 |
Should there be a limited Senate. Yes or No.
This poll is closed. |
| Yes. We need a Senate to protect against tyrany. |
   |
19 |
37.25% |
| No. We don't need no stinkin' Senate. |
   |
32 |
62.75% |
| Total: |
51 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
I currently refuse to vote, as the senate idea, as it's being discussed, is very unclear and vague. The idea has some great merits and some atrocious flaws, and I won't vote until it is cleared.
BTW, NYE, I think you should ask Markos to close this thread, and post a new poll which isn't rigged. It's extremely easy to manipulate answers with the way questions are asked. Just see the 2 contradictory polls about military commanders.
In your options, the favorable option to the senate will attract even mildly partisans of a senate, while the negative answer will only attract diehard opponents, who think a senate is "stinking".
You should post options like :
"1. Yes, we need a senate to protect against tyranny
2. No we don't need another layer of bureaucraty"
(these ideas seem to be the most pros and cons)
Or options like :
"1. Yes we need a senate"
"2. No, we don't need a senate"
(Which are extremely neutral)
The thread title isn't neutral at all. "A senate for the people". If a diehard opponent did make the poll before you, he would probably say "A senate for petty priviledgees" or something. A neutral question would be "do we need a senate ?" or something.
If you close this poll and create a new, neutral one, following my advice (or simply common sense), then I won't consider the poll to be rigged. Currently, I consider this poll as irrelevant.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Guardian
|
 |
Bergen, Norway
Feb 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
This is one of democracy's shortcomings...
People are different, and have different opinions and different ideas on how the systems should work. So, by making the same system and the same rules apply to everyone, we are in effect ensuring that there will be disputes. In any society, there will always be people who disagree with established policies, there's just no way around that. You can't please everyone all at the same time, and so politics is a often a lot about deciding who gets the shaft this time...
You just have to try not to shaft the same people too many times in a row...
Sure, there are times when you feel that a single person or a small group would have been better suited to make decisions and get things settled once and for all, and yes, this is probably true in many - if not most - cases.
On the other hand, no one is wise enough - or good enough - to be trusted with unlimited power.
That's why there has to be compromises - which, more often than not - is what democracy is all about.
A compromise might not always give us the best possible solution. In fact, it usually won't. What it will do is keep the system from tearing itself apart in the process of trying to make decisions. If the decision that's reached is the wrong one, then sooner or later the majority will realize that it's made a bad decision, and we'll get to go back and fix it if possible. If not, then we'll just have to hope that the people will learn from its mistakes and support a different kind of decision next time.
That's democracy, and it's not a perfect system, but it's one that works (for the most part, anyway...) and is fairly self-sustained. Take it or leave it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guardian
|
|
Bergen, Norway
Feb 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
What about when it can't be agreed on what decision has been made?
What about when people start numerous polls to get policies changed to their liking? Don't like the verdict of poll 1? Start poll 2 with a slightly different slant that gets you what you want. |
Well, it's not like that sort of ting never happens in the real world, is it?
We just need to make rules - like in the real world.
This is where the constitution comes in...
For instance, the Norwegian constitution states that if a bill is turned down by either the Storting (our Congress/Senate), the King or the Supreme Court, then that same bill may not be proposed again within the same term. If, however, you wait until the next term when a new Storting is in session, then it's perfectly okay to bring it up again.
We need to make rules like that in here to, and we need to stick with them. You're probably right about needing somebody to enforce them though.
Perhaps we should elect a Supreme Court?
They would have the power to throw out any decision they find to be unconstitutional - just like in real life.
quote:
And nobody has said anything about unlimited power. Where did that come from? |
That was a general remark, not a response to anything said in here. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ThePlagueRat
|
 |
Insert banana to play...
May 2002
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I currently refuse to vote, as the senate idea, as it's being discussed, is very unclear and vague. The idea has some great merits and some atrocious flaws, and I won't vote until it is cleared. |
This is not a constitutional poll, or am I wrong ?
(there would be more to come if this goes through, like nye says)
And I suggest such polls should have an - Not to be constitutional - option,
preventing subjectivity, mistakes, unclearity and other flaws...
Actually, I believe elected parties should be represented in such a national assembly.! (senate, parliament, reichstag, storting, etc.)
And that would clutter things up here... I think?
NB: I think our poll options here's all right. Yeah, it's kinda civ-style... 
Last edited by ThePlagueRat on 18-06-2002 at 00:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:20
|
|
I eventually voted NO.
The whole senate thing is unclear for now : you have Panag's suggestion of a place where senators control the government's jobs, the budget etc. This idea sounds useless , because anybody can do this currently, by asking for the savegame. Panag's suggestion would mean taking power from the people, and it would be unforgivable.
Then, we have NYE's idea of a senate, which is much smarter : an organized thread, where matters are discussed, without creating new threads every two minutes.
BUT, NYE would like some elected representatives of the people, which still doesn't sound right to me : the people can represent themselves, so we don't need any representatives.
Then we have Moral Hazard's idea, where senators should be the ones who say if a poll is correct or not. I agree we need a team to control polls. But, if they are in the senate, some of them will control polls while thinking of their career : I know some would-be senators are sincere, and I have high trust in Nye for example. But let's face it : the senate is the place where wanabee ministers start, in every democracy of the world... Every senate is filled with power hungry people, who think more of themselves than the common good. Letting these people control the rules would be an error, if not a catastrophe.
So, despite my sympathy with several points, I eventually voted NO.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-06-2002 11:08
|