goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Jul 27, 2018 13:01:59 GMT
More maps! 2007 Welsh Assembly Election
Labour: 17 Conservative: 6 Plaid Cymru: 5 Liberal Democrat: 3 Independent: 1 Difficult to work out list seats for this 2011 Welsh Assembly Election
Labour: 22 Plaid Cymru: 5 Conservative: 4 Liberal Democrat: 1 Difficult to work out list seats for this
|
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Jul 27, 2018 13:03:35 GMT
I'm minded to agree. Crossing the Brecon & Radnor/Montgomery border doesn't seem problematic to me, but every other direction creates more problems than it solves and just demonstrates why purely numerical methods don't work. I'm inclined to try and preserve the integrity of Montgomeryshire considering it has existed as a constituency since 1542.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 15:06:22 GMT
Regarding Brecon and Radnor - having one or even a handful of seats that due to special circumstances have an electorate that's out by ~25% doesn't particularly matter under AMS, because there would be negligible impact on the overall composition of the Assembly, and although one or a few Constituency AMs would have an imbalanced proportion of the electorate, they also have a larger area to cover.
If the Brecon and Radnor constituency had a considerably smaller electorate (anything up to a little bit larger than half the size of others), an alternative would be to keep it but don't allow the constituents to vote in the list stage. This was the setup in the Aosta Valley prior to the most recent Italian election, and I think it should be implemented with the island constituencies to the Scottish Parliament. Admittedly, in both a hypothetical B&R scenario and the Scottish scenario, such a set up would quite possibly be an electoral benefit to my party (e.g. the Highland list region gets a sizable Lib Dem vote share but no Lib Dem list seats since there are always 2 or more Lib Dem constituency seats within it) - but I can genuinely promise that it isn't the reason why I initially came to support such a compromise!
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jul 28, 2018 16:06:36 GMT
Regarding your list seats, I don't think calculating it on a national basis is likely to be terribly useful - it's very difficult for Labour to get list seats in South Wales, but practically guaranteed in Mid & West Wales and it will tend to cancel out most losses in North Wales. So I'd be inclined to recalculate those using the historical list results as a guide.
|
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Jul 28, 2018 18:12:26 GMT
Regarding your list seats, I don't think calculating it on a national basis is likely to be terribly useful - it's very difficult for Labour to get list seats in South Wales, but practically guaranteed in Mid & West Wales and it will tend to cancel out most losses in North Wales. So I'd be inclined to recalculate those using the historical list results as a guide. I'm not sure how to do that, as the new lists won't align with the old ones. you would have to have four regional lists, something like this: North Wales Mid & West Wales South Wales West South Wales East
|
|
Lord Twaddleford
Non-Aligned
Fake lord. Not a parrot either.
Posts: 3,793
Member is Online
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jul 28, 2018 18:28:05 GMT
Regarding your list seats, I don't think calculating it on a national basis is likely to be terribly useful - it's very difficult for Labour to get list seats in South Wales, but practically guaranteed in Mid & West Wales and it will tend to cancel out most losses in North Wales. So I'd be inclined to recalculate those using the historical list results as a guide. I'm not sure how to do that, as the new lists won't align with the old ones. True, but provided the new regional boundaries aren't too divergent from the old (which on your maps I'd say they're close enough), the IRL results can be good enough for providing estimates and giving us an idea of what results would come out of such boundaries. you would have to have four regional lists, something like this: North Wales Mid & West Wales South Wales West South Wales East Personally, I'd keep the number of regions a 5 and try to align the new regions as closely as possible with the old ones, and adjust the amount of list seats accordingly.
|
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Jul 28, 2018 18:37:46 GMT
Personally, I'd keep the number of regions a 5 and try to align the new regions as closely as possible with the old ones, and adjust the amount of list seats accordingly. Not sure how you would arrive at that as 32 seats wouldn't divide into 5 regions equally.
|
|
Lord Twaddleford
Non-Aligned
Fake lord. Not a parrot either.
