Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

VA126 - Constitutional Amendment Amendment Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should this amendment be passed into the Constitution?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    16
    40.00%
    On the contrary, No
    20
    50.00%
    Abstain
    4
    10.00%

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by toronto353)
    So conflicted right now - I'm OP so do I vote or not?
    It's a constitutional crisis!

    At least Amendments aren't counted in the Voting Review.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    It is obvious that people are willing to, and do cheat (see every duping scandal ever - some of which have been remarkably elaborate). I wouldn't call political amendments 'cheating' though. Passing a 'biased' amendment may not be some great conspiracy - the proposers may not even realise that they are being biased.
    I think it matters less if something is very minorly biased because at best that will be a matter of perception. There's also a very important difference between this and duping, in that duping can be done by an individual, whereas very biased amendments would entail large-scale organised cheating, which is much harder to do.

    Also there are many 'biased' amendments - see for example those where all the seconders come from 'right-wing' or 'left-wing' parties. These often are interpreted by detractors as attempted to make the MHoC serve one particular faction over another.
    This is an argument against them, not a statement of fact. Detractors claiming an amendment is biased doesn't mean that amendment is in fact biased, and even then, for that argument to work, it has to create more risk of bias than the detriment caused by amendments supported by the majority not being passed.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "if that's the case for the constitution, it should also apply to the guidance document". They have different functions, which I feel work well.
    Institutional bias can exist in both. That is the relevant point, and as far as I understand, the essence of your argument.

    The reversal of 'bad changes' would of course require the faction that made the bad change to lose their dominance - the bad change itself may prevent this from happening. I would much prefer to prevent 'bad changes' and hope that 'good changes' will be sufficiently good to earn them a supermajority.
    It's surely inaccurate to define 'good' by some arbitrary level of majority. If something is preferred by the House to the status quo, it should be taken over the status quo. I don't see why we ought not take that as a starting point. Perhaps we could reserve powers to the Speaker to unilaterally reject biased amendments (and if this would cause anyone to vote in favour, let me know and I will author such an amendment if this passes).

    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    When was this?
    I very vaguely remember this.
    December or something.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I think it matters less if something is very minorly biased because at best that will be a matter of perception. There's also a very important difference between this and duping, in that duping can be done by an individual, whereas very biased amendments would entail large-scale organised cheating, which is much harder to do.



    This is an argument against them, not a statement of fact. Detractors claiming an amendment is biased doesn't mean that amendment is in fact biased, and even then, for that argument to work, it has to create more risk of bias than the detriment caused by amendments supported by the majority not being passed.



    Institutional bias can exist in both. That is the relevant point, and as far as I understand, the essence of your argument.



    It's surely inaccurate to define 'good' by some arbitrary level of majority. If something is preferred by the House to the status quo, it should be taken over the status quo. I don't see why we ought not take that as a starting point. Perhaps we could reserve powers to the Speaker to unilaterally reject biased amendments (and if this would cause anyone to vote in favour, let me know and I will author such an amendment if this passes).
    This is some serious **** going down.

    Look out, Daddy needs to express some rage.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Look out, Daddy needs to express some rage.
    Is this some kind of reference?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I think it matters less if something is very minorly biased because at best that will be a matter of perception. There's also a very important difference between this and duping, in that duping can be done by an individual, whereas very biased amendments would entail large-scale organised cheating, which is much harder to do.

    This is an argument against them, not a statement of fact. Detractors claiming an amendment is biased doesn't mean that amendment is in fact biased, and even then, for that argument to work, it has to create more risk of bias than the detriment caused by amendments supported by the majority not being passed.

    Institutional bias can exist in both. That is the relevant point, and as far as I understand, the essence of your argument.

    It's surely inaccurate to define 'good' by some arbitrary level of majority. If something is preferred by the House to the status quo, it should be taken over the status quo. I don't see why we ought not take that as a starting point. Perhaps we could reserve powers to the Speaker to unilaterally reject biased amendments (and if this would cause anyone to vote in favour, let me know and I will author such an amendment if this passes).

    December or something.
    Large-scale cheating is difficult to organise, but as I said, biased amendments are not 'cheating'. I recall several amendments that I saw as blatantly trying to help/hinder specific parties in this House. I'm sure the proposers didn't feel themselves to be in the wrong.

    Whilst an amendment accused of being biased may not in fact be biased that does not mitigate the fact that reducing the threshold to pass an amendment will make it easier for an ideologically motivated amendment to be pushed through the House.

    Bias in the GD is less of a worry due to the Speaker's ability to interpret (another part of the House's constitutional make-up that this amendment appears to erode).

