A224 – Number of MPs Amendment Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1

What is this thread about?
This is an amendment in the Model House of Commons (MHoC). It's an attempt to change the rules of the MHoC in some way. If you're not familiar with the MHoC rules, you might find it's more interesting to look for a different item to debate, but there's nothing stopping you contributing here if you like.

What is the MHoC?
It's a political role-playing game where we pretend to be the House of Commons, and it's been going since 2005. We have formed parties, we have elections twice a year, and we debate bills and motions just like the real-life parliament. If you want to know more about how the MHoC works, your first port of call is the user manual. If you'd like to get involved and possibly join a party, you want the welcome thread.


A224 – Number of MPs Amendment
Proposed by: Andrew97 MP (Conservative)
Seconded by: 04MR17 MP (Liberal Democrat), ns_2 MP (Conservative), Samuel J. Booker MP (Labour), Saunders16 MP (Labour)

Section 3 of the constitution will be amended from

3.1 will elect 50 MPs using the D’Hondt method

To

3.1 will elect 42 MPs using the D’Hondt method

Notes
The MHoc is due a seat reduction, parties are struggling to fill all their seats and 50 is now an unsustainable seat number. Furthermore MP turnout is roughly around this area, so 42 is more representative of who is turning out to vote. Multiple by-elections with multiple seats up for grabs also show have 50 is now simply to high a number for us to maintain.

0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
Abstain, although this is needed it isn’t a solution in itself; it needs to happen alongside the introduction of “bonus seats” based solely on activity according to Rakas21’s model.

I urge the proposers to amend this to include the introduction of bonus seats and it shall have my full support.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
Aye! The house has been struggling with activity with all the parties unable to fill out their seats, and judging by the turnout in the division it's roughly representative of members voting. I do share Connor's comment that bonus seats should be awarded based on activity.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
Mr Speaker Saracen's Fez I ask what is your opinion on this?
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by Connor27)
Abstain, although this is needed it isn’t a solution in itself; it needs to happen alongside the introduction of “bonus seats” based solely on activity according to Rakas21’s model.

I urge the proposers to amend this to include the introduction of bonus seats and it shall have my full support.
Thank you for your response, bonus seats is something I am personally willing to consider. I do however think that it would cause too much controversy at this time and that it would require an amendment in itself.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by Mr T 999)
Aye! The house has been struggling with activity with all the parties unable to fill out their seats, and judging by the turnout in the division it's roughly representative of members voting. I do share Connor's comment that bonus seats should be awarded based on activity.
Thank you for your support. That’s where the strange number of 42 comes from, it seems to be roughly the turnout that we are getting atm. On the bonus seats see my response to Connor, it is something I am willing to have a discussion about.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by Andrew97)
Thank you for your response, bonus seats is something I am personally willing to consider. I do however think that it would cause too much controversy at this time and that it would require an amendment in itself.
What’s controversial about rewarding activity rather than having the unrepresentative and distortionary system of a pure vote lmao?

I’ve had to leave active members like Mr T without a seat all this term never mind having seats available for newer members, meanwhile the Lib Dems and Labour have ran dry out of vobots.

The lack of bonus seats should not be controversial because it’s actively killing the MHoC on both sides.

It’s killing my newer members because they have no opportunity to become MPs, and it’s killing Labour and Lib Dems by keeping them in the constant turmoil of losing seats and by elections.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
Strong aye.

Something must be done to increase activity. Whether it is this, coupled with more regular activity reviews, or the bonus seats idea proposed by Rakas.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by Connor27)
What’s controversial about rewarding activity rather than having the unrepresentative and distortionary system of a pure vote lmao?

I’ve had to leave active members like Mr T without a seat all this term never mind having seats available for newer members, meanwhile the Lib Dems and Labour have ran dry out of vobots.

The lack of bonus seats should not be controversial because it’s actively killing the MHoC on both sides.

