Turn on thread page Beta

A94 - MHoC Reform Amendment watch

Announcements
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    A94 - MHoC Reform Amendment
    Proposed by: The Rt. Hon. Cryptographic MP
    Seconded by: The Rt. Hon. bun MP, The Rt. Hon. Will95206 MP, The Rt. Hon. Lipvig MP, The Rt. Hon. nebelbon MP




    MHoC Reform Amendment 2014

    An Amendment to enforce stricter rules on Party inactivity, to help small parties function, to increase activity of the house and add a House of Lords which will be responsible for enforcing and progressing with these changes, as well as taking some of the heavy load off the Speaker.


    BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    We propose to amend the Guidance document from:

    General Elections
    1.7) The formal duration of an election will be 21 Days,
    Day- The Prime Minister holds the authority to announce his/her intention to seek a dissolution on a particular date; as long as parliament does not expire in between.
    Day 0 – Election is called by the Prime Minister or the speaker if parliament has expired. A wash up period of seven days remains in place but no new 'threads' will be submitted to the speaker.
    Day 0 – The Speaker will inform parties to submit their manifestos;
    Day 7 – All manifesto’s should have been received by the speaker who shall admit them subject to them meeting the criteria to stand. Who formally declares the previous parliament dissolved and shall remove all MP's from the Division Lobby Forum.
    Day 7 – The Speaker will post a thread containing ALL manifestos in the Model House Of Commons sub-forum and add a secret poll for 7 days with an option for each candidate/party and an option for “Spoilt Ballot”
    Day 14 – Results of the election are declared by the speaker, the speaker will then inform party leaders they have 7 days to form any coalitions
    Day 21 – Details of formed coalitions are announced by the speaker who invites the leader of the largest coalition/party that fulfills article 6.1 to form a government and nominate a prime minister for appointment. The speaker invites the leader of the largest party that does not take part in the government and that fulfills article 7.1 to form a shadow ministry.
    Day 21 - The speaker formally declares parliament open and announces details of parliament's expiration date.
    to
    1.7) The formal duration of an election will be 35 Days,
    Day- The Prime Minister holds the authority to announce his/her intention to seek a dissolution on a particular date; as long as Parliament does not expire in between.
    Day 0 – Election is called by the Prime Minister or the Speaker if Parliament has expired. A wash up period of seven days remains in place but no new items will be submitted to the Speaker.
    Day 0 - The Speaker will calculate each party's coefficient.
    Day 0 – The Speaker will inform parties to submit their manifestos;
    Day 7 – All manifesto’s should have been received by the Speaker who shall admit them subject to them meeting the criteria to stand. Who formally declares the previous parliament dissolved and shall remove all MP's from the Division Lobby Forum.
    Day 7 – The Speaker will post a thread containing ALL manifestos in the Model House of Commons sub-forum and add a secret poll for 7 days with an option for each candidate/party and an option for “Spoilt Ballot”
    Day 14 – Results of the election are declared by the Speaker, who will then inform party leaders they have 7 days to form any coalitions
    Day 14 - The seats allocated by the coefficient are also declared by the Speaker in the same thread.
    Day 21 – Details of formed coalitions are formally announced by the Speaker who invites the leader of the largest coalition/party that fulfills article 6.1 to form a government and nominate a Prime Minister for appointment. The Speaker invites the leader of the largest party that does not take part in the government and that fulfills article 7.1 to form a shadow ministry.
    Day 21 - The Speaker formally declares parliament open and announces details of Parliament's expiration date.
    Day 21 - The Speaker warns the party leaders if their allocation of MPs have not been filled.
    Day 35 - Any seats that are not filled will go to an immediate by-election, this shall be governed by the 'By Elections' part of the Guidance Document, starting at day 0.
    and
    1.10) If for any reason a 51st seat is required due to the d'Hondt method of calculations then it is permitted.
    to
    1.10) If for any reason extra seats are required due to the d'Hondt method of calculations then they are permitted.


