A231 – By-Election (Electoral System) Amendment Watch

This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 months ago
#1
By-Election (Electoral System) Amendment
Proposed by: Saracen's Fez MP (Liberal Democrat)
Seconded by: 04MR17 MP (Liberal Democrat), Bailey14 MP (Labour), CatusStarbright MP (Independent), Joleee MP (Liberal Democrat), SoggyCabbages MP (Labour), TheRadishPrince MP (Liberal Democrat)

This House would adjust the Guidance Document as follows:

Remove the section entitled 'By Elections':

1) The Speaker is responsible for everything surrounding TSR by-elections.
2) Manifestos are to be submitted to the Speaker by the deadline, any received after this time will be accepted at the Speaker’s discretion.
3) The restrictions on manifesto length and content shall be the same as in normal TSR General Elections.
4) Should there be fewer than 5 seats to be assigned, the resulting by-election may only be contested by independents or individuals running under a party banner.
5) Should there be 5 or more seats to be assigned, the criteria for normal TSR General Elections applies.
6) MPs are not eligible to stand.
7) An individual running under a party banner may win a maximum of 1 seat.
8) Should the condition in 4) be true:
8) i) Each party may only have 1 candidate running running under their banner
8) ii) If an equal number or fewer candidates stand than seats to be assigned, the by-election shall be cancelled.
8) iii) The poll shall be a multiple choice vote, unless there is only 1 seat to be assigned.
9) Individuals who run under party banners will be identified as such and any seat won by them is held by the party.
10) Any person wishing to stand as an independent must resign from their former party.
11) All TSR members with more than 100 posts and 3 months experience may vote.
12) Should the condition in 4) be true, the candidates with the highest number of votes will be assigned a seat until they are all filled. Otherwise, the d'Hondt method shall be used to calculate seats. If an extra seat is required, it is permitted.
13) The results shall not affect who is in Government or Opposition.
14) The duration of an election shall be 8 days.
14) Day 0 – Election is announced by The Speaker.
14) Day 0 - The Speaker will inform interested candidates/parties to submit their manifestos
14) Day 4 – All manifestos should have been received by The Speaker.
14) Day 4 - The Speaker will post the manifestos in a thread in the Model House of Commons forum, add a secret 4 day poll with the option of “Spoilt Ballot”.
14) Day 8 – The election closes and seats are assigned.

And replace with the following:

1) The Speaker is responsible for everything surrounding TSR by-elections.
2) Manifestos are to be submitted to the Speaker by the deadline, any received after this time will not be accepted.
3) The election rules for normal TSR General Elections, including rules on the voting system, voter eligibility, and manifesto length and content, apply.
4) No candidate may be a sitting MP during the period of voting.
5) No person wishing to stand as an independent may be a member of any party during the period of voting, or advertise their affiliation to any party during the period of voting.
6) The results will not affect the composition of the government, but may affect which party forms the Official Opposition.
7) The duration of an election shall be 8 days.
7) Day 0 – Election is announced by The Speaker.
7) Day 0 - The Speaker will inform interested candidates/parties to submit their manifestos
7) Day 4 – All manifestos should have been received by The Speaker.
7) Day 4 - The Speaker will post the manifestos in a thread in the Model House of Commons forum, add a secret 4 day poll with the option of “Spoilt Ballot”.
7) Day 8 – The election closes and seats are assigned.

Notes
This amendment changes the by-election procedure, notably to adopt D'Hondt by-elections regardless of the number of seats up for election.

The move to D'Hondt aims to provide more proportional results in by-elections, by allowing parties to win more than one seat under their own name (rather than needing to stand further candidates as independents) and by removing multiple-choice voting that encourages pacts and bloc formation.

This amendment also makes some other minor changes, including clarifying the rules on the ineligibility of sitting MPs and party members as independent candidates. The entire section has also been tidied up and made considerably more concise through the move to one single voting system for all cases.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 months ago
#2
Aye- seems consistent and sensible.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 months ago
#3
It's an aye from me.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 months ago
#4
Removing multi choice is something that I am firmly opposed to because I think quite simply the pacts and alliances aspect makes the game more fun when you’re in a leadership role.

I’m also incredibly disappointed that Saracen's Fez appears to be making the amendments process a political one by refusing to approach ANY Conservative or Libertarian MPs to second this.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 months ago
#5
(Original post by Connor27)
Removing multi choice is something that I am firmly opposed to because I think quite simply the pacts and alliances aspect makes the game more fun when you’re in a leadership role.

I’m also incredibly disappointed that Saracen's Fez appears to be making the amendments process a political one by refusing to approach ANY Conservative or Libertarian MPs to second this.
That's not entirely true. This amendment has been sitting in the amendment proposal thread on the public forum for weeks.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 months ago
#6
And hopefully this amendment would get rid of what I consider to be the worse end of the fake-indy silly nonsense, namely when parties attempt to stand a second candidate through letting them stand as an independent.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 months ago
#7
Opposed. The current state of affairs prevents parties winning seats that they then cannot fill. It also gives Indies more of a shot in getting elected.

Personally I believe we should move to open lists instead of closed lists but I'll start that move by opposing this amendment.
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 months ago
#8
Nay.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 months ago
#9
(Original post by Aph)
It also gives Indies more of a shot in getting elected.
How do you figure? At the moment independents have next to zero chance of being elected in a by-election.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 months ago
#10
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
How do you figure? At the moment independents have next to zero chance of being elected in a by-election.
In the latest by-election if the conservatives had stood under this there is a fair shot I would not have been elected. In non-D'hondt elections parties need enough candidates to stand to win seats, even if they stand fake Indies they need people. This amendment takes seats away from one party who can't fill them and might give them to another who also cannot fill them.
0
17summerellc
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 months ago
#11
seems a good idea to me
0
17summerellc
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 months ago
#12
seems a good idea
0
17summerellc
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 months ago
#13
seems a good idea
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 months ago
#14
(Original post by Aph)
In the latest by-election if the conservatives had stood under this there is a fair shot I would not have been elected. In non-D'hondt elections parties need enough candidates to stand to win seats, even if they stand fake Indies they need people. This amendment takes seats away from one party who can't fill them and might give them to another who also cannot fill them.
I kind of think this mentality, particularly the last sentence, lowers general elections to some form of 'roll the dice to start the game' procedure at the beginning of term, after which seats are re-distributed purely based on who can fill them, rather than a way to distribute the seats proportionally to the opinions of the TSR electorate. (I'd actually go further on this point and remove the block on parties who lose seats standing again.)
0
The Mogg
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 months ago
#15
(Original post by 17summerellc)
seems a good idea
Is it a good idea? Didn't understand the first 3 times.
1
17summerellc
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 months ago
#16
haha your hillarious im new and didnt see it had posted
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 months ago
#17
(Original post by Aph)
In the latest by-election if the conservatives had stood under this there is a fair shot I would not have been elected. In non-D'hondt elections parties need enough candidates to stand to win seats, even if they stand fake Indies they need people. This amendment takes seats away from one party who can't fill them and might give them to another who also cannot fill them.
I don't think would happen anyway, parties are still blocked from participating if they are the ones who lost the seats.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 months ago
#18
We really are obsessed with fixing things that aren't broken atm, aren't we?
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 months ago
#19
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
We really are obsessed with fixing things that aren't broken atm, aren't we?
'Broken' is a matter of opinion...
0
yaseen1000
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 months ago
#20
Aye
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

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (274)
60.89%
Yes- I don't like it (22)
4.89%
No- I want it (120)
26.67%
No- I don't want it (34)
7.56%

Watched Threads

View All