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

P66 – Capital Punishment Referendum Petition 2017 Watch

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Well yeah, you could do that, but then you'd be called out on it in the next GE for arguably defying the will of the people in a democratic referendum, all theoretical of course. (I would read the first page where Fez said that even though this is a petition, it is binding and the referendum will be held if this passes, however it is only advisory as Mr Speaker has also said, meaning you could ignore the result altogether if you so chose, but then we come back to the political sovereignty thing again.
    Term-time performance has very little impact on GE success. Moreover, if this wouldn't fulfil what the petition is asking for, it goes back to being barbaric.

    I would disagree, this isn't a virtual act, it's an actual referendum that'd take place on TSR, using broadly the same electorate as the generals, for this purpose I'd call that a cop out argument.
    And yet it would have impact only in TSRland - a land with notional constituencies.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Term-time performance has very little impact on GE success. Moreover, if this wouldn't fulfil what the petition is asking for, it goes back to being barbaric.



    And yet it would have impact only in TSRland - a land with notional constituencies.
    Just to clarify: the petition itself is only calling for an advisory referendum; by voting for this you aren't advocating capital punishment in any way, and as I said, should the yes campaign win, you could theoretically ignore the result altogether (as it's advisory.)
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    If this argument holds, then an acceptable response to the petition would be to reintroduce capital punishment, but only permit it for offences which are worse than anything literally anyone has done ever.

    Ahhhh I think this is an interesting question about the MHoC constitution. The way I see it, we don't have constituencies for procedural purposes, but they exist for the purpose of our MHoC Acts of Parliament. Therefore, they must be considered to exist for the purposes of this.
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Well yeah, you could do that, but then you'd be called out on it in the next GE for arguably defying the will of the people in a democratic referendum, all theoretical of course. (I would read the first page where Fez said that even though this is a petition, it is binding and the referendum will be held if this passes, however it is only advisory as Mr Speaker has also said, meaning you could ignore the result altogether if you so chose, but then we come back to the political sovereignty thing again.

    I would disagree, this isn't a virtual act, it's an actual referendum that'd take place on TSR, using broadly the same electorate as the generals, for this purpose I'd call that a cop out argument.
    TDA is correct in a sense. It has been established by legislative convention that 'TSR UK' - the hypothetical nation of which the Model House of Commons is the legislature has constituencies. It also has a Monarch - Queen Liz II and a hypothetical House of Lords (which automatically consent to whatever the MHoC decides). However we use PR in GEs because constituencies just wouldn't work on an online forum so it's seen as the best way to assign seats. Obviously the MHoC doesn't pass laws that govern TSR the website or affect the lives of the TSR users who are our electorate. Instead we rule over hypothetical millions. The MHoC hass debated and voted on laws that would affect the monarchy, upper house and electoral system/constituencies. Such legislation assumes that those things exist. Fyi, I'm pretty sure TSR UK uses STV constitutencies rather than FPTP and has fewer (I think 600 as opposed to 650).
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    TDA is correct in a sense. It has been established by legislative convention that 'TSR UK' - the hypothetical nation of which the Model House of Commons is the legislature has constituencies. It also has a Monarch - Queen Liz II and a hypothetical House of Lords (which automatically consent to whatever the MHoC decides). However we use PR in GEs because constituencies just wouldn't work on an online forum so it's seen as the best way to assign seats. Obviously the MHoC doesn't pass laws that govern TSR the website or affect the lives of the TSR users who are our electorate. Instead we rule over hypothetical millions. The MHoC hass debated and voted on laws that would affect the monarchy, upper house and electoral system/constituencies. Such legislation assumes that those things exist. Fyi, I'm pretty sure TSR UK uses STV constitutencies rather than FPTP and has fewer (I think 600 as opposed to 650).
    wut
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Just to clarify: the petition itself is only calling for an advisory referendum; by voting for this you aren't advocating capital punishment in any way, and as I said, should the yes campaign win, you could theoretically ignore the result altogether (as it's advisory.)
    Yes, you are. You are voting to bring about a chance that capital punishment comes about. You should not support that unless you support capital punishment.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    TDA is correct in a sense. It has been established by legislative convention that 'TSR UK' - the hypothetical nation of which the Model House of Commons is the legislature has constituencies. It also has a Monarch - Queen Liz II and a hypothetical House of Lords (which automatically consent to whatever the MHoC decides). However we use PR in GEs because constituencies just wouldn't work on an online forum so it's seen as the best way to assign seats. Obviously the MHoC doesn't pass laws that govern TSR the website or affect the lives of the TSR users who are our electorate. Instead we rule over hypothetical millions. The MHoC hass debated and voted on laws that would affect the monarchy, upper house and electoral system/constituencies. Such legislation assumes that those things exist. Fyi, I'm pretty sure TSR UK uses STV constitutencies rather than FPTP and has fewer (I think 600 as opposed to 650).
    Alrighty then, it's an unusual concept to get my head around but I do get it.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Yes, you are. You are voting to bring about a chance that capital punishment comes about. You should not support that unless you support capital punishment.
    Or if you support giving the people a chance to debate a hotly contested issue and have their say on its reintroduction.

    Why is it a rightist defending the rights and the will of the common man here and the leftists claiming that politicians know best?

    I thought the Labour Party is supposed to give a voice to the working class, not to blatantly ignore their concerns.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    wut
    When I started that paragraph I was going to offer an alternative viewpoint for balance by by the time I finished I realised there wasn't one worth giving lol

    (Original post by Connor27)
    Alrighty then, it's an unusual concept to get my head around but I do get it.
    It is an odd system.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Or if you support giving the people a chance to debate a hotly contested issue and have their say on its reintroduction.

