A162 – Simulated Elections Amendment

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    And all the other criticisms, putting aside the fact that it seems to be a way to massively boost UKIP and the Liberals
    The test run wasn't helped by the Tories only standing 12 candidates. If they'd stood as many as the Liberals or UKIP, they would have gained another seat or two


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay. I don't mind the idea of simulated elections, but several things are way off:

    1. Giving bonus modifiers to incumbent cabinet members is just silly, and leads to replication of governments if you're not careful.
    2. 'Party points' generally are a bad idea; based on this, the Socialists and Greens would definitely benefit by all standing as independents rather than as party members.
    3. You really, really need to offer a precise guide to the calculation of seats within the text of the guidance document itself.
    4. I like the idea of legislation being counted as it encourages activity, but agree with the points above.
    5. I think if you're going to count end-of-term awards, it should be limited to, say, 3 terms, and discount awards like 'Comedian', especially if you're going for realism.
    6. I don't really care about constituencies unless you're going to add some mechanism which makes constituencies relevant outside of elections.

    Overall, I'd remove everything you've written currently and replace it with completely different factors. I can't say what those would be, but, well, that's not my job, is it.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nay. I don't mind the idea of simulated elections, but several things are way off:

    1. Giving bonus modifiers to incumbent cabinet members is just silly, and leads to replication of governments if you're not careful.
    2. 'Party points' generally are a bad idea; based on this, the Socialists and Greens would definitely benefit by all standing as independents rather than as party members.
    3. You really, really need to offer a precise guide to the calculation of seats within the text of the guidance document itself.
    4. I like the idea of legislation being counted as it encourages activity, but agree with the points above.
    5. I think if you're going to count end-of-term awards, it should be limited to, say, 3 terms, and discount awards like 'Comedian', especially if you're going for realism.
    6. I don't really care about constituencies unless you're going to add some mechanism which makes constituencies relevant outside of elections.

    Overall, I'd remove everything you've written currently and replace it with completely different factors. I can't say what those would be, but, well, that's not my job, is it.
    1. Incumbents generally have a larger profile, making them more likely to be elected
    2. The Socialists and Greens still have a higher Party Points total than independents, and that would always be the case.
    3. I'll have a look into that
    4. I'll try and think of a way to stop people producing pointless, short legislation
    5. I think you might be right here. I'll make those changes.
    6. MPs would be able to propose legislation/motions relevant to their constituencies, but ultimately it'd be optional.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    The test run wasn't helped by the Tories only standing 12 candidates. If they'd stood as many as the Liberals or UKIP, they would have gained another seat or two


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I was misinterpretting the table, would have been much better to have included a section with the results under both systems, in which case, congrats of crushing the left.

    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Nay. I don't mind the idea of simulated elections, but several things are way off:

    1. Giving bonus modifiers to incumbent cabinet members is just silly, and leads to replication of governments if you're not careful.
    2. 'Party points' generally are a bad idea; based on this, the Socialists and Greens would definitely benefit by all standing as independents rather than as party members.
    3. You really, really need to offer a precise guide to the calculation of seats within the text of the guidance document itself.
    4. I like the idea of legislation being counted as it encourages activity, but agree with the points above.
    5. I think if you're going to count end-of-term awards, it should be limited to, say, 3 terms, and discount awards like 'Comedian', especially if you're going for realism.
    6. I don't really care about constituencies unless you're going to add some mechanism which makes constituencies relevant outside of elections.

    Overall, I'd remove everything you've written currently and replace it with completely different factors. I can't say what those would be, but, well, that's not my job, is it.
    It's not just the minor parties that would benefit from all being indies, literally every party would because nobody could have the >500 seats required
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    1. Incumbents generally have a larger profile, making them more likely to be elected
    2. The Socialists and Greens still have a higher Party Points total than independents, and that would always be the case.
    3. I'll have a look into that
    4. I'll try and think of a way to stop people producing pointless, short legislation
    5. I think you might be right here. I'll make those changes.
    6. MPs would be able to propose legislation/motions relevant to their constituencies, but ultimately it'd be optional.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    1. The problem here is that, while it may be more realistic to have a small benefit (though being an incumbent in reality often provides a pretty significant disadvantage), anything large enough to actually affect the seat distribution is going to risk a result where you entrench existing governments over consecutive terms. Maybe you could add an 'incumbency factor' which is randomised (assuming you can't somehow simulate the people's satisfaction) at some point between +x and -x effect (this would make MHoC possibly more realistic because it could produce significant swings in seat distributions per term), but I'd just get rid of it personally. For the same reason, I actually think it's really important to get rid of a party's current number of seats playing any role (possibly their number of members with at least one post in that term could be good, but this seems to create a whole lot of admin work).
    2. Not the way you've written this, I don't think. You could be right if you mean 'multiply' instead of 'divide'.
    3. Thanks.
    4. You could add a minimum voters requirement but that hands an advantage to larger parties who can whip **** legislation and disadvantage UKIP's wacky but often well-written legislation. Possibly require at least one aye from at least two other parties (but I see the problem that this encourages whips against other parties' legislation).
    5. Thanks.
    6. What's the point of constituencies then?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    With the talk of incumbency, from what I can gather the boost won't be 20, but 15, as it seems part of the power rating is 5 for being and MP, beyond that it becomes much less clear other than a net effect of 50 for PM, 40 DPM, possibly a 5 boost for former leader, nothing extra for former PM, net 35 for leader of the opposition, and I'm thinking net 10 for cabinet, but then stuff must be missing