Posts: 3,793
Member is Online
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jul 28, 2018 18:47:33 GMT
Personally, I'd keep the number of regions a 5 and try to align the new regions as closely as possible with the old ones, and adjust the amount of list seats accordingly. Not sure how you would arrive at that as 32 seats wouldn't divide into 5 regions equally. Even with the current 40 seats there're couple of regions with more or fewer seats than the average (currently 8 per, with North Wales on 9, and South Wales West on 7). Maybe you could have one region with more/fewer seats than the national average, and compensate by assigning them fewer/more list seats if you're that concerned about apportionment, perhaps?
|
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Jul 28, 2018 18:53:55 GMT
Not sure how you would arrive at that as 32 seats wouldn't divide into 5 regions equally. Even with the current 40 seats there're couple of regions with more or fewer seats than the average (currently 8 per, with North Wales on 9, and South Wales West on 7). Maybe you could have one region with more/fewer seats than the national average, and compensate by assigning them fewer/more list seats if you're that concerned about apportionment, perhaps? These disparities only exist because Welsh constituencies vary in electorate size so much currently (particularly in North Wales where they are abnormally small), the 4 regions I have set out have around 16,000 electors between the one with the lowest electorate and the one with the highest, therefore there is no reason to have more than the 4 regions which can offer more equal representation.
|
|
Lord Twaddleford
Non-Aligned
Fake lord. Not a parrot either.
Posts: 3,793
Member is Online
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jul 28, 2018 19:03:07 GMT
Even with the current 40 seats there're couple of regions with more or fewer seats than the average (currently 8 per, with North Wales on 9, and South Wales West on 7). Maybe you could have one region with more/fewer seats than the national average, and compensate by assigning them fewer/more list seats if you're that concerned about apportionment, perhaps? These disparities only exist because Welsh constituencies vary in electorate size so much currently (particularly in North Wales where they are abnormally small), the 4 regions I have set out have around 16,000 electors between the one with the lowest electorate and the one with the highest, therefore there is no reason to have more than the 4 regions which can offer more equal representation. The only other suggestion I can think of for the purposes of estimating list results for a hypothetical Assembly arrangment is consult the constituency breakdown of the list votes; all regions bar South Wales East published such results. A links to the figures were published in this post, though only the South Wales Central and North Wales links are still active; I do have the relevant PDFs saved however, so if you'd like me to repost the figures for South Wales West and Mid & West Wales, I'll gladly oblige.
|
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Jul 28, 2018 19:05:42 GMT
These disparities only exist because Welsh constituencies vary in electorate size so much currently (particularly in North Wales where they are abnormally small), the 4 regions I have set out have around 16,000 electors between the one with the lowest electorate and the one with the highest, therefore there is no reason to have more than the 4 regions which can offer more equal representation. The only other suggestion I can think of for the purposes of estimating list results for a hypothetical Assembly arrangment is consult the constituency breakdown of the list votes; all regions bar South Wales East published such results. A links to the figures were published in this post, though only the South Wales Central and North Wales links are still active; I do have the relevant PDFs saved however, so if you'd like me to repost the figures for South Wales West and Mid & West Wales, I'll gladly oblige. That would be most helpful, thank you for the kind offer.
|
|
Lord Twaddleford
Non-Aligned
Fake lord. Not a parrot either.
Posts: 3,793
Member is Online
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Jul 28, 2018 19:40:21 GMT
The only other suggestion I can think of for the purposes of estimating list results for a hypothetical Assembly arrangment is consult the constituency breakdown of the list votes; all regions bar South Wales East published such results. A links to the figures were published in this post, though only the South Wales Central and North Wales links are still active; I do have the relevant PDFs saved however, so if you'd like me to repost the figures for South Wales West and Mid & West Wales, I'll gladly oblige. That would be most helpful, thank you for the kind offer. Mid & West Wales
