Turn on thread page Beta

A117 - Election Supplement Amendment (Second Reading) watch

    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    A117 - Election Supplement Amendment (Second Reading)

    Proposed: Nigel Farage MEP MP
    Seconded: thehistorybore MP, Adam9317, Unown Uzer, Wellzi

    Under 7) on the guidance document replace:

    “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”

    With:“Day 14 – Results of the election are declared by the speaker after the total number of votes has been calculated, the speaker will then inform party leaders they have 7 days to form any coalitions”

    To add the following section in the guidance document and constitution with the following:

    Additional Votes

    1.Votes will be decided based on the average voting record of MPs in a party at the end of the term.
    2. A party will receive 5 extra votes for every 1% average MP voting voting record over 90%.
    Example: If a party has an average MP voting record of 98.6%, the party will receive (98 - 90) x 10 extra votes.
    3. If a party has an average MP voting record of below 80%, the party will lose 5 extra votes for each 1% below 80%.
    Example: If a party has an average MP voting record of 75.2%, the party will lose (80 - 76) x 10 votes.

    4. If a party has a voting record of 90% or below the party will be given no additional votes.
    5. For each MP with a voting record under 60% the party will lose 10 votes.
    6. The total number of votes will be collected at election time.
    7. The total numbers of votes will be the number of votes from normal elections and from MP voting records.
    8. The total number of votes will decide the seats per party using the D’Hondt method.
    9. The Speaker is responsible for collecting the voting record and determining the number of MPs each party has.
    10. This amendment applies to the next election after this amendment passes only.
    11. The amendment will become permanent if the amendment passes a second vote where twice as many MPs vote Aye than no.
    a) the vote must be conducted after the trial at the next election.

    Notes
    This amendment aims to reward parties who can keep their MPs active by giving parties with a very high voting record extra seats at elections.

    Changes are in blue


    Speaker's Note: The first reading of this amendment was entitled Election Replacement Amendment. The title has been changed for this second reading.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    2. A party will receive 5 extra votes for every 1% average MP voting voting record over 90%.
    Example: If a party has an average MP voting record of 98.6%, the party will receive (98 - 90) x 10 extra votes.
    3. If a party has an average MP voting record of below 80%, the party will lose 5 extra votes for each 1% below 80%.
    Example: If a party has an average MP voting record of 75.2%, the party will lose (80 - 76) x 10 votes.

    In these, why is it x10 when it's an extra 5 votes per 1%?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Nay
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    mobbsy91 Good spot, I have made a mistake writing the bill but it will be correct for another reading, or a vote.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    mobbsy91 Good spot, I have made a mistake writing the example out.
    Ahh ok! Thanks for that - I couldn't work out whether I was being a massive ****ing idiot, or if it were just a typo on there!
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Nay

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    This seems much more reasonable, definite aye now rather than an abusing the system aye.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Nay. The result of the election should be solely based upon the votes cast by TSR users, on a one-user-one-vote principle. and only manipulated to remove ineligible voters or dupe accounts.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    This is better but can still only abstain.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Nay. The result of the election should be solely based upon the votes cast by TSR users, on a one-user-one-vote principle. and only manipulated to remove ineligible voters or dupe accounts.
    Took the words right out of my mouth
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Nay, we are a democracy not whatever you want to call this.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Still nay, one person one vote just like IRL.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Nay, we are a democracy not whatever you want to call this.
    Yes, you are so democratic that only the vote of one member (yours) counts if he wishes to illegitimately become Prime Minister. You are also so democratic that anybody who does not support you is silenced kicked out of the party. I know you are a communist, but do we really need communist-style elections, where only the people who support you vote?
    Offline

    11
    A strong nay - it's frankly dishonest to ask other TSR users to vote in this thing, and then not consult or inform them that their vote for a party isn't worth as much as someone else's vote for another party. This could lead to the situation that the party who gains the most votes doesn't have the most seats, which is completely wrong.
    I'm not up for weakening democracy in this fashion, to try and create an illusion of strong activity. In any case, it would only reward parties with strong whipping systems - members don't need to post bills or motions, or even make any debate, just vote. A party that has a good voting record, but makes very little contribution in the house in no way deserves an electoral boost.
    Those massive issues aside, surely this also gives an incredible boost to very small parties with one or two MPs that manage to maintain a good voting record?
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    Nay. The result of the election should be solely based upon the votes cast by TSR users, on a one-user-one-vote principle. and only manipulated to remove ineligible voters or dupe accounts.
    (Original post by Actaeon)
    A strong nay - it's frankly dishonest to ask other TSR users to vote in this thing, and then not consult or inform them that their vote for a party isn't worth as much as someone else's vote for another party. This could lead to the situation that the party who gains the most votes doesn't have the most seats, which is completely wrong.
    I'm not up for weakening democracy in this fashion, to try and create an illusion of strong activity. In any case, it would only reward parties with strong whipping systems - members don't need to post bills or motions, or even make any debate, just vote. A party that has a good voting record, but makes very little contribution in the house in no way deserves an electoral boost.
    Those massive issues aside, surely this also gives an incredible boost to very small parties with one or two MPs that manage to maintain a good voting record?
    Nay for these reasons basically.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Actaeon)
    A strong nay - it's frankly dishonest to ask other TSR users to vote in this thing, and then not consult or inform them that their vote for a party isn't worth as much as someone else's vote for another party. This could lead to the situation that the party who gains the most votes doesn't have the most seats, which is completely wrong.
    I'm not up for weakening democracy in this fashion, to try and create an illusion of strong activity. In any case, it would only reward parties with strong whipping systems - members don't need to post bills or motions, or even make any debate, just vote. A party that has a good voting record, but makes very little contribution in the house in no way deserves an electoral boost.
    Those massive issues aside, surely this also gives an incredible boost to very small parties with one or two MPs that manage to maintain a good voting record?
    Hear, hear!

    I cant see the sense in this. Election results should be based on votes, not voting records.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Of course not.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Actaeon)
    A strong nay - it's frankly dishonest to ask other TSR users to vote in this thing, and then not consult or inform them that their vote for a party isn't worth as much as someone else's vote for another party. This could lead to the situation that the party who gains the most votes doesn't have the most seats, which is completely wrong.
    I'm not up for weakening democracy in this fashion, to try and create an illusion of strong activity. In any case, it would only reward parties with strong whipping systems - members don't need to post bills or motions, or even make any debate, just vote. A party that has a good voting record, but makes very little contribution in the house in no way deserves an electoral boost.
    Those massive issues aside, surely this also gives an incredible boost to very small parties with one or two MPs that manage to maintain a good voting record?
    Hear hear!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This is in cessation.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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: September 13, 2015
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

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.