    A majority of MPs does not necessarily equate to a majority of MHoCers. Amendments may pass with the support of those who's ideology was most popular amongst the electorate but without the support of the largest group of people who contribute and participate in the MHoC.

    I do not think it is the Speaker's place to reject what is passed by the House, citing something like bias which, as you say, is subjective.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Is this some kind of reference?
    The pool of dead.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Is this some kind of reference?
    Unfortunately, yes.

    It's Deadpool.

    Please tell me you've seen it.

    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Aye

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    The pool of dead.

    YES!!

    This is no way to win her heart! (I'm so proud of you!)
    Let him out as soon as we leave! (Kill him)
    And win her back with your boyish charm! (Kidnap her!)
    (You know what to do!)
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Large-scale cheating is difficult to organise, but as I said, biased amendments are not 'cheating'. I recall several amendments that I saw as blatantly trying to help/hinder specific parties in this House. I'm sure the proposers didn't feel themselves to be in the wrong.
    Did those amendments pass? Would they have passed under this new settlement?

    Whilst an amendment accused of being biased may not in fact be biased that does not mitigate the fact that reducing the threshold to pass an amendment will make it easier for an ideologically motivated amendment to be pushed through the House.
    What's wrong with ideologically motivated amendments? What's wrong is amendments which are detrimental to the structure of the game. I think those amendments will be comprehensively rejected under either system.

    Bias in the GD is less of a worry due to the Speaker's ability to interpret (another part of the House's constitutional make-up that this amendment appears to erode).
    Note that this is an interpretive power, not a power to flagrantly ignore the GD. Consider a hypothetical amendment to the GD which amended Part 1(1)(10) from "If for any reason a 51st seat is required due to the d’Hondt method of calculations then it is permitted" to "If for any reason a 51st seat is required due to the d’Hondt method of calculations then it is permitted, unless that 51st seat would go to UKIP". Clearly, an interpretive power would not allow the Speaker to depart from that, but it is blatantly unfair - just as unfair as some things you can do with the constitution. Why, then, the distinction?

    Furthermore, this amendment does not erode the Speaker's interpretive power. The parts of the GD this applies to are already identified as binding on the Speaker by the GD itself, and thus the Speaker only has a power to interpret those parts to the same extent as the Speaker can interpret the Constitution.

    A majority of MPs does not necessarily equate to a majority of MHoCers. Amendments may pass with the support of those who's ideology was most popular amongst the electorate but without the support of the largest group of people who contribute and participate in the MHoC.
    This is not an argument against this amendment; rather this is an argument in favour of letting non-MPs vote on amendments.

    I do not think it is the Speaker's place to reject what is passed by the House, citing something like bias which, as you say, is subjective.
    The Speaker's role is that which is defined by the Constitution, GD, and convention; no more, no less.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Unfortunately, yes.

    It's Deadpool.

    Please tell me you've seen it.

    Unfortunately not. Most of the films I watch are ages old, and either Artificial Eye stuff or awesome gorey zombie films.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Wait a minute: has anyone else noticed the thread title?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Unfortunately not. Most of the films I watch are ages old, and either Artificial Eye stuff or awesome gorey zombie films.
    Trust me it is the one movie absolutely everyone is watching it's hilarious and got a lot of action.
    It's also a part horror movie.

    Similar for me - I watch mainly IFB and older stuff, e.g. Jimmy Cagney, Fred Astaire that type of stuff
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Andy98)
    Wait a minute: has anyone else noticed the thread title?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The amendment amends the way constitutional amendments are made.

    Now try saying that three times fast.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    The amendment amends the way constitutional amendments are made.

    Now try saying that three times fast.
    You're asking someone who raps to talk fast...

    I knew why it was what it was, it is just that what it was was found funny by me and that's all of what it was.

    Now say that three times fast:smug:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Did those amendments pass? Would they have passed under this new settlement?

    What's wrong with ideologically motivated amendments? What's wrong is amendments which are detrimental to the structure of the game. I think those amendments will be comprehensively rejected under either system.

    Note that this is an interpretive power, not a power to flagrantly ignore the GD. Consider a hypothetical amendment to the GD which amended Part 1(1)(10) from "If for any reason a 51st seat is required due to the d’Hondt method of calculations then it is permitted" to "If for any reason a 51st seat is required due to the d’Hondt method of calculations then it is permitted, unless that 51st seat would go to UKIP". Clearly, an interpretive power would not allow the Speaker to depart from that, but it is blatantly unfair - just as unfair as some things you can do with the constitution. Why, then, the distinction?