    Why is it a rightist defending the rights and the will of the common man here and the leftists claiming that politicians know best?

    I thought the Labour Party is supposed to give a voice to the working class, not to blatantly ignore their concerns.
    People can debate it all they want. Doesn't mean there should be a referendum on it. Like a typical liberal, you're coming at this from the perspective that something which sounds good to 14-year olds (liberty, democracy) should be maximised for its own sake, rather than just when doing so causes a good outcome.

    People don't have rights other than those created by the law.

    The Labour party doesn't give a voice to the working class, it represents their interests. That's why we don't adopt far-right immigration policies, for instance.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    People can debate it all they want. Doesn't mean there should be a referendum on it. Like a typical liberal, you're coming at this from the perspective that something which sounds good to 14-year olds (liberty, democracy) should be maximised for its own sake, rather than just when doing so causes a good outcome.

    People don't have rights other than those created by the law.

    The Labour party doesn't give a voice to the working class, it represents their interests. That's why we don't adopt far-right immigration policies, for instance.
    But here there is a clear positive outcome, though admittedly it is a little meta. Hosting these kinds of debates 1) allows us to help educate people about the realities inherent to the subject matter 2) precipitates debate between people with diametrically opposed views and thus 3) acts as a useful showcase for the MHoC which hopefully 4) attracts new members and thus 5) ensures the continued health of the game.

    A petition seemed particularly appropriate here as it would be site-wide.

    I have often done and supported things which, in a role-playing sense, I think are fundamentally incorrect. Or not in keeping with my personal views IRL. I do them because they are worth doing.

    Do you not agree?

    You are right to argue the point as if the primary concern is starting a small ball rolling down a snowy hill because that is the game we all recognise we are playing, but I just wanted to expand a little on why I tend to support these kinds of things.

    As it goes, it generated more debate about the nature of direct democracy than about the subject matter :facepalm2:
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    But here there is a clear positive outcome, though admittedly it is a little meta. Hosting these kinds of debates 1) allows us to help educate people about the realities inherent to the subject matter 2) precipitates debate between people with diametrically opposed views and thus 3) acts as a useful showcase for the MHoC which hopefully 4) attracts new members and thus 5) ensures the continued health of the game.

    A petition seemed particularly appropriate here as it would be site-wide.

    I have often done and supported things which, in a role-playing sense, I think are fundamentally incorrect. Or not in keeping with my personal views IRL. I do them because they are worth doing.

    Do you not agree?

    You are right to argue the point as if the primary concern is starting a small ball rolling down a snowy hill because that is the game we all recognise we are playing, but I just wanted to expand a little on why I tend to support these kinds of things.

    As it goes, it generated more debate about the nature of direct democracy than about the subject matter :facepalm2:
    Okay, on the proviso that if it passes we can implement by the essentially ineffectual method suggested, aye.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Okay, on the proviso that if it passes we can implement by the essentially ineffectual method suggested, aye.
    As I said, you can implement it how you like, don't expect it to go unnoticed in the next GE though...
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    As I said, you can implement it how you like, don't expect it to go unnoticed in the next GE though...
    I am asking for an explicit change to the content of the petition to make the outcome not repugnant. If that is done, I will support it.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I am asking for an explicit change to the content of the petition to make the outcome not repugnant. If that is done, I will support it.
    The petition literally says this:

    We the undersigned call for a referendum on this with the question: "Should the United Kingdom reintroduce capital punishment as a penalty for the most serious crimes?"

    Is that not already vague and open to interpretation enough for you? How would you have me change it?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    The petition literally says this:

    We the undersigned call for a referendum on this with the question: "Should the United Kingdom reintroduce capital punishment as a penalty for the most serious crimes?"

    Is that not already vague and open to interpretation enough for you? How would you have me change it?
    "Should the United Kingdom reintroduce the capability of judges to consider awarding a penalty of capital punishment where it is just to do so?"
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    The petition literally says this:

    We the undersigned call for a referendum on this with the question: "Should the United Kingdom reintroduce capital punishment as a penalty for the most serious crimes?"

    Is that not already vague and open to interpretation enough for you? How would you have me change it?
    You realise that the bill I put forward if this referendum comes out with a majority in favour will say something like 'mass genocide will now be punishable by death' and nothing else. Or something like that. Or maybe 'mass murder (1,000,000,000+ victims)'.
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You realise that the bill I put forward if this referendum comes out with a majority in favour will say something like 'mass genocide will now be punishable by death' and nothing else. Or something like that. Or maybe 'mass murder (1,000,000,000+ victims)'.
    That just isn't cricket :holmes:
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You realise that the bill I put forward if this referendum comes out with a majority in favour will say something like 'mass genocide will now be punishable by death' and nothing else. Or something like that. Or maybe 'mass murder (1,000,000,000+ victims)'.
    Well, that would be good grounds for a MoNC in your government, I'm sure you would agree
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    "Should the United Kingdom reintroduce the capability of judges to consider awarding a penalty of capital punishment where it is just to do so?"
    Right ok, Saracen's Fez, can the referendum question be amended to this please?

    (There's honestly no difference in the meaning here, so if that's your only demand to vote aye, then by all means you can have it.)
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Well, that would be good grounds for a MoNC in your government, I'm sure you would agree
    I obviously would not agree - seeing as you're pitching the question as being so vague as to be tolerable to those otherwise against. Also, one of your main arguments appears to be how this would be such a good public debate to have (I disagree with that too of course) and so even those of us absolutely opposed to the reintroduction of capital punishment should support this referendum - well having the debate does not necessitate enacting the policy and you must recognise this if your debate argument is to be at all convincing.
 
 
 
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: January 21, 2017
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.