own, but would have no vote: essentially, it would be a way to facilitate the entry of new people into the Senate.  I can see some problems with this idea, such as a Senator attempting to maneuver an aide into his seat and then exercise influence over that person from outside the Senate, but like I said, it just came to me.

Well thought out, and best of all, it makes sense. It addresses many of my issues with the senate in it's previous incarnations. How do you feel the senate's relationship with the executive should pan out?

[Zimmerwald]

How do you feel the senate's relationship with the executive should pan out?

I have always believed in strong Senatorial oversight of the Executive.  What I do not want, or think a strong oversight role necessarily implies, is an adversarial relationship between Senate and Delegate.  That way lies mistrust of the Delegate on the part of the Senate - and on the part of the citizenry to whom the Senate is communicating its concerns via the Gazette - and secrecy on the part of the Executive.  Separation of powers does not have to mean separation of business.  Perhaps sponsor a regular summit of the Speaker, Delegate, and Chief Justice to discuss and coordinate initiatives and to catch up, or perhaps make arrangements for a Senator to sit in on a Ministry meeting or for a bureaucrat to converse with a Senator and his aide(s).  And of course the political parties have a role to play in creating openness as well.  Among other things, their forums are public, and can be where, say, a Delegate and Senators of his party, or of the opposition (technical term, that), go to caucus.

[Sovereign Dixie]

How do you feel the senate's relationship with the executive should pan out?

I have always believed in strong Senatorial oversight of the Executive.  What I do not want, or think a strong oversight role necessarily implies, is an adversarial relationship between Senate and Delegate.  That way lies mistrust of the Delegate on the part of the Senate - and on the part of the citizenry to whom the Senate is communicating its concerns via the Gazette - and secrecy on the part of the Executive.  Separation of powers does not have to mean separation of business.  Perhaps sponsor a regular summit of the Speaker, Delegate, and Chief Justice to discuss and coordinate initiatives and to catch up, or perhaps make arrangements for a Senator to sit in on a Ministry meeting or for a bureaucrat to converse with a Senator and his aide(s).  And of course the political parties have a role to play in creating openness as well.  Among other things, their forums are public, and can be where, say, a Delegate and Senators of his party, or of the opposition (technical term, that), go to caucus.

Sounds decent enough to me.

[PoD Gunner]

A strong oversight of the Senate over the Executive has never happened. I like the idea of a regular 'forum' between the Speaker, the Delegate and the Chief Justice. Other than that, can you suggest other means the Senate might use to check on the Executive without resorting to initiatives perceived by the latter as a bothersome picky practice that is to be responded to with an aggressive 'leave me alone'?

[Zimmerwald]

A strong oversight of the Senate over the Executive has never happened.

And it's a damned shame.

I like the idea of a regular 'forum' between the Speaker, the Delegate and the Chief Justice. Other than that, can you suggest other means the Senate might use to check on the Executive without resorting to initiatives perceived by the latter as a bothersome picky practice that is to be responded to with an aggressive 'leave me alone'?

I think one potential seed of a poor relationship between Executive and Senate is exactly that language, and the attitude it exmplifies.  I don't mean to imply that you hold such an opinion of the Senate, and recognize that you're trying to prove a point by employing exaggerated rhetoric.  But I don't think the Senate's primary job is to "check" the Executive, in the sense that the Executive is prevented by the Senate from doing what it wants to do.  In some cases, yes, the Senate absolutely has the right and responsibility to check the Executive, for example if the Senate judges, based on correct and abundant data, that the planned or in-progress actions of the Executive are going to harm the region.  But that is an exceptional case, and the Constitution gives the Senate the tools it needs to act in such a case: I don't need to invent new ones.

What is more necessary than finding new, and yet unbothersome, ways for the Senate to "check" the Executive, the Senate and Executive need to conduct business together.  Regular summits have already been mentioned.  Another possible plan is to give each Senator a special responsibility, unique to them as an individual not to their Senatorial chair (i.e., if I were elected, granted such responsibility, stepped down, and another individual was elected to my place, they would not automatically inherit this responsibility from me) for keeping in contact with a given piece of the bureaucracy.  Part of the problem with Senators working with the bureaucracy was that they weren't necessarily expert: the Executive and the Senate were their own playgrounds, and folks stuck to one side of the fence or another.  But why does that have to be the case?  For example, Elu put in God knows how many hours on Toaster 2, and I'm sure whoever ends up heading up recruitment would appreciate regular contact with him.  I've done more than my share of diplomacy (not in NS, but in CN), and would by happy to liaise with whoever ends up heading foreign affairs.  Now, without tooting our Senatorial candidates' horns too much, our eventual heads of department will be throwing away valuable if they curl up in a prickly little ball and pray for solitude at the slightest hint of someone crossing that inter-branch fence.

Other measures that could be taken include government members of all branches spending more time on IRC, creating a program to centralize and compare government members' schedules so as to better facilitate meeting times, making use of political party threads for public policy discussions - and creating a thread for inter-party policy debates and/or carousing held between all mixes of Senators and Ministers. 

Of course, I can't speak to every individual Senator's and Minister's relationships with each other, work habits, management styles, or personalities, not least because none of the posts have been filled yet.  But in terms of institutional relationships, I would say to the Executive that the Senate doesn't exist to get in your way, necessary though it may - heaven forbid - become.  The Senate's here for the same reason as the Executive: to secure the rights and happiness of Taijituans.  Don't push us away when we try to work with you towards that goal.

[Sovereign Dixie]

A strong oversight of the Senate over the Executive has never happened.

And it's a damned shame.

I like the idea of a regular 'forum' between the Speaker, the Delegate and the Chief Justice. Other than that, can you suggest other means the Senate might use to check on the Executive without resorting to initiatives perceived by the latter as a bothersome picky practice that is to be responded to with an aggressive 'leave me alone'?

I think one potential seed of a poor relationship between Executive and Senate is exactly that language, and the attitude it exmplifies.  I don't mean to imply that you hold such an opinion of the Senate, and recognize that you're trying to prove a point by employing exaggerated rhetoric.  But I don't think the Senate's primary job is to "check" the Executive, in the sense that the Executive is prevented by the Senate from doing what it wants to do.  In some cases, yes, the Senate absolutely has the right and responsibility to check the Executive, for example if the Senate judges, based on correct and abundant data, that the planned or in-progress actions of the Executive are going to harm the region.  But that is an exceptional case, and the Constitution gives the Senate the tools it needs to act in such a case: I don't need to invent new ones.

I like it.

By God, this may work.
What is more necessary than finding new, and yet unbothersome, ways for the Senate to "check" the Executive, the Senate and Executive need to conduct business together.  Regular summits have already been mentioned.  Another possible plan is to give each Senator a special responsibility, unique to them as an individual not to their Senatorial chair (i.e., if I were elected, granted such responsibility, stepped down, and another individual was elected to my place, they would not automatically inherit this responsibility from me) for keeping in contact with a given piece of the bureaucracy.  Part of the problem with Senators working with the bureaucracy was that they weren't necessarily expert: the Executive and the Senate were their own playgrounds, and folks stuck to one side of the fence or another.  But why does that have to be the case?  For example, Elu put in God knows how many hours on Toaster 2, and I'm sure whoever ends up heading up recruitment would appreciate regular contact with him.  I've done more than my share of diplomacy (not in NS, but in CN), and would by happy to liaise with whoever ends up heading foreign affairs.  Now, without tooting our Senatorial candidates' horns too much, our eventual heads of department will be throwing away valuable if they curl up in a prickly little ball and pray for solitude at the slightest hint of someone crossing that inter-branch fence.

Other measures that could be taken include government members of all branches spending more time on IRC, creating a program to centralize and compare government members' schedules so as to better facilitate meeting times, making use of political party threads for public policy discussions - and creating a thread for inter-party policy debates and/or carousing held between all mixes of Senators and Ministers. 

Of course, I can't speak to every individual Senator's and Minister's relationships with each other, work habits, management styles, or personalities, not least because none of the posts have been filled yet.  But in terms of institutional relationships, I would say to the Executive that the Senate doesn't exist to get in your way, necessary though it may - heaven forbid - become.  The Senate's here for the same reason as the Executive: to secure the rights and happiness of Taijituans.  Don't push us away when we try to work with you towards that goal.

[PoD Gunner]

Yeah, I like that and you have seen things exactly as I meant to put them. I cannot ignore the experience I made from practice both as a Senator and as a top Executive and sometimes as both lol. I wish that we will be able to work together as a team toward achieving the common goals and that the interaction between all branches of power in Taijitu will be aimed solely at improving the others' performance. I trust we have the capacity and the experience and I'll drink to that 

best of luck.

[Eluvatar]

1. What is the capital of Burkina Faso?
4. What are the four pillars?
6. Can you name the 3 ancestors of Taijitu?
8. What is the eightfold path?
9. When has the number of supreme court justices of the united states not been nine and why?
10. Why is the earth an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere?
12. What is the difference between a laplace integral and a gaussian integral?
14. What numbers am I skipping?
15. What game doth thou deem this word list play?
16. What game's this sentence entertaining?

[Zimmerwald]

1. What is the capital of Burkina Faso?

The capital of Burkina Faso is Ouagadougou.

4. What are the four pillars?

The four pillars are the hour, day, month, and year of a person's birth, and are important in divining that person's destiny in some systems of Chinese divination.

6. Can you name the 3 ancestors of Taijitu?

If by that you mean a specific group of three of the region's many founders, I am afraid that I cannot.  If, however, you're referring to the Daoist concept, I believe the set includes compassion, simplicity, and humility.

8. What is the eightfold path?

The eightfold path is the set of qualities one must have and actions one must undertake in order to achieve enlightenment.  It includes: right understanding, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.  Together, these qualities and actions bestow wisdom, and encourage ethical conduct and concentration.

9. When has the number of supreme court justices of the united states not been nine and why?

The number of Supreme Court Justices serving on the Supreme Court of the United States was not nine between 1789 and 1837, between 1863 and 1866, and between 1867 and 1869.  It was also not nine in the intervening periods whenever one or more justices had died or retired and had yet to be replaced.  This was the case because the United States Congress has the power to set the number of Supreme Court Justices, and chose to expand or contract the size of the Court as, it felt, the country's needs changed.

10. Why is the earth an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere?

The Earth is a geoid and not a regular oblate spheroid.  Factors contributing to this irregularity include the centripetal force generated by the Earth's rotation about its axis, tidal forces caused by the sun and moon, convection currents within the Earth's mantle, and the non-uniform density of the Earth's crust, including major differences in density between oceanic basalts and continental granites.

12. What is the difference between a laplace integral and a gaussian integral?

I'm sorry, the distinction is beyond my current mathematical understanding.  Can I take a few courses and get back to you?

14. What numbers am I skipping?

You are skipping the prime numbers.  The numeral "3" does appear in question six; you may want to spell it out as a word in future postings of this questionnaire.

15. What game doth thou deem this word list play?

I'm not sure for what answer you're looking, but "doth" should be "dost".

16. What game's this sentence entertaining?

Once again, I am not sure.