This discussion is closed.
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#21
Report 1 year ago
#21
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
This is an amendment that treats symptoms and not the underlying disease. If you want to deal with symptoms reduce the seat numbers to a sustainable number of seats rather than just deferring the churn, if you want to deal with the problem the house faces we need a solution that places the focus on active debate rather than simply having a house with 50 vobots who log in twice a week to vote and do nought else.
This treats the symptoms of one disease while we try and work on the cause. It's better than worsening the disease, which is what I believe seat reduction would do.
(Original post by 04MR17)
I have serious disagreements about the arguments of some people in this thread.

I cannot remember a time in the last three years when people didn't forget to vote, or people didn't vote without debating etc.

What I can remember though is a time with new items most days and a constantly stream of items in division.
The reason Andrew made the call to not go to by election wasn't only because 11 seats would be going, but because it was based only on 3 votes. If someone were to analysis the last 2 years of voting records I'd imagine they'd find that the voting review periods with the lowest divisions had the highest number of seat losses to a by election. This is because each vote matters more when there are less of them.

One solution would be to increase bill output; and that's certainly what my party and government have been trying to do following a very very poor performance last term - something I have a lot of regrets about. The month it took to finally get everyone into a sub forum delayed that, but hopefully things are looking up in that regard.

Meanwhile, I think that we should recognise that we aren't as prolific on the bill writing front as we used to be, and this amendment seeks to have seats reviewed based on more votes, meaning by elections can (and likely will) still happen, but for seats that really weren't being used, not just from a couple of innocent mistakes - which I have personally been the victim of in the past following a very inactive voting review period with about 5 or 6 votes.

This amendment has my support.
PRSOM.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 year ago
#22
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
This treats the symptoms of one disease while we try and work on the cause. It's better than worsening the disease, which is what I believe seat reduction would do.

PRSOM.
It doesn't really treat symptoms though, just defers them. A seat reduction treats the symptom, making it take a little longer for the seat to be lost does not.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 year ago
#23
Nay! This doesn't solve anything and it's a knee jerk reaction to the Speaker's decisions last week. The problem is very simple "lack of active debate" is the cause of the decline in the house and the issues we are having.

It's become very clear to me a lot of the oldies who've been here for few years are now moving on and leaving the house and they're not being replaced with new active members to maintain the activity in the house.
0
Mr T 999
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 year ago
#24
(Original post by Rakas21)
That would punish the parties which can fill seats.
What party is that? Every party is struggling to maintain seats let's be real.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#25
(Original post by Mr T 999)
Nay! This doesn't solve anything and it's a knee jerk reaction to the Speaker's decisions last week. The problem is very simple "lack of active debate" is the cause of the decline in the house and the issues we are having.

It's become very clear to me a lot of the oldies who've been here for few years are now moving on and leaving the house and they're not being replaced with new active members to maintain the activity in the house.
I should also point out that the thresholds proposed by this amendment would not have made any difference to the seat losses.
0
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 year ago
#26
(Original post by Mr T 999)
What party is that? Every party is struggling to maintain seats let's be real.
I cant promise 100% turnout but we could fill another three seats and the Liberals have two on ice i believe.

So yes, we cant have a 9 seat by-election but there is room for redistribution of seats to fill 50.

I do share the concern of your prior post though in terms of replacement. When you think how many members rise beyond vobot status to prominance it is much lower than previous with most parties struggling beyond their leader/deputy leader.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#27
This has entered cessation.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#28
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#28
Division, clear the Lobby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (77)
14%
I'm not sure (24)
4.36%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (177)
32.18%
I have already dropped out (11)
2%
I'm not a current university student (261)
47.45%

Watched Threads

View All