    also
    By Elections
    1) After a two month interval the Speaker will conduct a review of MP voting records aimed at assessing the proportion of votes that each MP has attended.
    2) The Speaker will publish the results of the aforementioned review in the MHoC and highlight those seats which have either been vacant or contain MP's with sub-standard voting records
    3) For the purposes of this amendment sub-standard will be defined as 50% of all votes in the Division Lobby within that two month period.
    4) One month from the aforementioned review the Speaker will conduct a further review of those seats that were considered vacant or containing MP's of sub-standard performance.
    5) The Speaker of the MHoC will once again highlight those seats which are still unfilled or containing MP's considered to be sub-standard,
    6) Within two weeks of the second MP review the Speaker will conduct a by election containing the seats which were considered vacant or containing sub-standard MP's
    7) Parties which had vacant or sub-standard seats are prohibited from partaking in the aforementioned by-election
    8) Normal by election procedure applies
    to
    1) At the end of every month the Speaker will conduct a review of MP voting records aimed at assessing the proportion of votes that each MP has attended.
    2) The Speaker will publish the results of the aforementioned review in the MHoC and highlight those seats which have either been vacant or contain MP's with sub-standard voting records
    3) For the purposes of this amendment sub-standard will be defined as 50% of all votes in the Division Lobby within that one month period.
    4) In the next review, those seats highlighted from the aforementioned review will undergo a further review of those seats that were considered vacant or containing MP's of sub-standard performance, by the Speaker.
    5) The Speaker of the MHoC will once again highlight those seats which are still unfilled or containing MP's considered to be sub-standard,
    6) Within two weeks of the second MP review the Speaker will conduct a by election containing the seats which were considered vacant or containing sub-standard MP's
    7) Parties which had vacant or sub-standard seats are prohibited from partaking in the aforementioned by-election
    8) Normal by election procedure applies


    as well as
    Vote of No Confidence
    10.1.3) Vote of No Confidence against the Speaker / Deputy Speaker
    to
    10.1.3) Vote of No Confidence against the Speaker / Deputy Speaker / Model House of Lords Representative

    Sections will also be added to the Guidance Document, they will be:

    General Elections
    1.12) All 50 seats will be awarded in a general election, 4 in 5 seats 'House of Commons' will be awarded by public vote, and 1 in 5 seats 'House of Lords', will be awarded using the d'Hondt system by the activity coefficient.
    1.13) When calculating the activity coefficient a bill is worth two points, a motion is worth one point and an amendment 5 points, (to the person who wrote it).
    1.14) Private member legislation counts towards their party total.
    1.15) Joke legislation does not accumulate any activity coefficient points. The Speaker shall use their discretion when deciding whether legislation is 'joke' or not. This also applies to spam legislation, hereby defined as: 'Multiple poorly written legislation by one party or person.'
    1.16) If a party is in government or opposition (hereafter 'coalition') their total is added to the other party's totals creating a coalition total.
    1.17) This coalition total is the divided so each party in the coalition receives an amount proportional to their number of MPs.
    1.18) For parties not in coalition their total is calculated as per 1.13).
    1.19) Independents can accumulate activity coefficient points, in the event that they accumulate enough points to be allocated seats, they may take them up. If they stood in the voting part of the general election, all votes for them shall be allocated as spoilt ballots.

    Amendments
    8.8) Punctuation may be changed without an amendment by the Speaker as long as it doesn't change the meaning of the word/phrase.


    Termly Awards
    3.7 Termly Awards
    1) In the final fortnight of the Parliament, the Speaker will hold awards for;
    (a) Legislator of the term
    (b) Member of the term
    2) The winners will be presented with the title of [Member Name] of [County/City/Town]
    3) The formal duration of the awards will be 15 days
    Day 0 - The Speaker announces that nominations for Member of the Term are open. N.B. Nominations are sent by private message to the Speaker.
    Day 0 - The Speaker counts up each members contribution in the form of motions and amendments. (For independents, Bills are also included.) Joke bills are excluded.
    Top three (quantity) go through to the voting round.
    Day 7 - Nominations close for the Member of Term. Top three most nominated members go through to the voting for Member of the Term.
    Day 7 - Voting opens for Member of the Term.
    Day 7 - Voting opens for Legislator of the Term.
    Day 14 - Both votes close.
    Day 14 - The Speaker asks the winners to choose their title.
    Day 15 - The winners are publicly announced.
    4) No two people can share the same title.


