A162 – Simulated Elections Amendment (Second Reading) Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Speaker's note: As there is no longer enough time for this to pass before the election is called (on Wednesday at the latest), if successful it will not be able to come into effect for that election.

A162 – Simulated Elections Amendment (Second Reading)
Proposed by: PetrosAC MP (Lib)
Seconded by: hazzer1998 MP (UKIP), Quamquam123 MP (Lab), SoggyCabbages MP (Lab), Unown Uzer MP (UKIP)

In the Guidance Document, replace Section 1.1 with:


1. The Speaker is responsible for everything surrounding the HoC elections

2. Manifestos are to be submitted to the Speaker by the deadline, and received after this time will be accepted at the Speaker’s discretion

3. In a General Election, any number of Parties and Independents are permitted to stand. The Speaker has discretion to remove anyone from standing in the General Election.

4. Manifestos submitted must be less than 450 words.
i) Manifestos may not contain more than two image files.
ii) Manifestos may not contain audio or video files.
iii) Manifestos may not contain pictures of, or quotes attributed to, any real-life figure, living or dead, political or otherwise.
iv) Where a manifesto is received with more than 450 words, the Speaker will cut the manifesto at the 450-word mark.

5. The Formal Duration of the Election will be 14 days
Day 0- 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 and candidate lists;
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 a list of all candidates by constituency. The process of simulating the election will then begin.
Day 9 - Results of the election are declared by the speaker, the speaker will then inform party leaders they have 5 days to form any coalitions
Day 14 - 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 14 - The speaker formally declares parliament open and announces details of parliament's expiration date.

6. Independent candidates are allowed to join a party at any point during parliament, in doing so they take their seat with them and bolster the party’s seats. This however will not affect the party in power.

7. There will be 12 Constituencies that will elect a total of 25 MPs.
Scotland (2 seats)
Northern Ireland (1 seat)
Wales (1 seat)
North West (3 Seats)
North East & Cumbria (2 Seats)
Yorkshire & The Humber (2 seats)
West Midlands (2 seats)
East Midlands (2 Seats)
Eastern (2 Seats)
London (3 Seats)
South West (2 Seats)
South East (3 Seats)

Each Party can only stand the number of candidates equivalent to the number of seats that constituency elects in each constituency. Independents are allowed to stand under a named banner, and several independents are allowed to stand under the same banner. They will not be able to win national seats.

8. There will be 25 National Seats that will be allocated proportionally so the percentage of seats won is equal to or as close to the percentage of votes won as possible.

9. Votes will be calculated using two different factors. Party Points and Candidate Points. Party Points are calculated by giving each party a random score between 60 and 80 before adding on 2 points for every manifesto pledge passed, with points capped at 100. Further variables can be added by the Speaker. All Independents will receive 50 Party Points.

Candidate Points are calculated by their “Power” score, which is calculated by several different variables including being a Party Leader, being in Cabinet or a former Party Leader. All incumbent MPs also receive an additional 10 Points. Other variables can be adjusted at the Speaker’s discretion. The Speaker is also free to add in new variables that contribute to the “Power” Score. The suggested variables and their values are:
50 Points if the candidate is the Speaker of the Commons
25 Points if the Candidate is the Party Leader or one of the two commissars for the Socialists
15 Points if the candidate is the Deputy Leader or Chairperson of their Party, or Deputy Commissar of the Socialists
15 Points if the candidate is the current Prime Minister
10 Points if the Candidate holds a great office (including DPM, excluding Prime Minister)
5 Points if the Candidate holds a Shadow Great Office
5 Points if the Candidate is the Deputy Speaker
5 Points if the candidate is a Former Party Leader
5 Points if the candidate is a Former Prime Minister
2 Points if the candidate is an ordinary Party Member
5 Points if the candidate is an MP but doesn’t contribute massively.
10 Points if the candidate is a senior member of their party and isn’t part of the Leadership.

To get the total number of votes cast for a candidate, you add their Party Points and Candidate Points and multiply it by 100. The winning candidates become MPs. If candidates are tied, the seat is assigned on a coin toss.