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    With the talk of incumbency, from what I can gather the boost won't be 20, but 15, as it seems part of the power rating is 5 for being and MP, beyond that it becomes much less clear other than a net effect of 50 for PM, 40 DPM, possibly a 5 boost for former leader, nothing extra for former PM, net 35 for leader of the opposition, and I'm thinking net 10 for cabinet, but then stuff must be missing

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You're wrong on a large bit of that. Just hover over the "power" bit at the top and it's in the notes. If I remember correctly, 50 for Speaker, 25 for Party leader, 10 for Party DL/Chair, 5 for former leader, 5 for former PM, 10 for Cabinet, 5 for Shadow cabinet.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    1. The problem here is that, while it may be more realistic to have a small benefit (though being an incumbent in reality often provides a pretty significant disadvantage), anything large enough to actually affect the seat distribution is going to risk a result where you entrench existing governments over consecutive terms. Maybe you could add an 'incumbency factor' which is randomised (assuming you can't somehow simulate the people's satisfaction) at some point between +x and -x effect (this would make MHoC possibly more realistic because it could produce significant swings in seat distributions per term), but I'd just get rid of it personally. For the same reason, I actually think it's really important to get rid of a party's current number of seats playing any role (possibly their number of members with at least one post in that term could be good, but this seems to create a whole lot of admin work).
    2. Not the way you've written this, I don't think. You could be right if you mean 'multiply' instead of 'divide'.
    3. Thanks.
    4. You could add a minimum voters requirement but that hands an advantage to larger parties who can whip **** legislation and disadvantage UKIP's wacky but often well-written legislation. Possibly require at least one aye from at least two other parties (but I see the problem that this encourages whips against other parties' legislation).
    5. Thanks.
    6. What's the point of constituencies then?
    Will reply to this tomorrow as there's quite a bit to write and I'm on my phone


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Not bad, but of course I'm mainly just flattered and happy about Tories snatching all those seats! :awesome:

    I'll have a proper look in the morning.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    You're wrong on a large bit of that. Just hover over the "power" bit at the top and it's in the notes. If I remember correctly, 50 for Speaker, 25 for Party leader, 10 for Party DL/Chair, 5 for former leader, 5 for former PM, 10 for Cabinet, 5 for Shadow cabinet.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Then your table is wrong. Rating the speaker is also somewhat superfluous and there is no real explanation of the "influence" column other than, it seems, to appear highly partisan.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If i wanted to join the Reddit Mhoc i would.

    Nay.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    If i wanted to join the Reddit Mhoc i would.

    Nay.
    The Reddit MHoC doesn't have simulated elections


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Then your table is wrong. Rating the speaker is also somewhat superfluous and there is no real explanation of the "influence" column other than, it seems, to appear highly partisan.
    The table isn't wrong, thanks. The "influence" column, as explained in the amendment is awards*5 + power. Then legislation*2 is added onto that to get the CP.

    The words power and influence themselves are completely arbitrary though and literally don't have any meaning or baring towards any of this.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    The table isn't wrong, thanks. The "influence" column, as explained in the amendment is awards*5 + power. Then legislation*2 is added onto that to get the CP.

    The words power and influence themselves are completely arbitrary though and literally don't have any meaning or baring towards any of this.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yes, because 0*5+50=91.775 and 0*5+25=0, and if the table isn't wrong then why does TF only have 10 power and I have 5, there is no way with the information given that both of those can be true, for instance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How about bonus points for being a local to the constituency?

    Voters prefer their MPs to be local. What may seem to many a statement ]of the obvious has only recently begun to be confirmed empirically by research into the origins of MPs and the evaluations of voters.
    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/54563/1/Joc..._to_voters.pdf
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Yes, because 0*5+50=91.775 and 0*5+25=0, and if the table isn't wrong then why does TF only have 10 power and I have 5, there is no way with the information given that both of those can be true, for instance.
    Surely it doesn't take an idiot to work out the July column is old and no longer relevant when there is an updated October one?

    The Financier has 10 for Cabinet.

    Yours is an error, so thank you for pointing that out and I'll edit it in the morning


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    How about bonus points for being a local to the constituency?

    Voters prefer their MPs to be local. What may seem to many a statement ]of the obvious has only recently begun to be confirmed empirically by research into the origins of MPs and the evaluations of voters.
    http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/54563/1/Joc..._to_voters.pdf
    Some people may not be happy with people knowing where they live and you also can't really prove where someone is from.

    It is a nice idea though, so I'll see if I can think of a way to implement it that works


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Also what about ties? Wales has 1 seat but 2 candidates tied
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    Surely it doesn't take an idiot to work out the July column is old and no longer relevant when there is an updated October one?

    The Financier has 10 for Cabinet.

    Yours is an error, so thank you for pointing that out and I'll edit it in the morning


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You seem to be implying that there is never any need for old data , that would make my job so much easier.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, give it a whirl

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Updated: October 23, 2016
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.

Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?

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

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