    Furthermore, this amendment does not erode the Speaker's interpretive power. The parts of the GD this applies to are already identified as binding on the Speaker by the GD itself, and thus the Speaker only has a power to interpret those parts to the same extent as the Speaker can interpret the Constitution.

    This is not an argument against this amendment; rather this is an argument in favour of letting non-MPs vote on amendments.

    The Speaker's role is that which is defined by the Constitution, GD, and convention; no more, no less.
    Thankfully they did not. I do not know wether they would pass under this settlement. I do suspect that should this pass it will encourage people to attempt to pass more amendments in their favour.

    Ideologically motivated amendments tend to be detrimental to those of different ideologies.

    The GD is often ignored in parts by convention. It provides guidance.

    So what does the amendment do?

    It is an argument both against this amendment and for allowing non-MPs to vote. However allowing non-MPs to vote creates other problems (how to keep out dupe accounts, how to make sure those voting are actual MHoCers etc without removing anonymity of voting).

    I understand what the role of the Speaker is, and I do not think it should evolve into one where the Speaker must veto amendments because a new system that makes it easier for amendments to be made has allowed biased ones to slip through.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Andy98)
    You're asking someone who raps to talk fast...

    I knew why it was what it was, it is just that what it was was found funny by me and that's all of what it was.

    Now say that three times fast:smug:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Iknewwhyitwaswhatitwasitisjustth atwhatitwaswasfoundfunnybymeandt hat'sallofwhatitwasIknewwhyitwas whatitwasitisjustthatwhatitwaswa sfoundfunnybymeandthat'sallofwha titwasIknewwhyitwaswhatitwasitis justthatwhatitwaswasfoundfunnyby meandthat'sallofwhatitwas.

    :smug:
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Iknewwhyitwaswhatitwasitisjustth atwhatitwaswasfoundfunnybymeandt hat'sallofwhatitwasIknewwhyitwas whatitwasitisjustthatwhatitwaswa sfoundfunnybymeandthat'sallofwha titwasIknewwhyitwaswhatitwasitis justthatwhatitwaswasfoundfunnyby meandthat'sallofwhatitwas.

    :smug:
    Cheat

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Thankfully they did not. I do not know wether they would pass under this settlement. I do suspect that should this pass it will encourage people to attempt to pass more amendments in their favour.

    Ideologically motivated amendments tend to be detrimental to those of different ideologies.
    I'm asking whether they are detrimental, objectively speaking.

    The GD is often ignored in parts by convention. It provides guidance.
    This is a case of convention supervening non-binding parts of the GD. Insofar as elements of the GD are binding they should not be ignored.

    So what does the amendment do?
    This amendment would normally decrease, but sometimes increase the threshold for amendments to the constitution to be passed, and increase the threshold for amendments to binding sections of the Guidance Document to be passed. It also cleans up the structure of the constitution and GD.

    It is an argument both against this amendment and for allowing non-MPs to vote. However allowing non-MPs to vote creates other problems (how to keep out dupe accounts, how to make sure those voting are actual MHoCers etc without removing anonymity of voting).
    I fail to see how this is an argument against this amendment. Under either system, non-MPs are not represented; this is unavoidable.

    I understand what the role of the Speaker is, and I do not think it should evolve into one where the Speaker must veto amendments because a new system that makes it easier for amendments to be made has allowed biased ones to slip through.
    Okay, good. Just checking we're on the same page - that you're not stating that your role exists independently of the rules of the game.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I'm asking whether they are detrimental, objectively speaking.

    This is a case of convention supervening non-binding parts of the GD. Insofar as elements of the GD are binding they should not be ignored.

    This amendment would normally decrease, but sometimes increase the threshold for amendments to the constitution to be passed, and increase the threshold for amendments to binding sections of the Guidance Document to be passed. It also cleans up the structure of the constitution and GD.

    I fail to see how this is an argument against this amendment. Under either system, non-MPs are not represented; this is unavoidable.

    Okay, good. Just checking we're on the same page - that you're not stating that your role exists independently of the rules of the game.
    I would imagine that should the rules of the game become skewed to favour certain political parties then that would be objectively detrimental to the MHoC in the fewer people would want to participate.

    Of course.

    It is an argument against the amendment. You said that if a majority of members wish to see a procedural change it should occur. I am pointing out that a majority of members is simply a majority of MPs, not of people who are affected by procedural changes. For example Party A may have 26 MPs but Party B may have 1 MP and 100 active members. I do not think A should dictate constitutional change to B (extreme figures used for clarity of meaning, not argumentum ad absurdum). Amendments are not political (they may be in RL but not in the MHoC) and therefore being politically popular (i.e. having lot's of MPs) is not what drives constitutional change (though it is of course what drives legislative change).
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 22, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.