Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

A126 - Constitutional Amendment Amendment Watch

Announcements
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    A126 - Constitutional Amendment Amendment 2016
    Proposed by: TheDefiniteArticle (Soc)
    Seconded by: DMcGovern (Soc), Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP), nebelbon (UKIP), James Milibanter (Lab), Andy98 (Grn)

    1. Amendment to constitutional amendment procedure

    In the Constitution, replace:

    "9.5.to the constitution will be passed if twice as many MPs vote Aye as No"

    with:

    "9.5.to the constitution if more than half of the MPs who do not abstain vote Aye".

    2. Amendment to guidance document amendment procedure
    1. To the constitution, append:
      "14. Guidance Document

      For the avoidance of doubt, the following parts of the Guidance Document are binding on the Speaker if and insofar as they use the imperative mood:
      Part 1: Elections
      1.1 General Elections
      1.2 By Elections
      1.3 Speaker Elections
      1.4 Deputy Speaker Elections

      Part 3: Procedures
      3.3 Government
      3.4 Opposition formation

      Part 10: Voting
    2. In the constitution, replace:

      "9.4.to the guidance document:
      9.4.1.where it is binding on the speaker (see Part 14 below), will be passed if more than half of the MPs who do not abstain vote Aye
      9.4.2.where it is not binding on the speaker, will be passed if more MPs vote Aye than No
    Notes
    This changes the threshold of MPs voting aye in order to change the constitution and binding parts of the guidance document from a supermajority of two-thirds to an absolute majority of all MPs. The reason those who abstain are excluded is that if it was a majority of all MPs (i.e. 26 aye votes required in all instances), this would effectively count those who abstained as nay votes, rather than giving voice to their indecision.

    Part 14 of the Constitution indicates which parts of the GD are binding and accordingly require the new amending majority. It is intended to move these over to the Constitution at a later date.

    An example of the operation: an amendment to the constitution is suggested. At division, 3 MPs do not vote, and 3 MPs abstain. Of the 47 who did not abstain, it is required that 24 vote aye for the amendment to be passed (those who do not vote effectively being treated as having voted nay).
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    No. For one I think
    9.4.1.where it is binding on the speaker (see Part 14 below), will be passed if more than half of the MPs who do not abstain vote Aye
    is poorly worded because i think it should be all MP's who didn't abstain.

    Also this allows amendments to pass on the weight of abstentions and allows the 2 main parties to pass amendments which bind the speaker and harm tge smaller ones.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Nay to part 1.

    Part 2 is pointless since you should be amending the constitution directly.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Nay, this has the potential to divide the House. A constitutional/GD amendment should have wide-ranging support from as many parts of the House as possible.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    With regard to section 2, I don't recall seeing much use of imperatives in the GD.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Nay, this has the potential to divide the House. A constitutional/GD amendment should have wide-ranging support from as many parts of the House as possible.
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Nay to part 1.

    Part 2 is pointless since you should be amending the constitution directly.
    I don't see why, in a game intended to mirror real life to as great an extent as possible, we should have constitutional law which can't be amended by a majority. This is already a concession to those who want a static constitution - since it isn't a simple majority. Furthermore, if most people want to change the rules of the game, why not change the rules of the game?

    Re: part 2, the goal would eventually be to move all of the binding parts of the GD to the constitution, but I don't think this amendment is the place to do it.

    (Original post by Saracen's Fez)
    With regard to section 2, I don't recall seeing much use of imperatives in the GD.
    Hm, maybe incorrect wording. IIRC a good chunk of it did, but what is meant is to distinguish bits which say 'The Speaker may...' (because those obviously aren't intended to be binding).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    No. For one I think is poorly worded because i think it should be all MP's who didn't abstain.

    Also this allows amendments to pass on the weight of abstentions and allows the 2 main parties to pass amendments which bind the speaker and harm tge smaller ones.
    I disagree with your wording.

    An abstention should not be treated as a nay. That is taking someone's vote as something which it is not.

    I accept your final concern is valid but I think you don't have enough trust in people. This is just a game; there wouldn't be enough support in the two main parties for such amendments if they didn't make structural improvements.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I disagree with your wording.

    An abstention should not be treated as a nay. That is taking someone's vote as something which it is not.

    I accept your final concern is valid but I think you don't have enough trust in people. This is just a game; there wouldn't be enough support in the two main parties for such amendments if they didn't make structural improvements.
    No, I mean all MP's other then those who abstain.

    It would make sense for them to make it a 2 party state.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    No, I mean all MP's other then those who abstain.

    It would make sense for them to make it a 2 party state.
    It depends on their goals, but a) I think that's really hard to do in a way which is coherent; b) I maintain a significant number of their own would vote against; and c) what exactly was your constituency amendment then?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    It depends on their goals, but a) I think that's really hard to do in a way which is coherent; b) I maintain a significant number of their own would vote against; and c) what exactly was your constituency amendment then?
    Well I still think that it should be a 2/3 super majority of all MP's who amend the constitution. That way it protects the minor parties from domination by population.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I don't see why, in a game intended to mirror real life to as great an extent as possible, we should have constitutional law which can't be amended by a majority. This is already a concession to those who want a static constitution - since it isn't a simple majority. Furthermore, if most people want to change the rules of the game, why not change the rules of the game?Re: part 2, the goal would eventually be to move all of the binding parts of the GD to the constitution, but I don't think this amendment is the place to do it.Hm, maybe incorrect wording. IIRC a good chunk of it did, but what is meant is to distinguish bits which say 'The Speaker may...' (because those obviously aren't intended to be binding).
    Because just because something is done irl doesn't mean it is necessarily right and should be followed here. The MHoC is a small community and, if we're going to be changing the rules, it's much, much better for the sake of cohesion and prevention of bitterness that there is a consensus that the rules should be changed.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cranbrook_aspie)
    Because just because something is done irl doesn't mean it is necessarily right and should be followed here. The MHoC is a small community and, if we're going to be changing the rules, it's much, much better for the sake of cohesion and prevention of bitterness that there is a consensus that the rules should be changed.
    And a consensus, by definition, is what this provides for.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Nay
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Nay
    Why, might I ask?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Why, might I ask?
    Because from my understanding 26 Mps will have to vote aye in order for a bill to pass ?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Because from my understanding 26 Mps will have to vote aye in order for a bill to pass ?
    *constitutional amendment
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hazzer1998)
    Because from my understanding 26 Mps will have to vote aye in order for a bill to pass ?
    This only applies to amendments to the constitution, not Bills. Currently, essentially 2/3 of those who vote either aye or nay have to be in favour for these to pass; in most (but not all) cases, this amendment will cause a reduction, without allowing people to pass amendments which don't have the support of the house.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    This only applies to amendments to the constitution, not Bills. Currently, essentially 2/3 of those who vote either aye or nay have to be in favour for these to pass; in most (but not all) cases, this amendment will cause a reduction, without allowing people to pass amendments which don't have the support of the house.
    Ah Ok in that case i will abstrain for now
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Nay
 
 
 
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: February 8, 2016
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • 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.

  • 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.