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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Since when does being conservative mean support for all traditions regardless of whether they're good or not? It's a tradition I disagree with. The idea of people who know nothing about MHoC deciding our future doesn't make sense.
    Then why not limit suffrage to people who have at least a minimum number of posts in the MHoC forum? Face it, basically everyone else on TSR knows nothing about MHoC and the vast majority of votes are going to have that effect either way.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Since when does being conservative mean support for all traditions regardless of whether they're good or not? It's a tradition I disagree with. The idea of people who know nothing about MHoC deciding our future doesn't make sense.
    Not all tradition is good of course, and not all tradition should be supported, but tradition, nevertheless, is a core feature of Conservatism, although less so for neo-liberal conservatism than one nation and traditional conservatism.It was more an off the cuff remark, a slight joke that it was a conservative disagreeing with a tradition/precedent
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Not all tradition is good of course, and not all tradition should be supported, but tradition, nevertheless, is a core feature of Conservatism, although less so for neo-liberal conservatism than one nation and traditional conservatism.It was more an off the cuff remark, a slight joke that it was a conservative disagreeing with a tradition/precedent
    As I have argued in the past, a wrongly set precedent should be disregarded anyway

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Aye

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Aye to that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Since when does being conservative mean support for all traditions regardless of whether they're good or not? It's a tradition I disagree with. The idea of people who know nothing about MHoC deciding our future doesn't make sense.
    Most people don't know **** about how Parliament works and yet they still vote in the rl election - do you propose hiding elections from the electorate irl as well?


    (Original post by mobbsy91)
    Nay.

    But I'd sincerely hope that people would submit without spelling or grammatical errors, especially with so many seconders not checking?

    We need to promote the MHoC, fine! But in a way that is appropriate and in the right context. That will lead to increased activity, and increased voting, based on manifestos rather than just a vote on RL opinions.
    If the biggest thing in the MHoC calendar isn't the right context, then what on earth is the right context?


    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Notes need fixing, for the turnout to be ridiculously low it needs to be, well, ridiculously low. How did I guess this was coming, especially with the historical prime beneficiaries saying "this binding thing shouldn't be voted for as a binding item"

    Could also be worded so so much better

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    180 valid votes is a ridiculously low turnout. It's not even four times the number of MPs ffs.

    Okay then Mr Wording Genius, what gets the point across in a clearer way than how I put it?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye - something needs to be done about the mass PM situation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Unsolicited PMs mean any PMs, right?

    I definitely think that we need a mass PM to notify a large chunk of our electorate; perhaps we may even gain a few members due to the termly PM?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whiggy)
    Unsolicited PMs mean any PMs, right?

    I definitely think that we need a mass PM to notify a large chunk of our electorate; perhaps we may even gain a few members due to the termly PM?
    Any PMs to none-party members as I understand it, which aren't replies to someone PMing you first. I'm fairly sure you can PM people about non-MHoC stuff, but I tend to err on the safe side and not PM people during the period
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kay_Winters)
    Any PMs to none-party members as I understand it, which aren't replies to someone PMing you first. I'm fairly sure you can PM people about non-MHoC stuff, but I tend to err on the safe side and not PM people during the period
    Yeah, I'll just steer clear from PMing members during the election periods.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    My concern is that the 180 or whatever it was votes this time is so close to last time with the mass PM I'm not sure that the mass PM makes much or a difference.
    I'm also concerned, like LP, that people who come in here and just vote for the name they like the look of, have no other involvement with the house and have no idea what is going on, aren't the type of people that we want voting to make this game realistic. However, I also agree that the mass PM advertises the house and attracts some people to the house at least.

    I do wonder if we need a new system of running our elections so that there are seats awarded by the general public but also seats for activity, likability, passing manifesto pledges, ect...

    However I feel that they would fail because people who scream that it's less democratic.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    My concern is that the 180 or whatever it was votes this time is so close to last time with the mass PM I'm not sure that the mass PM makes much or a difference.
    I'm also concerned, like LP, that people who come in here and just vote for the name they like the look of, have no other involvement with the house and have no idea what is going on, aren't the type of people that we want voting to make this game realistic. However, I also agree that the mass PM advertises the house and attracts some people to the house at least.

    I do wonder if we need a new system of running our elections so that there are seats awarded by the general public but also seats for activity, likability, passing manifesto pledges, ect...

    However I feel that they would fail because people who scream that it's less democratic.
    Seats for activity -> how do you quantify this? It seems obvious to me that we can't just use a voting review, but rather something to do with posting substantive content.
    Seats for likability -> flat-out terrible idea IMO (also not sure how to quantify).
    Seats for passing manifesto pledges -> creates an incentive for other parties to vote down legislation based on the party proposing it, therefore an incentive to have little to no content in a manifesto, and also discriminates against small parties.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Seats for activity -> how do you quantify this? It seems obvious to me that we can't just use a voting review, but rather something to do with posting substantive content.
    Seats for likability -> flat-out terrible idea IMO (also not sure how to quantify).
    Seats for passing manifesto pledges -> creates an incentive for other parties to vote down legislation based on the party proposing it, therefore an incentive to have little to no content in a manifesto, and also discriminates against small parties.
    Obviously this is just off of the top of my head...
    Some sort of matrix which asigns scores based on the voting review, bills, debate...
    Well what I mean is to other parties, so we could ban all party members voting in the GE and parties would rank all the other parties and indies from first to last and then votes would be given by that party in that ratio as a function of active members...
    Okay suggesting them and getting at least 20 votes or being ranked as 'high quality'
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Obviously this is just off of the top of my head...
    Some sort of matrix which asigns scores based on the voting review, bills, debate...
    Well what I mean is to other parties, so we could ban all party members voting in the GE and parties would rank all the other parties and indies from first to last and then votes would be given by that party in that ratio as a function of active members...
    Okay suggesting them and getting at least 20 votes or being ranked as 'high quality'
    Okay, so the Tories reliably have a ranking of UKIP > Libs/Nat Libs > Lab/Grn > Socs every time, and vice versa. This just benefits either polarising parties or centrist parties depending on how you do it.

    As for the rest, it sounds like a whole lot of hard work unless you can automate it.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Okay, so the Tories reliably have a ranking of UKIP > Libs/Nat Libs > Lab/Grn > Socs every time, and vice versa. This just benefits either polarising parties or centrist parties depending on how you do it.

    As for the rest, it sounds like a whole lot of hard work unless you can automate it.
    Okay so for a worded example I would say:

    socialists
    Have ~50 members
    Rank:
    1st: Labour
    2nd: Greens
    3rd: Liberals
    4th: Tories
    5th: Nat libs
    6th: UKIP.

    Votes are then awarded in a ratio -- 5:4:3:2:1:0
    So then you get:
    Labour: 17 votes
    Greens: 13 votes
    Libs: 10 votes
    Cons: 7 votes
    NatLib: 3 votes

    It means that parties gain votes by being liked, having good policies, and that parliamentarians don't dominate the Parlimentary elections.

    Could all be done when the thread is locked?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In the past when mass PMs have been sent out have we received many complaints about them? If so I wouldn't support this as it could cause innocent TSR members unnecessary annoyance and make them have a more negative image of MHOC.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by banter_lad_m8)
    In the past when mass PMs have been sent out have we received many complaints about them? If so I wouldn't support this as it could cause innocent TSR members unnecessary annoyance and make them have a more negative image of MHOC.
    No.
 
 
 
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: May 11, 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?
  • 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.