Issues with the Constitution and Guidance Document Watch

Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#1
Both CatusStarbright and I are keen to have a process where we address issues with our Constitution and Guidance Document. Briefly, our plan is to collect ideas here in a thread, and look to put together a set of amendments that might rectify some of the issues that we agree exist and cause a problem. We will then look to form some sort of small cross-party group to work on these in a way that can attract as wide a consensus as possible.

The documents are viewable in an up-to-date form here:
Constitution
Guidance Document

Please use this thread to collect your ideas for things that need rectifying!
0
reply
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 weeks ago
#2
I've been making a list already and so far I have:

  • Make motions more than or equally as powerful as petitions (currently there is apparently an obligation for the government to respond to petition but not motions)
  • Remove references to the Crisis Committee
  • Look into adding in additional forms of government
  • Examine provisions for independents
  • Formatting
  • Clarity of clauses
  • GD still has references to SoIs
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 weeks ago
#3
Some proposals on MPs and the voting review:

- Reduce the quantity of MPs to 45. Although I have heard 40 mentioned as a potential figure, I believe 45 would be a fair compromise between the two. It would make life slightly easier for parties, reducing the need to often push people to vote, while not particularly changing gameplay.
- Remove the ability for parties to lose seats in the first month of the term. The first month is often a period in which parties make changes and rebuild following the election, which makes it harder to focus on whipping. In this chaotic period of the term, it hurts gameplay for parties to so quickly struggle after the election.
- Reduce the voting percentage at which a seat is removed/highlighted to 40% and 60% (from 50% and 70%). This current trend of by-elections is purely a modern one and detracts from the game by forcing people to focus on campaigning rather than helping the House thrive, in addition to reducing the entertainment and unique experience of the general election when it happens. The current requirements are clearly too demanding and I believe they are also counter-productive. It is better to gently encourage new members to get involved, than have to message them twice or even three times telling them to vote because the rules require it.
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
- Simulated elections.

- Seat reduction to 40 seats.

- Opposition Coalitions.

Those are my main 3
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Connor27)
- Opposition Coalitions.
Hear, hear. It makes things a lot more interesting.
0
reply
CatusStarbright
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Connor27)
x
(Original post by Saunders16)
Hear, hear. It makes things a lot more interesting.
What do they do?
0
reply
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
What do they do?
They allow opposition parties to form a coalition to become the official opposition rather than simply awarding it to the largest opposition party.

So we could have a Lib-Liber OO at the moment rather than a Labour one potentially if an opposition coalition formed.
0
reply
Saracen's Fez
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Saunders16)
- Remove the ability for parties to lose seats in the first month of the term. The first month is often a period in which parties make changes and rebuild following the election, which makes it harder to focus on whipping. In this chaotic period of the term, it hurts gameplay for parties to so quickly struggle after the election.
I agree that once you have more than one or maybe two by-elections in a term it becomes overly disruptive and distracts from the rest of the gameplay. Perhaps the simplest solution here to the problems that both of us have is to have eight weeks between voting reviews instead of four?
0
reply
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
I agree that once you have more than one or maybe two by-elections in a term it becomes overly disruptive and distracts from the rest of the gameplay. Perhaps the simplest solution here to the problems that both of us have is to have eight weeks between voting reviews instead of four?
If it was going to change I would say 6 weeks
0
reply
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 weeks ago
#10
:ditto:
0
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 weeks ago
#11
I think there is a strong arguement for seperating indies at the GE because it's easy to win 2+ seats as an indie and that vote isn't reflected.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Aph)
I think there is a strong arguement for seperating indies at the GE because it's easy to win 2+ seats as an indie and that vote isn't reflected.
Sorry, but could you explain what you mean? I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.
0
reply
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Connor27)
- Simulated elections.

- Seat reduction to 40 seats.

- Opposition Coalitions.

Those are my main 3
We can’t even form coalitions to start governments, how are we meant to have them for oppositions too? 😂
2
reply
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by PetrosAC)
We can’t even form coalitions to start governments, how are we meant to have them for oppositions too? 😂
I think (and hope) it's a more theoretical suggestion for an era when the house has less aggressive party leaders (definitely looking at you there Petros )
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by PetrosAC)
We can’t even form coalitions to start governments, how are we meant to have them for oppositions too? 😂
You could do with practice forming coalitions with the opposition so you don't **** up the governmental ones when you eventually get round to brown-nosing someone.
0
reply
PetrosAC
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by SoggyCabbages)
You could do with practice forming coalitions with the opposition so you don't **** up the governmental ones when you eventually get round to brown-nosing someone.
I’ve formed enough coalitions in my time to not need any practice
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
I would like to know how much support banning joke legislation would get. They make the House look stupid and waste our time, it is not what we should be presenting to new members. This power would not be too much for the Speaker as they are required to show the bills they reject, so if they were being too harsh with submissions there would remain the two options to ask them to change their stance and, failing that, submitting a MONC.

At the very least I will move to block joke legislation from counting in voting records, but I would find it preferable to put an end to them completely once and for all.
1
reply
04MR17
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Saunders16)
I would like to know how much support banning joke legislation would get. They make the House look stupid and waste our time, it is not what we should be presenting to new members. This power would not be too much for the Speaker as they are required to show the bills they reject, so if they were being too harsh with submissions there would remain the two options to ask them to change their stance and, failing that, submitting a MONC.

At the very least I will move to block joke legislation from counting in voting records, but I would find it preferable to put an end to them completely once and for all.
An amendment was put in last term for this (I seem to remember you supporting it if you were around :hmmmm:), it didn't pass but it wasn't far off it, and I think the situation at the moment is perhaps worse than it was at the time. The affect that did have was to stop joke items for virtually the rest of the term. However, members of the Libertarians seem to be ignorant of the house's clear displeasure for this spam.
0
reply
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
  • Make motions more than or equally as powerful as petitions (currently there is apparently an obligation for the government to respond to petition but not motions)

Agreed; if we are going to mimic the IRL where possible, motions should call on the government to something tangible and issue a response as soon as possible within a responsible time frame.
0
reply
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by ns_2)
Agreed; if we are going to mimic the IRL where possible, motions should call on the government to something tangible and issue a response as soon as possible within a responsible time frame.
That gives me an idea. If we want petitions to mimic real life, we could hold a 4-day long, TSR-wide vote that does not count in voting records on the forum itself that anyone - not just MPs - can vote in. It would give more reasons to submit petitions (as non-MPs can just ask MPs to second), allowing the wider site to be engaged more. This would mean it would require a response, but like petitions in real life, the government would not necessarily be expected to follow it. To avoid spam, this could be limited to one petition a week and have to go through the Speaker rather than just being posted.

This may not be as good as it sounded in my head, but it sounded pretty interesting in my head.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
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

Do unconditional offers make teenagers lazy?

Yes (147)
59.04%
No (102)
40.96%

Watched Threads

View All