    Party Formation / Dissolution
    14.1) A party will be shutdown if either:
    14.1.1 There is no activity in their sub-forum for a period of 1 month.
    14.1.2 None of their MPs vote for a period of 1 month
    14.1.3 The Party Leader steps down and no-one replaces them
    14.1.4 The Speaker deems them inactive
    14.2) In it's place there will be a competition to replace the party.
    14.3) The formal duration of this process will be 17 Days,
    Day 0 - The Speaker announces the party disbanded
    Day 0 - The Speaker welcomes submissions for new parties.
    Day 7 - All proposals which have been submitted will be displayed in a Q&A/Support gathering thread.
    Day 14 - All proposals that have been supported by 2 or more other members of TSR, with at least 150 posts and 3 months of activity, and at least one Hon. Member will go through to the next stage. The Hon. member may be the proposer.
    Day 15 - The Speaker will choose one of the parties to be formed, on the basis of no. of supporters, experience of supporters, and offering to the MHoC.
    Day 16 - The Speaker will justify their choice of party, and feedback to the unsuccessful propositions.
    Day 17 - The Speaker will oversee and start the process of the elections of a party leader


    Model House of Lords
    15.1) General Details
    1.1) The Model House of Lords is a subdivision of the Model House of Commons. The combined name is the TSR Model UK Parliament (MUKP). However the abbreviation MHoC will still refer to both
    1.2) The Model House of Lords is entitled to a restricted access sub-forum in the MHoC forum (similar to the MUN Security Council)

    2) MPs
    2.1) Any seats awarded by the activity coefficient are House of Lords seats
    2.2) House of Lords MPs have the same rights and obligations as House of Commons MPs.
    2.3) When appointing House of Lords MPs they have to have fulfilled at least one of the following conditions:
    (a) Had an 80% Voting record last term.
    (b) Had a 70% Voting record average over the last two terms.
    (c) Had a 60% Voting record average over the last three terms.
    2.4) All House of Lords MPs are entitled Lord. To be used as such '(Right) Honourable Lord

    3) Committees
    3.1) All House of Lords MPs serve on at least one committee, but are not advised to serve on more than two committees
    3.2) The job of committees are to assist the Speaker and House in their duties.
    3.3) At the start of each term a chair will be elected for each committee
    3.4) The Speaker will release details of whom is serving and chairing on each committee once elections are finished, in the style of the Cabinet
    3.5) The Speaker and/or Model House of Lords Representative can set up new committees on real life or TSR MUKP issues

    4) Leadership
    4.1) The leader of the House of Lords is called the 'House of Lords Representative'
    4.2) The House of Lords Representative will be elected as per the Deputy Speaker timelines, nominated members must be Model House of Lords MPs
    4.3) The House of Lords Representative will not use their position is a partisan way
    4.4) The House of Lords Representative will act as the external representative for the TSR MUKP (Model UK Parliament)
    4.5) The House of Lords Representative is responsible for raising the profile of MUKP in TSR and in wider political circles
    4.6) The Model House of Lords Representatives is responsible for organising a variety of Q&A sessions with Politicians and political commentators




    Notes
    Spoiler:
    Show
    This Amendment is the biggest single change for the MHoC since it's formation, the reason for this is that in my relatively short time as an MP, I have been taking down notes on what would have put me off, what enticed me, how to make it easier for new members etc. This is the first, and by far the most radical collection to help improve the MHoC for everyone. Most of these amendments are aimed at making it easier for new members, and increase activity. I urge people not to be put off by the enormity of the changes, they will be ultimately an amazing thing for this house and will hopefully increase long term numbers to unprecedented levels, this amendment also puts in place the infrastructure to keep on improving in the form of committees.
    Regards, Cryptographic.

    This Amendment comes into force immediately, however these will only be enacted when they are first required. E.g. Awards, at the end of the term. House of Lords at the start of the next term etc. However voting reviews would be immediately effective.

    Two example committees that should be set up are:
    (a) Committee on MP activity (CoMPA)
    The Committee is responsible for maintaining MP voting records, among other things.
    (b) Committee on Participation (CoP)
    The Committee is responsible for finding ways to increase participation from new members. E.g. Next year to prevent a two week term before the G.E. Set up a term where there is no government, and everyone can become an MP, and then after that, for the next turn, raise the number of MPs to 60.
    (c) Committee for MUKP (MHoC on wiki) wiki relevance (CfWR)
    The main example of this is keeping the Hansard updated, this would be quite mundane, but brief and would ease the load on the Speaker.

