A162 – Simulated Elections Amendment

Announcements
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How about 2 points for nominations for awards?

    Or 5 for 1st, 3 for 2nd and 1 for 3rd in the voting.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    In fact, on reflection, I wouldn't use awards at all, they're already pretty politicised and I suspect divided along party lines.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    nay, we’re fine as it is.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I am a bit concerned that some seats might be uncontested but the principle is good and so it should be tried.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Also what about ties? Wales has 1 seat but 2 candidates tied
    Cointoss. The losing party makes the seat back with the national seats anyway


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I am in favour of this amendment. It will make elections reflect real life much more. There are a few things which will need to be altered for the second reading but from what I have seen, I am inclined to vote aye.


    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    In fact, on reflection, I wouldn't use awards at all, they're already pretty politicised and I suspect divided along party lines.
    PetrosAC - I think this is a good suggestion. The awards are mainly a bit of fun and I don't think they should influence elections.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, this is ridiculous.

    Awards are pointless for anything other than the purpose of determining who the most popular members and shouldn't generally be taken to mean much. Legislation produced shouldn't play a part in election results, because we will then see a lot of pointless bills that do nothing and are not debated on being submitted just to add to party totals. Also, what about legislation that has been written by multiple members? And if the 'Power' part is going to be based on Petros' chart, then I don't think much more needs to be said about it.

    Not to mention the fact that this makes it much more difficult for new members to become MPs in a GE.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Nay, this is ridiculous.

    Awards are pointless for anything other than the purpose of determining who the most popular members and shouldn't generally be taken to mean much. Legislation produced shouldn't play a part in election results, because we will then see a lot of pointless bills that do nothing and are not debated on being submitted just to add to party totals. Also, what about legislation that has been written by multiple members? And if the 'Power' part is going to be based on Petros' chart, then I don't think much more needs to be said about it.

    Not to mention the fact that this makes it much more difficult for new members to become MPs in a GE.
    You have to have something to differentiate between candidates so the best candidates win in constituencies. It's not just a popularity contest when you consider there are awards for best debater, a speaker's award and also a new member's award.

    I'm already looking into the bit about legislation. I could potentially change it to manifesto commitments passed or something like that. Activity should be rewarded though.

    The 'Power' Part is just a part of the entire CP.

    It doesn't make it more difficult for new members to become MPs as there are still 25 National Seats that Party's appoint.
    Offline

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

    Nay.
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    The Reddit MHoC doesn't have simulated elections


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No, but let's face it, Rakas is entirely right here in that this is just us trying to copy Reddit MHoC in the constituency element or how ever they do it over there when our current system works perfectly fine.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    No, but let's face it, Rakas is entirely right here in that this is just us trying to copy Reddit MHoC in the constituency element or how ever they do it over there when our current system works perfectly fine.
    I'm sorry, but I'm really not happy with the assumption that wanting to bring in constituencies is just because I want to copy Reddit MHoC. It has nothing to do with that. I've explained the advantages of changing to this system but I'll re-list them here anyway.

    - A much shorter time-frame
    - We don’t bother the rest of TSR
    - We don’t have to wait around on the CT and they don’t have to do as much for us during General Elections
    - This system rewards activity
    - The system is flexible

    It also gives people a chance to actually represent their constituencies rather than solely representing their party
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    No, but let's face it, Rakas is entirely right here in that this is just us trying to copy Reddit MHoC in the constituency element or how ever they do it over there when our current system works perfectly fine.
    It actually brings us closer to our legal framework too.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This sounds ridiculiously complicated. Maybe because its Friday and my brain or dead; or maybe its just a difficult concept!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam9317)
    This sounds ridiculiously complicated. Maybe because its Friday and my brain or dead; or maybe its just a difficult concept!
    You're not brain dead. It is complicated, and not really very objective, and takes away from us being a MHoC for TSR to be quite honest.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam9317)
    This sounds ridiculiously complicated. Maybe because its Friday and my brain or dead; or maybe its just a difficult concept!
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that. I know that I keep saying it, but the Constitution and GD should be amended only to improve the documents and should be done in a way which is clear and simple. This desire to keep complicating both really needs to stop.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I'm sorry, but I'm really not happy with the assumption that wanting to bring in constituencies is just because I want to copy Reddit MHoC. It has nothing to do with that. I've explained the advantages of changing to this system but I'll re-list them here anyway.

