Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

Here'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...

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

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.

I 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com