    N.B. Hierarchy for MUKP is as follows:
    Speaker
    Deputy Speaker
    Representative for the House of Lords

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Aye! Much needed changes to the MHoC to encourage it's growth and increase activity.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    Nay from me for quite a few reasons. The main ones, for now as I intend to reply to this in much more depth later on, are this will greatly increase the bureaucracy of the House with the Speaker taking on far more work than he currently does. This bureaucracy will in turn add to the confusion of the House - we should aim to become simpler not have more chambers for instance. Finally, the 35 day election period is too long and will cause election fatigue. This is dreadful amendment and, while its principles are right, we should vote it down.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Nay from me for quite a few reasons. The main ones, for now as I intend to reply to this in much more depth later on, are this will greatly increase the bureaucracy of the House with the Speaker taking on far more work than he currently does. Nope, some HoL MPs would be responsible for keeping up to date voting records every few days for the party leaders, the speaker, and anyone else who is interested. Some HoL MP's would also be responsible for keeping the hansard updated, this will take away easily 50-75% of the Speaker's workload. This bureaucracy will in turn add to the confusion of the House - we should aim to become simpler not have more chambers for instance. Simpler? This adds variety to the House so we could try to retain older members for longer. Finally, the 35 day election period is too long and will cause election fatigue. The election would be the same length, however if a party cannot fill all of it's seats a fortnight after the parliament is opened, and coalitions announced they go to a by election. So if it takes you almost a month to fill seats they go to by election so active members of the House can become MPs therefore increasing activity. The time extension is merely a technicality, if you read it properly then you would have noted this. This is dreadful amendment and, while its principles are right, we should vote it down. I can see it's a tricky one for you. More titles for you Vs Pressure on you. This will lead to a regeneration of UKIP is currently nothing but a puppet party, I believe that you only have two/three MPs that are primarily loyal to UKIP. UKIP is a rotten corpse with a few outstanding members, this will help to invigorate it and bring the quality to the fore. This will mean that your inactive seats will be re-allocated until you can fill them yourself.
    Please do expand later. See bold.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    Please do expand later. See bold.
    If you are going to get personal, then I won't be debating with you. The ideas in this amendment are frankly horrendous and to use what should be a neutral amendment to launch political attacks perhaps represents that the only way to defend the bureaucratic nonsense within the amendment is to launch into petty attacks - clever.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    If you are going to get personal, then I won't be debating with you. The ideas in this amendment are frankly horrendous and to use what should be a neutral amendment to launch political attacks perhaps represents that the only way to defend the bureaucratic nonsense within the amendment is to launch into petty attacks - clever.
    I am trying to help the house, UKIP has 3/4 seats that are not occupied by members primarily loyal to them, from feedback I have received from various members of different parties almost every party can fill more seats than there were allocated, the two exceptions are the Libertarians (I think) and UKIP, the Libertarians are putting out some excellent legislation, as we see with their recent patent bill, when was the last UKIP legislation? Which party was the one which couldn't even fill their cabinet positions last term? (That was down to either inefficient leadership or no. of MP seats filled.) I urge you to look beyond the short term and see that this will help House activity, that no one in your party will not get a seat if they want to sit in the House, just the unfilled ones will be re-allocated to parties that are more likely to fill them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No, no, and double no.

    Having read over this last week I'm already decided but will post a more detailed response tomorrow.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Seems pretty decently thought out, aye in principle
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    If you are going to get personal, then I won't be debating with you. The ideas in this amendment are frankly horrendous and to use what should be a neutral amendment to launch political attacks perhaps represents that the only way to defend the bureaucratic nonsense within the amendment is to launch into petty attacks - clever.
    Yes meritocracy, what an idiotic concept. :rolleyes: Out of three points you made, only one wasn't answered by the amendment itself. The third point is an opinion. I also defended them, the bold bits were where I defended it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Seems pretty decently thought out, aye in principle
    Thanks.

    (Original post by Republic1)
    No, no, and double no.

