By: Journalist Christopher Ungaro (TU)
The senate snaps after a successful motion.
I was surprised Wednesday when, after the governor gave his speech at the beginning of this session, he was met with snaps from various Senate members instead of normal applause.
He had just given his speech to the whole of this session’s body within the Chamber of the House, and the congresspeople, contrastingly, were clapping.
It might be surprising to those not familiar with the O.I.L. Senate, but snapping is actually a tradition. To facilitate proceedings and keep noise levels within the Senate down, it is official practice in the Senate to snap instead of clap. A majority of the Senate seems to like the snapping. However, as I listened to the Senate’s snaps get overwhelmed in the din of claps, I began wondering whether there might be some negative consequences to such a practice.
Trevor Friesen, Head Freshmen Liaison within the senate, said he does not mind the oddness. He said the “change bodes over fast,” and “after one day, muscle memory kicks in.” Overall, he preferred snapping over clapping, because the Senate ”takes things a little more serious,” and the snapping reflects that.
Sen. Dent, a zero star, seemed to take a different stance. Although she overall preferred the snapping, she said she believes it has some drawbacks.
“Your fingers get tired after a while… but I don’t think it’s a big deal. Plus, it is smaller, so it keeps the noise down,” Dent said.
In my opinion, however, Sen. Ramsey offered the greatest argument for snapping, even as it became drowned out amid the house’s clapping.
“It is a distinctive part of the Senate body… in terms of the audio of the room… we are not able to distinguish ourselves, but visually we are,” Ramsey said.
It increases legislative efficiency not only by making sure the Senate never becomes too dissonant, but also by providing part of the shared identity between senators that encourages cooperation.