Notes
This amendment introduces fully simulated elections for General Elections and By-elections and introduces constituencies to the MHoC for the first time.
More information on how the simulated elections work can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

The current candidate points can be found in the following link. It is not fully updated as legislation submitted in the last two months has not been added on. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

Finally, after running a test simulation, here were the results. Further adjustments have been made since: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

I know this system can seem incredibly confusing, but I urge you all to give it the time it needs.
Changes:

- Removal of the last two sections (On by-elections). This means seats belong to parties after elections and this means the rule that parties that lose seats can’t stand in by-elections stands
- Party Point process becomes partially randomised
- Candidate Point system established in the amendment itself
- Seats belong to parties
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
I'm not sure the speaker should be able to add or remove points categories because that risks bias
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Still a no, unsurprisingly

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
username1524603
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
No, my concerns from the first reading have not been acted on as promised; I do not want the private message to all TSR users to return.
0
EricAteYou
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
Interesting but still a nay from me.
0
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
I'm not personally convinced simulated constituencies would work here.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
No from me, as I've said before, this is an unnecessary Amendment to a system that works fine.
0
Cactus69
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
Interesting concept, I'm also unsure if the speaker should be able to add or deduct points
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Nigel Farage MEP)
No, my concerns from the first reading have not been acted on as promised; I do not want the private message to all TSR users to return.
I decided against adding that part back in, mainly because there is no bias to be had from mass-PMs when elections are fully simulated. They can, however, encourage more people to join the MHoC and that is only a good thing.

(Original post by Cactus69)
Interesting concept, I'm also unsure if the speaker should be able to add or deduct points
(Original post by Aph)
I'm not sure the speaker should be able to add or remove points categories because that risks bias
Would you both prefer the points categories to be set in stone how they currently are?
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Birchington)
I'm not personally convinced simulated constituencies would work here.
Is there any reason you believe the constituencies in particular wouldn't work?
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by PetrosAC)
I decided against adding that part back in, mainly because there is no bias to be had from mass-PMs when elections are fully simulated. They can, however, encourage more people to join the MHoC and that is only a good thing.





Would you both prefer the points categories to be set in stone how they currently are?
I would prefer that yes, and then categories can be added by an amendment. Or you could give the speaker the option to add one but require it to be put to a vote if anyone objects.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
Still nay, I'm strongly opposed to giving any weight to government positions.
0
Cactus69
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by PetrosAC)

Would you both prefer the points categories to be set in stone how they currently are?
If the adding/deducting variable was taken out, and the points were set in stone I'd be more likely to agree. If new variables needed to be added, an amendment could always occur?
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Still nay, I'm strongly opposed to giving any weight to government positions.
It's hardly any wait at all, and will only have an impact on 5 people at the most. In real life, those in Great Offices would have a much larger public profile.
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by Cactus69)
If the adding/deducting variable was taken out, and the points were set in stone I'd be more likely to agree. If new variables needed to be added, an amendment could always occur?
I think there has to be a degree of randomness to make results more interesting, hence the +/- 10 variable. I'm happy to set the points in stone

Edit: You should look to join a party http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2443718
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by PetrosAC)
It's hardly any wait at all, and will only have an impact on 5 people at the most. In real life, those in Great Offices would have a much larger public profile.
Real life doesn't matter, because this still acts to entrench existing large parties and governments - something the Liberal party would gain immensely from, it should be noted.

Furthermore, if your argument in defence is 'it doesn't do that much', why not just get rid of it?
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Real life doesn't matter, because this still acts to entrench existing large parties and governments - something the Liberal party would gain immensely from, it should be noted.

Furthermore, if your argument in defence is 'it doesn't do that much', why not just get rid of it?
When we hold literally one great office position, we're really not gaining much out of it.

Because the positions still deserve a boost
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by PetrosAC)
When we hold literally one great office position, we're really not gaining much out of it.

Because the positions still deserve a boost
Why do they deserve a boost when it merely entrenches individual positions?

I'm generally against anything being used as a metric for this which is decided by players rather than by some objective measure.
0
Cactus69
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by PetrosAC)
I think there has to be a degree of randomness to make results more interesting, hence the +/- 10 variable. I'm happy to set the points in stone

Edit: You should look to join a party http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=2443718
The idea of randomness is fine. I think it just let the Speaker have too much power, there was no upper level in which they could add points, he/she could end up giving an extra twenty points to a favorable position or person.

If the Speaker was wanting to add points, a vote in the house seems more democratic
0
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Why do they deserve a boost when it merely entrenches individual positions?

I'm generally against anything being used as a metric for this which is decided by players rather than by some objective measure.
It's not particularly easy to just walk into a Great Office position. If I was still giving points to the entire Cabinet, I'd understand your point. It also encourages people to want to get into Government and want to do well.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you ever accessed mental health support services at University?

Yes (48)
24.37%
No, but I have thought about it (55)
27.92%
No (94)
47.72%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed