Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

A84 - Ballot Naming Amendment - VOTING Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should this amendment be passed into the Guidance Document?
    As many are of the opinion, Aye
    15
    44.12%
    On the contrary, No
    15
    44.12%
    Abstain
    4
    11.76%

    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    The SDLP got 0.4% however
    Yep. The Social Democratic Labour Party. Not really a parallel to the Socialists, unlike the TUSC.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Yep. The Social Democratic Labour Party. Not really a parallel to the Socialists, unlike the TUSC.
    This is one reason why if this is going to work just for ballots that we have a blanket ban, or no ban at all. Social and Socialists link, after all SDLP take the Labour whip in RL
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Negatory.

    Oh, and the TUSC got less than 0.1% of the national vote.
    Interesting. TUSC sources keep quoting 0.1% at me, so to see if what you said was true I went and checked the official results in more detail. Candidates affiliated with the TUSC gained 15,573 of the vote cast in the 2010 General Election, out of a total of 29,691,380 votes, which is 0.052%. Some ambitious rounding by the TUSC there! You're quite right then.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    This is one reason why if this is going to work just for ballots that we have a blanket ban, or no ban at all. Social and Socialists link, after all SDLP take the Labour whip in RL
    Nobody calls the SDLP "the Socialists" as a short hand, and there's no real link between the word "Socialist" and "Social" unless you're trying to imply that the Social Democrats were some sort of hard left organization. That's just stretching. If you think this should be applied to all parties just pass an amendment forcing the Socialists and Libertarians to change their names too.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Nobody calls the SDLP "the Socialists" as a short hand, and there's no real link between the word "Socialist" and "Social" unless you're trying to imply that the Social Democrats were some sort of hard left organization. That's just stretching. If you think this should be applied to all parties just pass an amendment forcing the Socialists and Libertarians to change their names too.

    Stretching it may be, but my point remains. - If we are placing restrictions, those restrictions need to be clear and absolute, i.e. not subject to implementation dependent on how the Speaker feels at the time. 0.1% Seems to have been a carefully chosen figure. I can see why it would be difficult to keep a check on all names, purely because we could have the situation where a party's name could be 'de-legalised' overnight quite literally.

    Why should some TSR parties have to change their name but not others?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As has been discussed before in this thread, there are people open to extending it to all parties. You can submit that amendment yourself and I will be a proposer if you want.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    There is surely the loophole (which I've just spotted) which would allow parties to name other parties. By this I mean that while the Liberal Democrats couldn't call themselves Liberal Democrats, any other party wouldn't be prevented by this amendment from referring to them as Liberal Democrats. That could then be used as a tactic by other parties - i.e. don't vote for the Liberals, they're just Liberal Democrats in disguise etc. etc., if that makes sense. That loophole does need addressing really.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    There is surely the loophole (which I've just spotted) which would allow parties to name other parties. By this I mean that while the Liberal Democrats couldn't call themselves Liberal Democrats, any other party wouldn't be prevented by this amendment from referring to them as Liberal Democrats. That could then be used as a tactic by other parties - i.e. don't vote for the Liberals, they're just Liberal Democrats in disguise etc. etc., if that makes sense. That loophole does need addressing really.
    That's a good point and it does need addressing. I should imagine this will see some heavy amendments in the event it passes.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    That's a good point and it does need addressing. I should imagine this will see some heavy amendments in the event it passes.
    With that in mind, I'll be voting no. I'd rather that the House got this right the first time and really discussed it than we get it wrong and have to keep amending it.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by toronto353)
    There is surely the loophole (which I've just spotted) which would allow parties to name other parties. By this I mean that while the Liberal Democrats couldn't call themselves Liberal Democrats, any other party wouldn't be prevented by this amendment from referring to them as Liberal Democrats. That could then be used as a tactic by other parties - i.e. don't vote for the Liberals, they're just Liberal Democrats in disguise etc. etc., if that makes sense. That loophole does need addressing really.
    I don't see that as the loophole, What my loophole was is, that the popular parties can still work around this - as long as they don't name themselves on the ballot or in the manifesto, they can still identify themselves

    "Labour voter? Vote for xxxxx "
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    There is surely the loophole (which I've just spotted) which would allow parties to name other parties. By this I mean that while the Liberal Democrats couldn't call themselves Liberal Democrats, any other party wouldn't be prevented by this amendment from referring to them as Liberal Democrats. That could then be used as a tactic by other parties - i.e. don't vote for the Liberals, they're just Liberal Democrats in disguise etc. etc., if that makes sense. That loophole does need addressing really.
    (Original post by TopHat)
    That's a good point and it does need addressing. I should imagine this will see some heavy amendments in the event it passes.
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    I don't see that as the loophole, What my loophole was is, that the popular parties can still work around this - as long as they don't name themselves on the ballot or in the manifesto, they can still identify themselves

    "Labour voter? Vote for xxxxx "
    :facepalm: A loophole is a fault in a rule that allows the rule to be circumvented - none of those are loopholes.

    If a member of the electorate cared enough to find out which party associates with which real-life party, then they obviously could. They'd literally only need to visit any of the MHoC wiki pages, or even the main forum, and just use their eyes to read the party's name - that information is available on literally all of those pages. So it really doesn't matter whether a person let's on, during the election debate, that one party is really another, what matters is that that information isn't readily available on the ballot or in manifestos - as those are the parts of the election that will decide the voting intentions of the majority of the TSR electorate.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by JPKC)
    :facepalm: A loophole is a fault in a rule that allows the rule to be circumvented - none of those are loopholes.

    If a member of the electorate cared enough to find out which party associates with which real-life party, then they obviously could. They'd literally only need to visit any of the MHoC wiki pages, or even the main forum, and just use their eyes to read the party's name - that information is available on literally all of those pages. So it really doesn't matter whether a person let's on, during the election debate, that one party is really another, what matters is that that information isn't readily available on the ballot or in manifestos - as those are the parts of the election that will decide the voting intentions of the majority of the TSR electorate.
    Then doesn't that simply make the rule completely pointless
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    I don't see that as the loophole, What my loophole was is, that the popular parties can still work around this - as long as they don't name themselves on the ballot or in the manifesto, they can still identify themselves

    "Labour voter? Vote for xxxxx "
    However, in order to do this, they would at least have to scroll past the manifestos, making it a touch more likely that they would vote on policy rather than just blindly on RL allegiance. It also evens out the advantage between the parties, as I am just as capable of writing 'Labour voter? Vote Libertarian' as someone else is of writing Labour voter, vote 'TSR Authoritarian Centrist' TSR Labour could also stretch their policies way to the right of their actual position and go for the RL Labour vote as well if they wanted.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Then doesn't that simply make the rule completely pointless
    The idea is that people read more than just the list of party names before voting. If they have to research a bit, they might find that the TSR equivalent of their RL preference doesn't fit them as well.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I also note that election sigs are free from this rule. Intentional or not?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Then doesn't that simply make the rule completely pointless
    Is that a joke question? Because, honestly, I'm sure you realise that most people don't pay that much attention to the inner workings of the MHoC. Voters, for the most part, will just look at the names on the ballot before making their judgement. The next tier may skimread the manifestos. The tier after that are the people that already know which party is related to which real-life party. So, no, the rule isn't pointless, and nor does it contain any loopholes.

    And as chris points out, if this does inspire more people to look into the MHoC then that can only advance the central purpose of this amendment. The problem we have, after all, is with people mistaking us for real-life because they're ignorant of the differences between MHoC politics and that of Westminster in the real-world - the simplest cure for this is getting them to read the election debates, the wiki pages, the signatures of MHoC MPs, etc.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Is that a joke question? Because, honestly, I'm sure you realise that most people don't pay that much attention to the inner workings of the MHoC. Voters, for the most part, will just look at the names on the ballot before making their judgement. The next tier may skimread the manifestos. The tier after that are the people that already know which party is related to which real-life party. So, no, the rule isn't pointless, and nor does it contain any loopholes.

    And as chris points out, if this does inspire more people to look into the MHoC then that can only advance the central purpose of this amendment. The problem we have, after all, is with people mistaking us for real-life because they're ignorant of the differences between MHoC politics and that of Westminster in the real-world.
    Is that a joke answer


    The whole rationale behind this is to try and disassociate TSR parties from RL namesakes. By having the situation where a party can just identify themselves as a RL party within the election, just circumvents the rule on parties not being allowed to use a RL name on the ballot paper.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Is that a joke answer


    The whole rationale behind this is to try and disassociate TSR parties from RL namesakes. By having the situation where a party can just identify themselves as a RL party within the election, just circumvents the rule on parties not being allowed to use a RL name on the ballot paper.
    It is literally like talking to a brick wall with you.

    I'm sure you realise that most people don't pay that much attention to the inner workings of the MHoC. Voters, for the most part, will just look at the names on the ballot before making their judgement. The next tier may skimread the manifestos. The tier after that are the people that already know which party is related to which real-life party. So, no, the rule isn't pointless, and nor does it contain any loopholes.

    And as chris points out, if this does inspire more people to look into the MHoC then that can only advance the central purpose of this amendment. The problem we have, after all, is with people mistaking us for real-life because they're ignorant of the differences between MHoC politics and that of Westminster in the real-world.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I also note that election sigs are free from this rule. Intentional or not?
    Thats another reason what makes it absolutely unenforceable.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Thats another reason what makes it absolutely unenforceable.
    Okay, so are you saying that this amendment - if passed - would have absolutely zero impact on the outcome of the election?
 
 
 
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: March 10, 2013
Poll
Which pet is the best?
Useful resources

Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.