Turn on thread page Beta
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Aph Your assertion minorities would be stopped from making changes is false, if all MPs abstained but one MP voted aye the amendment would pass as one is more than double zero; it would still pass if all MPs abstained because zero is over double zero. The amendment makes it easier for minorities to have a say in amending the constitution because the current set up relies on the larger parties supporting any amendment; if the two largest parties decided an amendment was not needed, it would fail in the current system.
    You haven't read what I have been saying correctly.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    You haven't read what I have been saying correctly.
    Under the current system a minority can make a change to the constitution, and under the amendment a minority can make a change to the amendment, in both systems the larger parties can block things. In both systems a super-majority of the minority can pass an amendment, referring to the example I gave, one MP voting aye when no MPs vote nay, no abstain is a super-majority.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
    Under the current system a minority can make a change to the constitution, and under the amendment a minority can make a change to the amendment, in both systems the larger parties can block things. In both systems a super-majority of the minority can pass an amendment, referring to the example I gave, one MP voting aye when no MPs vote nay, no abstain is a super-majority.
    I know, my main issue is that super-majorities should be required to pass binding statements. I'm not saying I'm a massive fan of the current system either.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I know, my main issue is that super-majorities should be required to pass binding statements. I'm not saying I'm a massive fan of the current system either.
    You still haven't justified this, or distinguished it at all from 'The Speaker shall be bound by [present rule]'.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    You still haven't justified this, or distinguished it at all from 'The Speaker shall be bound by [present rule]'.
    I think matters of procedure need more then majority consensus. With the GD it is only a suggestion so a majority is okay by me but to make everyone do things in certain ways I belive should require greater support then a plain majority.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I think matters of procedure need more then majority consensus. With the GD it is only a suggestion so a majority is okay by me but to make everyone do things in certain ways I belive should require greater support then a plain majority.
    That's not answering my question (which is why you think that, and how you distinguish it), that's repeating your opinion.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    That's not answering my question (which is why you think that, and how you distinguish it), that's repeating your opinion.
    Well that's all I can do. There is no reason for that opinion it just exists and I have yet to see a case put forward as to why super majority is bad.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Well that's all I can do. There is no reason for that opinion it just exists and I have yet to see a case put forward as to why super majority is bad.
    Because it is undemocratic and something which is constitutionally impossible in the UK IRL, thus damages realism.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Because it is undemocratic and something which is constitutionally impossible in the UK IRL, thus damages realism.
    Realism isn't important. And all it does it ensure that a single point doesn't get changed every term.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Realism isn't important. And all it does it ensure that a single point doesn't get changed every term.
    Why don't you think realism is important? We're a MODEL of the House of Commons. We take on RL law as a default because we're approaching things with the aim of simulating a take on RL.

    If a single point gets changed every term it's hotly contested and makes things much more interesting.
    • Study Helper
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    Welcome Squad
    Aye
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Why don't you think realism is important? We're a MODEL of the House of Commons. We take on RL law as a default because we're approaching things with the aim of simulating a take on RL.

    If a single point gets changed every term it's hotly contested and makes things much more interesting.
    I think that our aim is to be better then real life. Which means that we shouldn't be trying to emulate RL but do things better.

    It also leads to confusion and a lack of stability.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I think that our aim is to be better then real life. Which means that we shouldn't be trying to emulate RL but do things better.
    I disagree, why would this be? And that still leaves reflecting real life as the default, from which any deviation would have to be justified.

    It also leads to confusion and a lack of stability.
    I don't see confusion. Few enough amendments get passed that people tend to know what the law is at any given time. I don't see lack of stability as a problem so long as we don't go retroactively applying this stuff to previously failed amendments.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I disagree, why would this be? And that still leaves reflecting real life as the default, from which any deviation would have to be justified.
    yes, RL should be the defult but why should we emulate RL? That would turn running an imaginary country to a pure role-playing game.

    I don't see confusion. Few enough amendments get passed that people tend to know what the law is at any given time. I don't see lack of stability as a problem so long as we don't go retroactively applying this stuff to previously failed amendments.
    right now there are 5 amendments going through. There is about 20 amendments produced a term. If a single point is changed once every 6 months people will get confused.

    I think stability is important. With only amendments which are desperately needed passing.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    yes, RL should be the defult but why should we emulate RL? That would turn running an imaginary country to a pure role-playing game.
    So there needs to be an argument in favour of the existing situation to overcome the default (which this amendment would make us closer to).

    right now there are 5 amendments going through. There is about 20 amendments produced a term. If a single point is changed once every 6 months people will get confused.
    Most amendments fail miserably. The relevant number is the number which get passed every term which aren't on some obscure point (for instance, the government formation amendment isn't a point that anyone would need to know about were it not for your shenanigans ).

    I think stability is important. With only amendments which are desperately needed passing.
    Why are you having this heightened standard? Explain why we should only have amendments which are 'desperately needed' rather than simply 'better than the status quo' - because your heightened standard, logically, must make the game worse than it could be.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    So there needs to be an argument in favour of the existing situation to overcome the default (which this amendment would make us closer to).
    I'm not sure what you mean.

    Most amendments fail miserably. The relevant number is the number which get passed every term which aren't on some obscure point (for instance, the government formation amendment isn't a point that anyone would need to know about were it not for your shenanigans ).
    and this would help more pass. I agree with a minimum number of votes for an item but would rather either half of all MP's vote yes or 2 times the number of aye's then nays with abstains being less then 75% of the aye's. I could settle for that but would rather 2/3 of all MP's voting aye



    Why are you having this heightened standard? Explain why we should only have amendments which are 'desperately needed' rather than simply 'better than the status quo' - because your heightened standard, logically, must make the game worse than it could be.
    Because it protects people from dictatorship of the majority. I don't belive that complete democracy is the best but instead a weighted democracy where minorities get slightly more say then they otherwise would as that protects them from being second class citizens.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    I'm not sure what you mean.
    It raises a presumption in favour of this amendment.

    and this would help more pass. I agree with a minimum number of votes for an item but would rather either half of all MP's vote yes or 2 times the number of aye's then nays with abstains being less then 75% of the aye's. I could settle for that but would rather 2/3 of all MP's voting aye
    Would you support an amendment which required 25 aye votes and more ayes than nays (e.g. 25-24 would be a pass), or twice as many ayes as nays?

    Because it protects people from dictatorship of the majority. I don't belive that complete democracy is the best but instead a weighted democracy where minorities get slightly more say then they otherwise would as that protects them from being second class citizens.
    This is a forum game, the tyranny of the majority doesn't apply because there are no minorities worth protecting. You can't claim to be a minority which should be protecting just because you're in a small party.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    It raises a presumption in favour of this amendment.



    Would you support an amendment which required 25 aye votes and more ayes than nays (e.g. 25-24 would be a pass), or twice as many ayes as nays?



    This is a forum game, the tyranny of the majority doesn't apply because there are no minorities worth protecting. You can't claim to be a minority which should be protecting just because you're in a small party.
    Well 25 aye's is half and I would prefer it called half just in case we get more seats in the future.

    I consider you a minority worth protecting
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This has entered 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: February 8, 2016
Poll
Favourite type of bread

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.