    Having read over this last week I'm already decided but will post a more detailed response tomorrow.
    Ok, thanks.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    How many Lords will there be? Presumably they are Lords for as long as they wish to be? I had suggested twelve, just as this is the number on a jury.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    How many Lords will there be? Presumably they are Lords for as long as they wish to be? I had suggested twelve, just as this is the number on a jury.
    1/5 of the House(s) will be HoL MPs, Seats for the House of Lords will be allocated by an 'activity coefficient' (1.12-). They will be Lords for at least one term, however party leaders are encouraged to put much the same people up for the seats so that the HoL can continue it's job effectively. When the seats are allocated if an independent has gained a HoL seats, they could refuse to take it up and instead run/ take up their HoC seat.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    It's obviously before my time, but hasn't a House of Lords come up a few times now in the MHoC? I don't see why people would change a system that works well. I'm not going to support this both for logical reasons and personal ones; this all seems like a lot of work for somebody at a time when it should be avoided (nearing the ending of an academic year, I would have left the idea for a month or so); this also looks to alter a system that I and fellow new MPs are just getting the hang of now. By adding a new system that very few people will fully understand you jeopardise the support of future MPs, who will have very little power in any case.

    It's a nay from me, if you didn't guess.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maddo)
    It's obviously before my time, but hasn't a House of Lords come up a few times now in the MHoC? Yes, this in nothing like anything which has previously been suggested, just HoL was the most appropriate name for it. I don't see why people would change a system that works well. I'm not going to support this both for logical reasons and personal ones; this all seems like a lot of work for somebody at a time when it should be avoided (nearing the ending of an academic year, I would have left the idea for a month or so); this also looks to alter a system that I and fellow new MPs are just getting the hang of now. The only changes here would be a sub-forum where very experienced active members can assist the running of the House, in effect all this does is give 10 people access to a subforum to help run the House(s). By adding a new system that very few people will fully understand you jeopardise the support of future MPs, who will have very little power in any case. MPs would have the same power as currently just 1/5th of them would help the Speaker in their duties, HoL MPs past helping the Speaker, organising Q&A sessions with Politicians for all to participate in, would have no more power than HoC MPs. HoL MPs are HoC MPs whom assist the House and get elected by activity.

    It's a nay from me, if you didn't guess.
    Thank you for your feedback.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Nay from me for quite a few reasons. The main ones, for now as I intend to reply to this in much more depth later on, are this will greatly increase the bureaucracy of the House with the Speaker taking on far more work than he currently does. This bureaucracy will in turn add to the confusion of the House - we should aim to become simpler not have more chambers for instance. Finally, the 35 day election period is too long and will cause election fatigue. This is dreadful amendment and, while its principles are right, we should vote it down.
    Indeed, this just seems to create more work for the Speaker for no likely benefit.

    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    Yes meritocracy, what an idiotic concept. :rolleyes:
    Meritocracy ≠ Democracy. Nobody should be given extra seats that do not depend upon the results of the election.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Absolute not, nay, no, never. We already have multiple functions in place to re-distribute seats to more active parties, in the form of seat-borrowing powers and in more extreme cases forced by-elections. But crucially, voters have a say in all of this - parties will only allow those with similar ideologies to borrow seats, and by-elections obviously involve a direct vote. I could never support a situation where it is possible, say, that voters decided they wanted a Tory government, but got a Labour one instead because Labour wrote some more motions the previous term - even if they were deeply unpopular. That's not how democracy works. Even if you accept this in theory, the implementation is disastrous. Often spurts of activity come from one or two extremely active members within a party. For starters this makes giving that party extra seats largely pointless if the rest of their non-MP members aren't particularly active, or in some cases not contributing at all. And it secondly exasperates the issues of assuming activity in a coalition is proportional to the number of seats held by each party, which is simply nonsense. In the Labour-Socialist government of a few terms back, we had an almost-dead Labour party which gave half it's seats to Socialists who then wrote 90% of the legislation and simply had Labour help them pass it. Quite on the contrary to rewarding active parties, this amendment would've given a huge bonus to Labour, despite the fact they were comatose and spent their time effectively being given the run-around by the far-left (as fun as that was at the time). This amendment is anti-democratic in theory and unworkable in practice, and I oppose it in the strongest possible terms.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O133)
    Indeed, this just seems to create more work for the Speaker for no likely benefit.



