This discussion is closed.
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#101
Report 7 years ago
#101
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
If you had run as well I definately would have voted R.O.N.
Good. I would hate to be speaker, I'm too fond of my political beliefs. (The idea that you think I'm even slightly serious makes me looooool.)
0
obi_adorno_kenobi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#102
Report 7 years ago
#102
(Original post by JPKC)
Good. I would hate to be speaker, I'm too fond of my political beliefs. (The idea that you think I'm even slightly serious makes me looooool.)
Funny isn't, we are all supposed democrats yet seem actively desparate to block choice. If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever. Choice, that fakery of capitalism. Are we, then, the Apple of TSR?
0
thunder_chunky
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#103
Report 7 years ago
#103
(Original post by JPKC)
Good. I would hate to be speaker, I'm too fond of my political beliefs. (The idea that you think I'm even slightly serious makes me looooool.)
What makes you think I think you're serious? (I don't. Not that I really care either way.)
0
username841677
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#104
Report 7 years ago
#104
Will be voting RON. Not because I think toronto is a bad candidate, by any means, but because a level of scrutiny is a highly important part of the process and I don't think that's possible if we're effectively holding a coronation.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#105
Report 7 years ago
#105
(Original post by TopHat)
Will be voting RON. Not because I think toronto is a bad candidate, by any means, but because a level of scrutiny is a highly important part of the process and I don't think that's possible if we're effectively holding a coronation.
Once again though, everyone had their chance to submit manifestos and they chose not to do so. JPKC has highlighted (albeit in a jokey way) that the only reason that he would submit a manifesto is because there is only one person standing. If people hold a similar attitude to JPKC with regards to submitting a manifesto, then they are not running because they want to be Speaker (after all they would have submitted a manifesto in this ballot not after finding out how many candidates there were), but simply to expand the field.

Furthermore, how can you not scrutinise my manifesto or ask me questions? You can so the scrutiny argument is irrelevant. Feel free to ask me any questions.
0
username841677
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#106
Report 7 years ago
#106
It's not scrutiny if there's no alternative. I could ask you some difficult and demanding questions, find that your answers were either poor or nonsensical; and yet be completely unable to use that information as I cannot vote for anyone else, thus meaning I'd have little option but to abstain. While I doubt it would happen, it is a situation I would prefer to avoid. In addition, the mark of the best candidates is often those who perhaps did not immediately seek the position, but instead came to it after much deliberation. The process of RON may galvanise someone who previously had not wanted to seem a glory-hog or some other such reason, and they may be a very good someone indeed.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#107
Report 7 years ago
#107
(Original post by TopHat)
It's not scrutiny if there's no alternative. I could ask you some difficult and demanding questions, find that your answers were either poor or nonsensical; and yet be completely unable to use that information as I cannot vote for anyone else, thus meaning I'd have little option but to abstain. While I doubt it would happen, it is a situation I would prefer to avoid. In addition, the mark of the best candidates is often those who perhaps did not immediately seek the position, but instead came to it after much deliberation. The process of RON may galvanise someone who previously had not wanted to seem a glory-hog or some other such reason, and they may be a very good someone indeed.
Vote RON if you find my answers poor or nonsensical, but at least try scrutinising my manifesto and my answers first. People had their chance to submit a manifesto. Furthermore, what will happen if people vote RON, no-one submits a manifesto except myself again? What will people do then? Keep voting RON? Also, this wouldn't be fair on me as people could use my manifesto to create their ideas and to copy from what I have written.
0
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#108
Report 7 years ago
#108
"If people hold a similar attitude to JPKC with regards to submitting a manifesto, then they are not running because they want to be Speaker (after all they would have submitted a manifesto in this ballot not after finding out how many candidates there were), but simply to expand the field."

^ That doesn't have to follow.

