A77 - General Elections Amendment
TSR's model parliament.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Ask me ANYTHING - Andrew O'Neill - Buzzcocks comedian, amateur occultist, vegan... | 22-05-2013 | |
-
Re: A77 - General Elections Amendment(Original post by CLS94)
I'm going to turn into a Grammar Nazi here and point out that I don't think 'MPs' or 'Manifestos' need the apostrophes they've been given.
-
Re: A77 - General Elections AmendmentI don't think it is that distracting to be able to both prepare for an election and vote on bills. Voting is just clicking a button and as you'll have read the bills already, it doesn't require a lot of time on the authors or voters part. As said, we've not had any problems when it's been done in the past.(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
Metrobeans - regarding a wash-up period. Personally I disagree with that idea as personally parties are going to be spending time preparing for the election. I certainly didn't spend my time looking through bills which of course are trying to beat the end of term rush.
A wash-up period can still occur; the new amendment does mean a prime minister could go to you on October 1st and request a dissolution on the 8th October. And announce the starting gun from there. - Likewise; if we reach 1 week to go before automatic dissolution then you can put the reminder forward.
In practice, Prime Ministers aren't going to give any extra notice than they have to as it isn't in their interests to do so. -
Re: A77 - General Elections Amendment
As long as its voting and new discussions aren't going through then it might be okay
A phoney war situation is going to occur regardless of whether a prime minister announces a dissolution early or not; especially as parliaments regularly go for at least five months. -
Re: A77 - General Elections AmendmentI'd probably allow the wash-up period, especially with a snap election.(Original post by Metrobeans)
It should say "The Speaker will post a thread containing ALL manifestos in AAM where a member of the moderation team will move the post to Current Affairs and add a secret poll for 7 days with the option for “Spoilt Ballot”.
Should we have a wash-up period? For the previous two sessions, we've allowed stuff to be sent to vote in the week between an election being called and the manifestos being posted, but this would prevent it.
Also, is there an argument to be had for having the election thread in the MHoC forum?
It should definitely be in this forum, turnout varies massively anyway and most comes from the mass PM. Being in this forum would allow voters to check out the bills discussed and potentially be more involved in the new parties that attempt to pop up as they may stand a better chance of being noticed. -
Re: A77 - General Elections Amendment
I've made a few suggestions because the proposed amendment has a few issues with syntax/grammar etc., also I think it could be a bit less wordy without changing the overall meaning.
Additionally I've cheakily removed 11) - never understood why that should be in the Guidance Document given it's a site rule.
Original:
Spoiler:Show
Proposed amendment:
Spoiler:Show
My suggestions:
Spoiler:Show
(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
QFA(Original post by Morgsie)
QFA(Original post by Birchington)
QFA(Original post by Rakas21)
QFA(Original post by bun)
QFALast edited by JPKC; 12-04-2012 at 18:15. -
Re: A77 - General Elections AmendmentWe need to keep 12 in because it prevents people forming accounts to push their vote total up.(Original post by JPKC)
I've made a few suggestions because the proposed amendment has a few issues with syntax/grammar etc., also I think it could be a bit less wordy without changing the overall meaning.
Additionally I've cheakily removed 11) - never understood why that should be in the Guidance Document given it's a site rule.
Original:
Spoiler:Show
Proposed amendment:
Spoiler:Show
My suggestions:
Spoiler:Show -
Re: A77 - General Elections AmendmentThat would happen anyway because it's an automatic part of the site's operation - beyond the MHoC's control. My logic is that if the restriction was eventually removed there'd be a huge increase in turnout so that even if people did try to make dupe accounts they wouldn't be able to have anything more than a slight impact.(Original post by toronto353)
We need to keep 12 in because it prevents people forming accounts to push their vote total up.
Also sites are good at preventing massive spam account creation with their IP filters.
-
Re: A77 - General Elections AmendmentYeah, but I would oppose the amendment if there wasn't that section in place because it makes that clear and because I think that it will have a massive impact.(Original post by JPKC)
That would happen anyway because it's an automatic part of the site's operation - beyond the MHoC's control. My logic is that if the restriction was eventually removed there'd be a huge increase in turnout so that even if people did try to make dupe accounts they wouldn't be able to have anything more than a slight impact.
Also sites are good at preventing massive spam account creation with their IP filters.
-
Re: A77 - General Elections AmendmentIt's not an automatic part of the site's operation. There's a permissions setting which we have which can restrict who is able to vote in polls, so it's set to block members who have been here less than 3 months/150 posts from voting. It should really stay in the GD. People like me, Aaran and Illusionary are familiar with how HoC elections work, but if a new Speaker and mod team were to come in, they might not know that rule and forget to set it.(Original post by JPKC)
That would happen anyway because it's an automatic part of the site's operation - beyond the MHoC's control. My logic is that if the restriction was eventually removed there'd be a huge increase in turnout so that even if people did try to make dupe accounts they wouldn't be able to have anything more than a slight impact.
Also sites are good at preventing massive spam account creation with their IP filters.
-
Re: A77 - General Elections AmendmentOh, so it actually could be changed for, say, next election?(Original post by Metrobeans)
It's not an automatic part of the site's operation. There's a permissions setting which we have which can restrict who is able to vote in polls, so it's set to block members who have been here less than 3 months/150 posts from voting. It should really stay in the GD. People like me, Aaran and Illusionary are familiar with how HoC elections work, but if a new Speaker and mod team were to come in, they might not know that rule and forget to set it. -
Re: A77 - General Elections AmendmentHow do you mean? We're limited in the voting restrictions that can be applied. The other restriction options that are available aren't relevant for our purpose, so the one that is used restricts users with less than 3 months/150 posts || neg rep.(Original post by JPKC)
Oh, so it actually could be changed for, say, next election? -
Re: A77 - General Elections AmendmentSo like you couldn't change the number of posts needed to qualify for voting, or the neg rep aspect either?(Original post by Metrobeans)
How do you mean? We're limited in the voting restrictions that can be applied. The other restriction options that are available aren't relevant for our purpose, so the one that is used restricts users with less than 3 months/150 posts || neg rep. -
Re: A77 - General Elections AmendmentNo, unfortunately it's fixed, otherwise we wouldn't have the neg rep aspect.(Original post by JPKC)
So like you couldn't change the number of posts needed to qualify for voting, or the neg rep aspect either?
