Join the new world

First of all I wish to thank all members of Congress who took the time to answer the questions I sent to them. The tone was always very cordial and there seemed to be a genuine will to be helpful, a very welcome trait in our members of Government.

Of the 40 members of Congress, 30 were active enough to at least receive my questions. Only 10 individuals showed no sign of activity whatsoever. Of the 30 members that received the survey, 20 responded for a 50% participation rate.

The questions were sent over a week ago and the majority of those who responded did so within 24 hrs. Another very good sign of engagement of our members of Congress.

The survey as sent to them read this way:
If you are receiving this it's because you are listed as a member of Congress for December.

I would like to write an article on the upcoming Congress elections focusing on the current members of Congress. To make sure to give everyone a chance to answer, I'm writing to you two weeks in advance.

What I'm trying to find out is activity level, future activity and success rate.

These are all on a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being worse, 10 being best):
1. How would you rate the accomplishments of December's congress?
2. How would you rate the activity level of December's congress?
3. How would you rate your own accomplishments in December's congress?
4. How would you rate your own activity level in December's congress?
5. Your nomination for best congressman/congresswoman in December would be?
6. Your nomination for worse congressman/congresswoman in December would be?
7. Do you intend to run for congress again in January?
8. Which province?
9. This is your opportunity for a short (1-2 sentences) statement on either your upcoming re-election bid, the answers your provided above or congress in general.

Thank you for your time.

Congress was perceived as quite productive. Question 1 had an average rating of 7.5 (90% reporting). Those members of Congress who said things did not go as smoothly also tended to report lower scores for activity level.

There were no questions on previous Congresses but the feedback suggested this was the most stimulating Congress for Canada to date. Members rated its activity level (Question 2) at an average of 7.2 (90% reporting). A few members were quite critical of their own performances however and expressed a desire to either move on to other endeavours or do much better in the future.

Question 3 was to measure and contrast opinions between Congress as a body and the individuals comprising it. Coming from politicians it was perhaps not surprising to see that they rated their own accomplishments slightly lower with an average of 6.8 (85% reporting). However a few said they were extremely proud of what they managed to do and rated their performances accordingly.

Question 4 had an average rating of 7.8 (90% reporting) which is a reverse of the previous question. A large selection of members of Congress thought they were more active than the group as a whole. Again it's important to stress that the pervasive opinion was this was a successful month and so these rating should be seen as extremely positive.

Questions 5 and 6 were tricky ones for this group. For one thing they could be politically explosive. For another, they were not told that answers would be confidential. Most adopted a magnanimous approach saying that they were either irrelevant or there was no such thing as best and worse. Only 60% responded to these questions in any capacity. The results were still interesting.

For question 5, one person voted for person not currently in Congress. 42% voted for a group of congressmen that varied in composition. Of the individuals who got strong endorsment, 16.7% named Alexander Rearden and 8.3% each for Dominik and Augustus Baldwin. If we adjust for occurences when nominated as part of a group then Alexander Rearden got 58.3% and Dominik 50%.

Although not nominated individually, Phineas Gage was often mentioned as one of the more productive members of Congress

For question 6, 25% said no Congressman deserved to be named this way no matter how badly he did. 42% said the title goes to the group that either never were active/registered on the eCanada forum and/or those who took the gold and quit. Cristo Ericanus was the only congressman to be nominated more than once.

Finally a couple easy ones with questions 7 and 8 (90% reporting). 72.2% of the current members of Congress indicated they would run again this January. 22.2% confirmed they were not with the majority stating a desire to be more involved in the CAF. 5.6% were undecided.

Based on the campaigning intention it appears that BC and Ontario will be battleground provinces with many qualified and well regarded returning Congressmen. Nova Scotia should also be competitive.

So once more, without exception the feedback from Congress itself was positive. Members enjoyed working with each other, felt the debates were productive and that they provided results. To a man they expressed a desire for future Congress to be as cooperative.

These were the words and opinions of Congress. Now the power and word returns to you my fellow eCanadians. Come January 25th you will have the opportunity to vote and either agree or disagree with the picture that was presented today. I hope you do so in great numbers.