Wants are usually contingent, they are not binary. I don't just have a list of 'wants' and 'do not wants'. Sometimes 'wants' fall in a triadic relationship of the form: X wants Y if and only if Z. This is because 'wants' have weighting - our preferences are placed upon an ordinal scale, which necessitate trade-offs. I might 'want' to become the speaker, but that is balanced against the competing 'not want' of the amount of spent effort that is required to apply. So wanting to apply is contingent - I want to apply if and only if certain conditions obtain (e.g. non-threatening candidates). On balance, I might not want to apply, not because I don't want to become speaker, but rather because I judge the probabilities involved - weighing up the spent effort against the likelihood of achieving my desire. In the triadic relationship: "I want to apply to become speaker if and only if there is a reasonable chance of becoming speaker". We can see here that there is no necessary connection between the 'want of applying to become speaker' and the 'want of becoming speaker'. It's subtle, but the final list of people who have stepped up to become speaker aren't necessarily the people that most want the role; they may just have had better judgement or been luckier in their predictions of who they'd be against (or over-estimate their chances, have more confidence), and so forth.

Put simply: if you want to become speaker, it doesn't follow that you have to apply (i.e. though the successful applicant must apply, not applying doesn't mean that you didn't want to become speaker); nor does it follow that if you apply, then you want to become speaker (nothing compels or incentivises a disinterested, unknowledgeable, bad-risk-taker not to apply). Because of the contingent nature of wants, the triadic relations involved, and so forth, other factors depend whether you apply, not simply the extent, degree and strength of one's desire to become speaker.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#109
Report 7 years ago
#109
(Original post by Melancholy)
"If people hold a similar attitude to JPKC with regards to submitting a manifesto, then they are not running because they want to be Speaker (after all they would have submitted a manifesto in this ballot not after finding out how many candidates there were), but simply to expand the field."

^ That doesn't have to follow.

Wants are usually contingent, they are not binary. I don't just have a list of 'wants' and 'do not wants'. Sometimes 'wants' fall in a triadic relationship of the form: X wants Y if and only if Z. This is because 'wants' have weighting - our preferences are placed upon an ordinal scale, which necessitate trade-offs. I might 'want' to become the speaker, but that is balanced against the competing 'not want' of the amount of spent effort that is required to apply. So wanting to apply is contingent - I want to apply if and only if certain conditions obtain (e.g. non-threatening candidates). On balance, I might not want to apply, not because I don't want to become speaker, but rather because I judge the probabilities involved - weighing up the spent effort against the likelihood of achieving my desire. In the triadic relationship: "I want to apply to become speaker if and only if there is a reasonable chance of becoming speaker". We can see here that there is no necessary connection between the 'want of applying to become speaker' and the 'want of becoming speaker'. It's subtle, but the final list of people who have stepped up to become speaker aren't necessarily the people that most want the role; they may just have had better judgement or been luckier in their predictions of who they'd be against (or over-estimate their chances), and so forth.
Well that's all well and good, but it still doesn't answer my questions a) about potential plagiarism if I withdraw/ RON won and b) if no-one submits a manifesto if RON wins/ I withdraw and I'm left as the sole candidate again. People had their chance and they didn't take it. It's not about being tactical as you seem to portray it. They simply didn't submit manifestos.
0
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#110
Report 7 years ago
#110
Your post is divided into two distinct parts:

Well that's all well and good, but it still doesn't answer my questions a) about potential plagiarism if I withdraw/ RON won and b) if no-one submits a manifesto if RON wins/ I withdraw and I'm left as the sole candidate again.
It still doesn't answer that question because its scope is not intended to cover that objection. I don't support re-opening nominations without a vote. I was responding to a specific comment. But if you really want a substantial response from me on this point, then here I go:

(a) Plagiarism would not be a concern if RON won. I don't think that plagiarism is so bad so long as credit for the idea is known to belong to somebody (and it seems obvious that it would be... I mean, you've posted your manifesto publicly before anybody else, so people will know that it was your idea first. It's not really plagiarism then, is it? There is a difference between sharing and adopting other people's ideas, and portraying them as originally your own). Secondly, the role is largely a reactive role, and force of personality (and character traits and tendencies) are usually more important than a selection of policies - how people's posting habits suggest they respond to certain pressures, how active they are, and so forth, are far more important. You'll notice that these traits cannot be plagiarised.

