A162 – Simulated Elections Amendment

Announcements Posted on
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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.
    Even if parties don't think they can win constituency seats, they should still stand under their party banner so the party has a chance of winning national seats.

    In the simulation I did today, the Tories came first in the Constituencies with 7 (Lab 6, Lib 5, UKIP 4, Soc 2, Green 1) but then picked up no extra national seats as they didn't have many candidates so their total vote wasn't high
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    and gets rid of the rule stopping parties that have lost their seat restanding in by-elections.

    ..

    I read the notes and found that little gem.

    Oh, you self interested people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    This amendment also grants by-elections for defections breaking a central premise of the Mhoc, which is that the parties own the seats.

    (Original post by Aph)
    I can't see labour standing or coping with 25 people.
    The number estimates are clearly based off the number of people who will tick a box in an internal poll, not who are even likely to maintain a voting record over two months (otherwise the Liberals and Labour would have not just lost seats)..

    Not to insult the Liberals but the idea that any more than half of those 16 members could be viewed as dependable MP's is ludicrous. Frankly, they are in an even worse state than we are and that's saying something.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Also, where's this list of people by points.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Also, where's this list of people by points.
    In the notes the 2nd link
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    and gets rid of the rule stopping parties that have lost their seat restanding in by-elections.

    ..

    I read the notes and found that little gem.

    Oh, you self interested people.
    In all fairness, it's a stupid rule. I can maybe change it so the person that lost the seat can't rest and or be an MP for a certain amount of time, but yeah


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    In all fairness, it's a stupid rule. I can maybe change it so the person that lost the seat can't rest and or be an MP for a certain amount of time, but yeah


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It isn't a stupid rule... if a party can't handle a seat they can't handle the seat it's that simple.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    This amendment also grants by-elections for defections breaking a central premise of the Mhoc, which is that the parties own the seats.



    The number estimates are clearly based off the number of people who will tick a box in an internal poll, not who are even likely to maintain a voting record over two months (otherwise the Liberals and Labour would have not just lost seats)..

    Not to insult the Liberals but the idea that any more than half of those 16 members could be viewed as dependable MP's is ludicrous. Frankly, they are in an even worse state than we are and that's saying something.
    I'm going to take that part out so party's do indeed own the seats.

    The number estimates aren't based off people who will tick a box. I went to every party Leader about a month ago and said "if there was going to be constituencies, where would you stand people?" and I gave them each a spreadsheet to fill in. Labour put down 25 Candidates, UKIP 22, Liberals 16, Tories 12, Socialists 10 and the Greens 6.

    You are right though. I'd probably say 7-9 is where we're at, given that both Thehistorybore and iEthan are currently being proxied.

    I'd also say we're always going to have less members than the Tories, Labour and UKIP because of real life recognition.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    It isn't a stupid rule... if a party can't handle a seat they can't handle the seat it's that simple.
    I don't think it does suggest party's can't handle a seat. I've had a lot on my plate recently so I didn't realise Titancream hadn't even joined the usergroup to proxy Imperion. I have other people that could have done that and we probably would have been able to hang onto the seat.

    I take the blame for it, but I truly don't think we can't manage 8 seats


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    I don't think it does suggest party's can't handle a seat. I've had a lot on my plate recently so I didn't realise Titancream hadn't even joined the usergroup to proxy Imperion. I have other people that could have done that and we probably would have been able to hang onto the seat.

    I take the blame for it, but I truly don't think we can't manage 8 seats


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You can handle 8 seats so well that you lost one.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You can handle 8 seats so well that you lost one.
    Congrats Captain Obvious on your insightful observation


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    In the notes the 2nd link
    Pretty sure my points total is too low. Assuming you got the party leader (14th-19th parliaments) and Prime Minister totals correct (3 terms although i stood down in that third) you've probably also needed to take into account that of the last 4 bill of the terms i can take sole credit for one of them plus i won member of the decade.