It’s killing my newer members because they have no opportunity to become MPs, and it’s killing Labour and Lib Dems by keeping them in the constant turmoil of losing seats and by elections.
Controversial may not be the entirely correct word, but there could be issues on deciding the method of rewarding them. Ie if we based it on post count that would be open to abuse.

I will reserve proper judgment until I see the bonus seat proposal.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by Mr T 999)
Mr Speaker Saracen's Fez I ask what is your opinion on this?
I think this is the wrong solution to the problem. The best way to get people to stick around in the MHoC is to get them MP seats (and I'm slightly concerned that this has stopped happening to the same extent as it used to) so I don't see how a reduction in seat numbers is in any way helpful. Instead I foresee us having exactly the same problems with seat losses but in a house of 42 with even fewer active/voting members..

As I've said many times before, the voting threshold should be returned to its old level at 50%. This would send a signal that MHoC isn't all about voting, and I think it's much more helpful towards increasing activity if someone is in a seat voting at 60% than if they don't get a seat at all or lose a seat and then disappear.

(Original post by ns_2)
Strong aye.

Something must be done to increase activity. Whether it is this, coupled with more regular activity reviews, or the bonus seats idea proposed by Rakas.
Activity reviews don't seem to have done anything to increase activity, just get people to vote more frequently.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
I do confess to be a tad unsure on this amendment. I'm not totally against it but perhaps reducing the voting review criteria would be a better solution as other members have suggested.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
As mentioned i dont really think that a straight reduction really tackles the real issues beyond making the lives of party leaders easier.

I am pleased to see support for the idea of a bonus split and will draw up the appropriate amendment on Tuesday.
0
Saunders16
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
Completely in support of this.

I will oppose anything that is clearly biased towards the Libers. I support manual elections and if parties want to be more popular, they should campaign properly for members and not make unrealistic manifestos.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by Rakas21)
As mentioned i dont really think that a straight reduction really tackles the real issues beyond making the lives of party leaders easier.

I am pleased to see support for the idea of a bonus split and will draw up the appropriate amendment on Tuesday.
And while thinking it doesn't tackle the issue you still sit there and refuse to do anything to actually tackle it. Churning out bills and trying to brute force them through does not tackle the issue, it is the issue.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by Saunders16)
Completely in support of this.

I will oppose anything that is clearly biased towards the Libers. I support manual elections and if parties want to be more popular, they should campaign properly for members and not make unrealistic manifestos.
Ahhh yes because the Limp Dems really campaign hard for members and make sensible manifestos that don’t defy the people’s will, don’t they?

Just wake up and realise 100% manual elections is flawed and kills the game.
0
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by Andrew97)
Thank you for your support. That’s where the strange number of 42 comes from, it seems to be roughly the turnout that we are getting atm. On the bonus seats see my response to Connor, it is something I am willing to have a discussion about.
42 is not a strange number. It's the answer to everything.
1
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
Opposed simply for the reason that this won’t solve the issue.
Currently it’s the large parties struggling whilst the small parties and independents are doing well. Reducing the seats unfairly attacks the small parties and makes becoming an independent harder whilst it won’t actually reduce the number of seats the biggest parties get all that much.

If this was combined with a swap to Sainte-Laüge then I would support it.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by Baron of Sealand)
42 is not a strange number. It's the answer to everything.
I was listening to a song to a song by level 42 whilst I wrote this,

I’m aware you were referring to hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, but that’s where the band got their name from.
Last edited by Andrew97; 1 month ago
0
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by Andrew97)
I was listening to a song to a song by level 42 whilst I wrote this,

I’m aware you were referring to hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, but that’s where the band got their name from.
They are faulty too?
0
JMR2019.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
I will not be voting for this. Solve the problem of activity rather than reducing seats.
2
X
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

What was the hardest A-level paper of 2019?

Edexcel Maths paper 1 (36)
24.66%
Edexcel Maths paper 2 (51)
34.93%
AQA Chemistry Paper 2 (25)
17.12%
Edexcel Maths Paper 3 (11)
7.53%
AQA Physics Paper 3 (23)
15.75%

Watched Threads

View All