(b) RONing at least once rules out tactical concerns. If you turn out to be the only candidate again, then it seems that it was less likely that people were put off by unrealistic expectations of competition for the role. The desire to actually get a speaker, of whatever calibre, will soon become greater than the desire to have a futile and pointless vote on the smaller and smaller chance/hope that another candidate will enter the race.

People had their chance and they didn't take it. It's not about being tactical as you seem to portray it. They simply didn't submit manifestos.
These last three sentences seem unsupported by the rest of your post. I don't see how you can rule out tactical considerations. Simply not submitting a manifesto is no indication of lacking a desire to run. I've put forward that case, you're free to judge whether the reasoning is sound or not, but it seems unobjectionable to me. Nothing contained in those statements seems to trouble my point.
0
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#111
Report 7 years ago
#111
Toronto, some questions for you: how do you propose to raise awareness of the HOC across wider TSR, and how will you expand links with the MUN?
0
username202682
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#112
Report 7 years ago
#112


He has my vote ""
0
Lipvig
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#113
Report 7 years ago
#113
(Original post by Stricof)


He has my vote ""
Looks a bit to young to be a candidate, doesn't he?
0
Student2806
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#114
Report 7 years ago
#114
You don't have only one choice and this isn't a "coronation". If you don't like the one candidate, vote RON. It's pretty simple.

And I don't get this "I would have stood if I knew there was only going to be one candidate" nonsense. If you want to be Speaker, you submit a manifesto. Don't stand just to make up the numbers. That makes a mockery of the system.
4
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#115
Report 7 years ago
#115
(Original post by Student2806)
You don't have only one choice and this isn't a "coronation". If you don't like the one candidate, vote RON. It's pretty simple.

And I don't get this "I would have stood if I knew there was only going to be one candidate" nonsense. If you want to be Speaker, you submit a manifesto. Don't stand just to make up the numbers. That makes a mockery of the system.
Couldn't agree more. If people wanted more candidates, they should have entered the race. Vote RON if the situation really bothers you.
1
Faland
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#116
Report 7 years ago
#116
(Original post by Student2806)
You don't have only one choice and this isn't a "coronation". If you don't like the one candidate, vote RON. It's pretty simple.

And I don't get this "I would have stood if I knew there was only going to be one candidate" nonsense. If you want to be Speaker, you submit a manifesto. Don't stand just to make up the numbers. That makes a mockery of the system.
Again, this view is nonsense. Some people may have decided not to stand because we all thought there'd be a much stronger field. Say someone wanted to be speaker but thought that Paddy or Birchington would be better: that person wouldn't have stood. Now we know that only one person has submitted a manifesto, the people that didn't stand probably want to. (I do not want to stand under any circumstances, btw.)


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#117
Report 7 years ago
#117
(Original post by Birchington)
Toronto, some questions for you: how do you propose to raise awareness of the HOC across wider TSR, and how will you expand links with the MUN?
Hi Birchington,
I would look to change our link in the forums page so that we can display the last post in the forum as well as giving a description of the forum. I would also like to have an advert in the main banner. With regards to further advertising, that is up to members. Perhaps we need some kind of banner for the MHoC so that people can advertise the forum in their signatures, but that is up to them to use banners etc - I can only encourage them to do so. Links with the MUN are up to members of this House to decide. I will try to facilitate links which are beneficial when I need to do so - i.e. state visits, but members must make those links.

toronto353
0
StatusRed
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#118
Report 7 years ago
#118
It's a bit harsh to effectively punish toronto by voting R.O.N.

If people wanted to be the speaker they should of sent their manifestos before the deadline..

So as it stands toronto is the only person who wants to be the speaker and is eligible.
0
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#119
Report 7 years ago
#119
(Original post by toronto353)
Hi Birchington
You have secured my vote!
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#120
Report 7 years ago
#120
I'll participate in Toronto 353's proposed survey. Hopefully he'll ask about why there are so few women in the MHofC and ideas to increase participation.

He could ask for cats and dogs opinion, once the cats have stopped playing with their computer mouse!
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (122)
65.24%
No I haven't decided yet (39)
20.86%
Yes but I might change my mind (26)
13.9%

Watched Threads

View All