2 ms·
I'm not sure if that UK counter-example is as strong as you suggest: > A spokesman for Mr Stunell, MP for Hazel Grove, said he had voted against the Labour ame
by dane-pgp 6y ago
I'm not sure if that UK counter-example is as strong as you suggest:
> A spokesman for Mr Stunell, MP for Hazel Grove, said he had voted against the Labour amendment "as he was supposed to" and had gone to get a drink of water for a fellow minister when he found that lobby doors had been "locked".
> "He was temporarily on the wrong side but sanity prevailed and they let him out," he said.
A funny story, but not a legally significant outcome.
- learnstats2 6y agoHere's another funny example where a UK MP was not able to vote the way they intended: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-mp-locked-himself-toilet-avoid-voting-eu-referendum-after-finding-himself-wrong-voting-lobby-10310948.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snp-mp-locked... Here, it's suggested that MPs sometimes vote both ways to cancel their own mistake out, although they normally claim that they are taking some nuanced view: https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/boths.php https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/boths.php Not to mention that UK MPs can't vote if they have to be absent for any reason - for example if they have child-care duties. Your original point was that the UK Commons' system of slow voting is foolproof: it isn't.
- dane-pgp 6y agoI don't think I claimed that the UK's system was "foolproof", my point was just that trying to make it faster likely wouldn't make it any better.