    - A much shorter time-frame
    - We don’t bother the rest of TSR
    - We don’t have to wait around on the CT and they don’t have to do as much for us during General Elections
    - This system rewards activity
    - The system is flexible

    It also gives people a chance to actually represent their constituencies rather than solely representing their party
    Call me cynical, but Reddit MHoC have constituencies and now you want to bring them here, coincidence? To me, it certainly does not seem to be. Your 'advantages' are anything but advantageous to the House and let's see why:

    - A much shorter time-frame - If you are so set on a shorter time frame, then amend the Constitution to that effect. There is no need to change the whole system for the sake of shortening the time-frame, that is ludicrous.

    - We don’t bother the rest of TSR - The whole point of the General Election is that we do bother the rest of TSR! We should use this as an opportunity to promote the House and boost our membership. The General Election should be a time of promoting the House.

    - We don’t have to wait around on the CT and they don’t have to do as much for us during General Elections - It's twice a year that the CT have to do this for us. I'm sure that they don't mind doing this on just two occasions.

    - This system rewards activity - This seems rather sound, but there are problems with this. First of all, is it fair that the events of last term influence the term after the election? In short, if a party is inactive, then has a change of leadership which boosts that party again, is it fair that the party is still 'punished' for not being active under the former leader. Secondly, the voting reviews I feel have contributed to a slowdown in the debate in the House. They encourage people only to vote and not to debate. Now, under your system you only contribute to that decay. You reward parties for legislation produced say, but all that encourages people to do is to flood the House with nonsensical legislation and motions because your system effectively encourages the view that it is better to be active and produce a large amount of rubbish than to spend the time creating less legislation, but that which is better thought through and might actually encourage debate.

    - The system is flexible - I don't see how this system is any more flexible or indeed any less so than the system we currently use
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Actually got round to reading this... Nah. For the reasons already eloquently given by others. I could support the idea of constituencies and/or mixed elections but this is not the way to go about it. I particularly disapprove of the 'power' table and how this moves to completely cut the MHoC off from the rest of TSR.

    I say this knowing that the system would probably be quite beneficial to my party.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Call me cynical, but Reddit MHoC have constituencies and now you want to bring them here, coincidence? To me, it certainly does not seem to be. Your 'advantages' are anything but advantageous to the House and let's see why:

    - A much shorter time-frame - If you are so set on a shorter time frame, then amend the Constitution to that effect. There is no need to change the whole system for the sake of shortening the time-frame, that is ludicrous.

    - We don’t bother the rest of TSR - The whole point of the General Election is that we do bother the rest of TSR! We should use this as an opportunity to promote the House and boost our membership. The General Election should be a time of promoting the House.

    - We don’t have to wait around on the CT and they don’t have to do as much for us during General Elections - It's twice a year that the CT have to do this for us. I'm sure that they don't mind doing this on just two occasions.

    - This system rewards activity - This seems rather sound, but there are problems with this. First of all, is it fair that the events of last term influence the term after the election? In short, if a party is inactive, then has a change of leadership which boosts that party again, is it fair that the party is still 'punished' for not being active under the former leader. Secondly, the voting reviews I feel have contributed to a slowdown in the debate in the House. They encourage people only to vote and not to debate. Now, under your system you only contribute to that decay. You reward parties for legislation produced say, but all that encourages people to do is to flood the House with nonsensical legislation and motions because your system effectively encourages the view that it is better to be active and produce a large amount of rubbish than to spend the time creating less legislation, but that which is better thought through and might actually encourage debate.