    Meritocracy ≠ Democracy. Nobody should be given extra seats that do not depend upon the results of the election.
    Workload for the Speaker will be decreased, the Speaker will no longer responsible for keeping up to date the voting record and Hansard. That is a massive amount of work gone. The benefit? Inactive seats are given to active members quicker, therefore increasing activity in the House.

    The Greens and Socialists have often been the most effective out putters of legislation, yet often receive minimum amounts of seats, a few terms ago there was a debate about whether to change the party names to make the whole process fairer, this will go someway to addressing this problem. Arguably we are doing what would have happened anyway.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Cryptographic)
    The Greens and Socialists have often been the most effective out putters of legislation, yet often receive minimum amounts of seats, a few terms ago there was a debate about whether to change the party names to make the whole process fairer, this will go someway to addressing this problem. Arguably we are doing what would have happened anyway.
    The Greens and Socialists receive fewer seats because in RL they are niche parties. As long as many voters only venture into MHoC to vote twice a year we will see voting along RL party lines. Whether or not we write a lot of legislation, if we do not get the votes we should not get the seats. The amendment is undemocratic and I will vote no.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Absolute not, nay, no, never. We already have multiple functions in place to re-distribute seats to more active parties, in the form of seat-borrowing powers and in more extreme cases forced by-elections. But crucially, voters have a say in all of this - parties will only allow those with similar ideologies to borrow seats, and by-elections obviously involve a direct vote. I could never support a situation where it is possible, say, that voters decided they wanted a Tory government, but got a Labour one instead because Labour wrote some more motions the previous term - even if they were deeply unpopular. That's not how democracy works. Even if you accept this in theory, the implementation is disastrous. Often spurts of activity come from one or two extremely active members within a party. For starters this makes giving that party extra seats largely pointless if the rest of their non-MP members aren't particularly active, or in some cases not contributing at all. And it secondly exasperates the issues of assuming activity in a coalition is proportional to the number of seats held by each party, which is simply nonsense. In the Labour-Socialist government of a few terms back, we had an almost-dead Labour party which gave half it's seats to Socialists who then wrote 90% of the legislation and simply had Labour help them pass it. Quite on the contrary to rewarding active parties, this amendment would've given a huge bonus to Labour, despite the fact they were comatose and spent their time effectively being given the run-around by the far-left (as fun as that was at the time). This amendment is anti-democratic in theory and unworkable in practice, and I oppose it in the strongest possible terms.
    With the Coalition problem, it is not perfect but I will look at ways to improve it. It was quite simply the easiest method. However with the seat distribution, due to the amount of MPs in a party, there is a very good chance that in all cases a party with more MPs will write more legislation, therefore the seat distribution will remain largely as it would have been if all 50 had been directly elected, with the exception of UKIP losing 2 and Grn/Socialists gaining one each (for the last election). If there was a problem of a few members powering the party, the monthly voting reviews would sort this.

    Re: The potentially un-democratic method, what would you think if at the start of the election the HoL allocation was revealed, and side by side with the GE another poll was run, posing the question: 'Are you happy with the HoL allocations' or something like that. With the options yes, no, abstain. A 50 percent 'NO' vote would mean that the 10 HoL seats would be re-allocated as per the GE vote? This would mean that it is democratic, hopefully as many people will vote in it as the GE thread as they run concurrently, and if the popular vote is not happy with it then the HoL MPs are elected as per the other 4/5th of the sets.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O133)
    The Greens and Socialists receive fewer seats because in RL they are niche parties. As long as many voters only venture into MHoC to vote twice a year we will see voting along RL party lines. Whether or not we write a lot of legislation, if we do not get the votes we should not get the seats. The amendment is undemocratic and I will vote no.
    With the un-democratic method, what would you think if at the start of the election the HoL allocation was revealed, and side by side with the GE another poll was run, posing the question: 'Are you happy with the HoL allocations' or something like that. With the options yes, no, abstain.

    A 50 percent 'NO' vote would mean that the 10 HoL seats would be re-allocated as per the GE vote? This would mean that it is democratic, hopefully as many people will vote in it as the GE thread as they run concurrently, and if the popular vote is not happy with it then the HoL MPs are elected as per the other 4/5th of the seats.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

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

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