    That also reminds me that Financier should get points two and a half bills of the term (i think Ray was the other halt of one).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No, this amendment is a sneaky way to change the rules on elections by allowing an unsolicited message to be sent to TSR, and removing the rule that prevents losing parties standing to gain the seats they lost after poor voting.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    and gets rid of the rule stopping parties that have lost their seat restanding in by-elections.

    ..

    I read the notes and found that little gem.

    Oh, you self interested people.
    And this is precisely the problem with this amendment - it isn't about trying to reform the electoral system to make it better, it's about rewarding people for holding meaningless titles and not penalising them for failing to have active MPs.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Pretty sure my points total is too low. Assuming you got the party leader (14th-19th parliaments) and Prime Minister totals correct (3 terms although i stood down in that third) you've probably also needed to take into account that of the last 4 bill of the terms i can take sole credit for one of them plus i won member of the decade.

    That also reminds me that Financier should get points two and a half bills of the term (i think Ray was the other halt of one).
    Some changes have been made since this amendment was brought forward as I'm going for a second reading (this first reading was never going to be great but others have suggested some really good ideas. In terms of the party leader stuff and PM stuff, you don't get a set of points for every term (i.e, it does matter if you're leader for 2 days or 2 years, it's still the same amount of points).

    I've actually cut out awards completely after enough people came to me and said I should try and use different variables instead. It also makes the system a little easier.

    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    No, this amendment is a sneaky way to change the rules on elections by allowing an unsolicited message to be sent to TSR, and removing the rule that prevents losing parties standing to gain the seats they lost after poor voting.

    There is nothing about mass PM's in this entire amendment.....

    On the bit about removing the rule for losing parties to stand in amendments, it is hardly sneaky, but I'll remove it anyway.

    (Original post by toronto353)
    And this is precisely the problem with this amendment - it isn't about trying to reform the electoral system to make it better, it's about rewarding people for holding meaningless titles and not penalising them for failing to have active MPs.
    I completely disagree. This doesn't reward people that pick up meaningless titles. I've changed it so it's only the great offices in terms of cabinet.

    As for the by-electing rule, I'm removing it as this genuinely isn't about that but about bringing something different to elections.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    There is nothing about mass PM's in this entire amendment.....

    On the bit about removing the rule for losing parties to stand in amendments, it is hardly sneaky, but I'll remove it anyway.
    The clause prohibiting a mass message to all TSR users is 1.1(6), which this amendment removes by changing the whole of section 1.1. Do not lie about doing nothing to the mass message, it is clear you have gone through section 1.1 replacing each point with your amendment, then when you come to 1.1(6) you conveniently forget about that clause, choosing to move the current 1.1.(7) to where the 1.1(6) is before replacing the current 1.1(7) with a list of the different constituencies.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The clause prohibiting a mass message to all TSR users is 1.1(6), which this amendment removes by changing the whole of section 1.1. Do not lie about doing nothing to the mass message, it is clear you have gone through section 1.1 replacing each point with your amendment, then when you come to 1.1(6) you conveniently forget about that clause, choosing to move the current 1.1.(7) to where the 1.1(6) is before replacing the current 1.1(7) with a list of the different constituencies.
    If that's the case, I'll add it back in as I genuinely had no intent to remove it
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    If that's the case, I'll add it back in as I genuinely had no intent to remove it
    Yes, it would be nice if the clause was added, I shall be reading closely to make sure the clause is included.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    The clause prohibiting a mass message to all TSR users is 1.1(6), which this amendment removes by changing the whole of section 1.1. Do not lie about doing nothing to the mass message, it is clear you have gone through section 1.1 replacing each point with your amendment, then when you come to 1.1(6) you conveniently forget about that clause, choosing to move the current 1.1.(7) to where the 1.1(6) is before replacing the current 1.1(7) with a list of the different constituencies.
    The mass PM ban isn't enforceable and isn't needed in a simulated election

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    **sorry, catching up as my proxy didn't vote for me**

    Abstain
 
 
 
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
Wake up and smell the...

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.