[internetguru]

Remove unnecessary barriers to new parties

This petition...

Calls upon MHoC to alter the guidance document so that it now states that 5 eligible voters must show support in order for a new party to be formed rather than 10. This is necessary in order to make it easier for new parties to form, which will result in a more active MHoC and a healthier democracy more equipped to cater to all voter opinions.

From this

3) In deciding whether to allow a party to form, the Speaker should be primarily mindful of the support for the party. Precedent sets the hurdle as 10 eligible voters showing support, though the Speaker may want to consider other factors, such as whether those voters are active House of Commons members.

To this

3) In deciding whether to allow a party to form, the Speaker should be primarily mindful of the support for the party. Precedent sets the hurdle as 5 eligible voters showing support, though the Speaker may want to consider other factors, such as whether those voters are active House of Commons members.

[Birchington]

No. The current rules work quite nicely to prevent endless trolling, especially from you.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Birchington)
No. The current rules work quite nicely to prevent endless trolling, especially from you.

Yes let's punish everyone to stop 1 troll. Who cares if civilians die in this drone strike if it kills just 1 terrorist then it is worth it.

[JPKC]

No.

I would've supported this back at the beginning of the term, but you and Blueray's attempts have completely undermined any benefit there could be from loosening the rules, in my opinion.

[Mazzini]

(Original post by JPKC)
No.

I would've supported this back at the beginning of the term, but you and Blueray's attempts have completely undermined any benefit there could be from loosening the rules, in my opinion.

This.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by internetguru)
Yes let's punish everyone to stop 1 troll. Who cares if civilians die in this drone strike if it kills just 1 terrorist then it is worth it.

What a daft argument.

[Morgsie]

Rules are rules and if we change them because of one person who wants to get his way then it will open the floodgates.

[internetguru]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
What a daft argument.

Why is it daft? The argument is you shouldn't punish innocent people because of 1 guilty person how can you disagree with that?

[internetguru]

(Original post by Morgsie)
Rules are rules and if we change them because of one person who wants to get his way then it will open the floodgates.

It isn't about 1 person it is about the future of MHoC. This is an important stepping stone towards increased activity and popularity on TSR.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by internetguru)
Why is it daft? The argument is you shouldn't punish innocent people because of 1 guilty person how can you disagree with that?

Because of the example you used. Talking about drone strikes and civilian deaths when discussing antics on a Model House of Commons on an internet forum. To say it's a silly and over the top example is an understatement. Next you'll be using Godwins Law.
So yes it's daft, and Birchington has a point. If a party really has support and meaning then it will go ahead. This has been proven in the past. If it's a silly idea though as we have seen recently then it will rightly fail. These safeguards may seem extreme but actually I think they are appropriate. Too bad if you don't like it.

[Morgsie]

(Original post by internetguru)
It isn't about 1 person it is about the future of MHoC. This is an important stepping stone towards increased activity and popularity on TSR.

What you want will open the floodgates and this House will be possibly bogged down with Parties. I think the current 6 Parties is enough and if there is more then I dread to think what will happen.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Morgsie)
What you want will open the floodgates and this House will be possibly bogged down with Parties. I think the current 6 Parties is enough and if there is more then I dread to think what will happen.

The more parties that exist the more accurate the democracy will become.

[Morgsie]

(Original post by internetguru)
The more parties that exist the more accurate the democracy will become.

Weimar, Germany

[internetguru]

(Original post by Morgsie)
Weimar, Germany

I stand by what I said the more parties that exist the more accurate the democracy. The less parties that exist the less accurate it is. It isn't rocket science it is simple enough for anyone to understand.

[Morgsie]

(Original post by internetguru)
I stand by what I said the more parties that exist the more accurate the democracy. The less parties that exist the less accurate it is. It isn't rocket science it is simple enough for anyone to understand.

But IRL Governments last less in a Multi-Party System, Italy for example

[internetguru]

(Original post by Morgsie)
But IRL Governments last less in a Multi-Party System, Italy for example

There are simple fixes to that problem for example have a presidential election and a house election (many countries do) that way you have a sort of administration that handles the day to day non voting stuff. Then you have a house that does not have to form coalitions etc so it doesn't collapse and they can then vote on any legislation anyway they like.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by internetguru)
The more parties that exist the more accurate the democracy will become.

It depends on the parties and how much support and activity they truly have. More parties doesn't automatically equal more democracy. Again your argument is very thin. Keep trying though, I'm sure you'll get there eventually.

[internetguru]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
It depends on the parties and how much support and activity they truly have. More parties doesn't automatically equal more democracy. Again your argument is very thin. Keep trying though, I'm sure you'll get there eventually.

If the parties all represent something different rather than representing the same thing then more parties will make it more democratic. How democratic would MHoC be if it just had 2 parties compared to the 6 it currently has? I'm guessing nowhere near as democratic as it is now.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by internetguru)
If the parties all represent something different rather than representing the same thing then more parties will make it more democratic. How democratic would MHoC be if it just had 2 parties compared to the 6 it currently has? I'm guessing nowhere near as democratic as it is now.

Well we have parties that cover a variety of the spectrum. If there really is a need and desire for a new party that offers something different then the amount of support will be shown and it'll work. But most times the party proposals are nonsense so the current rules work out fine.
The idea that democracy is being hindered because of the rules is a bit extreme. In fact it's just silly.

[internetguru]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Well we have parties that cover a variety of the spectrum. If there really is a need and desire for a new party that offers something different then the amount of support will be shown and it'll work. But most times the party proposals are nonsense so the current rules work out fine.
The idea that democracy is being hindered because of the rules is a bit extreme. In fact it's just silly.

10 active members is unattainable. None of the existing parties have 10 active members.