| Brecon & Radnorshire | Carmarthen East & Dinefwr | Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire | Ceredigion | Llanelli | Dwyfor Meirionnydd | Montgomeryshire | Preseli Pembrokeshire | Abolish the Welsh Assembly | 2388 | 973 | 1439 | 1146 | 716 | 745 | 1915 | 1385 | Association of Welsh Local Independents | 63 | 83 | 194 | 91 | 74 | 157 | 91 | 279 | Conservative Party | 7625 | 4288 | 8035 | 2834 | 2257 | 3332 | 7483 | 8607 | People First- Fighting for Wales | 74 | 159 | 120 | 89 | 710 | 121 | 86 | 137 | Plaid Cymru | 2181 | 12,825 | 5902 | 10,692 | 8648 | 8949 | 2856 | 4701 | Official Monster Raving Loonies | 180 | 122 | 126 | 169 | 138 | 94 | 110 | 132 | UKIP | 2655 | 3393 | 3657 | 2973 | 3996 | 2299 | 2718 | 3351 | Green Party | 1145 | 787 | 837 | 1793 | 521 | 772 | 1185 | 1182 | Christian Party | 163 | 116 | 191 | 109 | 169 | 112 | 108 | 135 | Communist Party | 41 | 68 | 52 | 58 | 56 | 45 | 458 | 58 | Labour | 4446 | 5930 | 6805 | 2916 | 10,492 | 2759 | 2080 | 6547 | Liberal Democrats | 9069 | 919 | 808 | 5858 | 297 | 730 | 4742 | 1131 |
South Wales West
| Aberavon | Bridgend | Gower | Neath | Ogmore | Swansea East | Swansea West | Abolish the Welsh Assembly | 742 | 1293 | 1609 | 1012 | 780 | 689 | 1012 | Conservative Party | 1298 | 6043 | 8220 | 2067 | 2409 | 1866
| 3511 | Official Monster Raving Loonies | 111 | 173 | 189 | 194 | 151 | 135 | 153 | Plaid Cymru | 4446 | 3375 | 4044 | 6736 | 4097 | 3056
| 3296 | Green Party | 370 | 712 | 799 | 682 | 455 | 471 | 931 | Communist Party | 54 | 65 | 71 | 74 | 66 | 43 | 58 | Labour | 9556 | 9724 | 10,310 | 9570 | 11,171 | 8724
| 7848 | Liberal Democrats | 1128 | 1519 | 1738 | 1040 | 848 | 2248
| 2425 | TUSC | 115 | 87
| 82 | 122 | 93 | 76 | 111 | UKIP | 3019 | 3804 | 3128 | 3810 | 3246 | 3236 | 2853 |
Links to N. Wales and S. Wales Central results should still be up, but I've got them saved on my computer all the same.
|
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Jul 28, 2018 20:15:04 GMT
2010 General ElectionLabour: 20 Conservative: 7 Liberal Democrat: 3 Plaid Cymru: 2 2015 General ElectionLabour: 21 Conservative: 8 Plaid Cymru: 2 Liberal Democrat: 1
|
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Aug 6, 2018 10:54:55 GMT
Following on from my review of Wales on a uniform national quota I have decided to try my hand at Ulster which would be entitled to 18 seats. 1. Fermanagh & South Tyrone - 71,038 2. West Tyrone - 63,176 3. East Tyrone & Magherafelt - 66,684 4. Foyle - 71,398 5. Coleraine & Limavady - 67,395 6. Belfast East - 64,116 7. Belfast South - 67,667 8. Belfast West - 68,825 9. Belfast North - 76,502 10. South Antrim - 78,349 11. East Antrim - 77,122 12. North Antrim - 77486 13. North Down - 62,451 14. Strangford - 65,436 15. South Down - 66,937 16. Newry & Armagh - 75,635 17. Upper Bann - 63,255 18. West Down - 59,897 2017 General Election Notional ResultsDUP: 10 Sinn Fein: 7 Independent Unionist: 1
|
|
WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,102
|
Post by WJ on Aug 25, 2018 12:32:10 GMT
When will the idea that the Maelor Saesneg really belongs in Shropshire be properly debated? The clue is in the name. Could equally belong to Cheshire too. That whole area looks more north than south.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,206
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Aug 25, 2018 13:14:17 GMT
When will the idea that the Maelor Saesneg really belongs in Shropshire be properly debated? The clue is in the name. Could equally belong to Cheshire too. That whole area looks more north than south. Possibly, but back in the late 19th century when a transfer was being considered, it was Shropshire that was preferred.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,810
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Aug 25, 2018 20:07:58 GMT
Can I just say "Urghh! That South Gwynedd and Montgomeryshire constituency is an abomination!"
|
|
goose
Conservative & Unionist
Posts: 610
|
Post by goose on Aug 25, 2018 21:43:19 GMT
Can I just say "Urghh! That South Gwynedd and Montgomeryshire constituency is an abomination!" How so?
|
|
Lord Twaddleford
Non-Aligned
Fake lord. Not a parrot either.
Posts: 3,793
Member is Online
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Aug 26, 2018 1:43:35 GMT
Can I just say "Urghh! That South Gwynedd and Montgomeryshire constituency is an abomination!" How so? Personally I'm not overly keen on such boundaries, but I wouldn't call them an abomination. What is an abomination though is the name "South Gwynedd and Montgomeryshire", especially when something such as "Montgomery & Meirionnydd" (which I noticed that you yourself use) would be a much nicer and less clunky name for such a constituency.
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 26, 2018 12:52:16 GMT
Can I just say "Urghh! That South Gwynedd and Montgomeryshire constituency is an abomination!" I proposed a similar constituency (Meirionydd and Welshpool) on the grounds it would have better transport links than Clwyd South & Montgomeryshire North which the BCE proposed.
|
|