    - The system is flexible - I don't see how this system is any more flexible or indeed any less so than the system we currently use
    If I was only going for a shorter time-frame I'd be able to understand your first point. As it's one pro out of quite a few, your argument on that point becomes completely irrelevant.

    We'll still have manifestos and a post up, but it means rather than having mass PM's sent around and people being bugged my members looking for votes we simply have a thread up where we can debate eachother's manifestos which will hopefully allow more people to stumble across MHoC and get involved.

    That's just for general elections. You also have to count by-elections. And I'm sure the CT don't mind at all, but the fact of the matter is a lot of people don't want to be waiting around for a couple of extra days for the results.

    I'm already adjusting the system for a second reading, but I've taken on points about legislation and things like that, and looked at other ways of rewarding activity. It won't be such a large factor that it completely destroys somewhat inactive parties, but it gives parties a little boost if they are more active, and that's exactly how it should be.

    It is more flexible as more variables can be throw in if the house want them to be, and variables can be taken out. The amount of constituencies and seats in constituencies can be changed. It's these things that make it more flexible.

    As for the complexity issue, I can completely understand that. To simplify it, I'll put it like this. Votes are made up of Votes for the Party and Votes for the Candidate. There are different variables that add up to these votes. Party's stand candidates in constituencies and the candidates with the most overall votes in constituencies win their seat. Candidates that don't win a seat still have the opportunity to become a National MP, as National Seats are distributed so the percentage of votes = percentage of seats won.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    PetrosAC I'm noting that you are sidestepping the potential problem this causes by making the Speaker very easily partisan not only in judgments about what should be accepted and refused, or who in right in a dispute, but when it comes to democracy itself, arbitrarily being able to help or hinder parties with realistically no checks and balances.

    Nor have you addressed the fact that there is literally no advantage to parties standing as parties except for maybe one or two members, any party that puts all their members up under the party banner are at a major disadvantage to those who do not given independents get 50 party points, to just match this there would need to be at the very least a piece of "legislation" every other day, with a few b2b2b affairs unless the Speaker becomes partisan or gives a blanket buff to all parties.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    PetrosAC I'm noting that you are sidestepping the potential problem this causes by making the Speaker very easily partisan not only in judgments about what should be accepted and refused, or who in right in a dispute, but when it comes to democracy itself, arbitrarily being able to help or hinder parties with realistically no checks and balances.

    Nor have you addressed the fact that there is literally no advantage to parties standing as parties except for maybe one or two members, any party that puts all their members up under the party banner are at a major disadvantage to those who do not given independents get 50 party points, to just match this there would need to be at the very least a piece of "legislation" every other day, with a few b2b2b affairs unless the Speaker becomes partisan or gives a blanket buff to all parties.
    I've already made changes because I recognised how easily the Speaker could be accused of bias. They'll be shown in a second reading

    Currently, the lowest Party Points score is 68 (no prizes for guessing which party). However, I'm completely overhauling the system to make it a little bit more random to change things up a little bit. This means we can set what the minimum and maximum party points totals are.

    Furthermore, it's extremely beneficial for party's to stand as many candidates as possible. I ran another simulation today and the Tories got reduced to 7 seats because they only stood 12 Candidates whilst Labour won 14 seats standing 25 Candidates.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I've already made changes because I recognised how easily the Speaker could be accused of bias. They'll be shown in a second reading

    Currently, the lowest Party Points score is 68 (no prizes for guessing which party). However, I'm completely overhauling the system to make it a little bit more random to change things up a little bit. This means we can set what the minimum and maximum party points totals are.

    Furthermore, it's extremely beneficial for party's to stand as many candidates as possible. I ran another simulation today and the Tories got reduced to 7 seats because they only stood 12 Candidates whilst Labour won 14 seats standing 25 Candidates.
    My bad, read it as divided by 2 and not multiplied by 2. And if a party does not reach the 50 points then they should stand no candidates unless their personal contribution is sufficient to pull them above what they would be as an indie, they then all stand as independents.
 
 
 
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.

Poll
Do you think sex education should be compulsory in schools?

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.