|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Mar 25, 2020 18:57:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ArmchairCritic on Mar 25, 2020 20:28:34 GMT
It will be equalised on 650 + or - 5%. Reviews will be scheduled for every 8 years. Seems to be that this will clash with elections sooner or later. I saw a letter about it a few days ago |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Mar 25, 2020 20:34:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Mar 25, 2020 20:36:02 GMT
Wales to drop from 40 to 31/32 to bring us in line with rUK.
Tough sell, but logical and fair.
|
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,454
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Mar 25, 2020 20:39:43 GMT
"Under the changes, 50 constituencies would have been wiped from the electoral map including Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn's Islington North seat" Err, no, that's not how that works |
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Mar 25, 2020 20:52:46 GMT
It’s not the snappiest title for a thread, meaningless for the uninitiated. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 25, 2020 20:56:25 GMT
It’s not the snappiest title for a thread, meaningless for the uninitiated. Like a lot of people commenting on detailed arrangements for drawing electoral boundaries are "the uninitiated". |
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,454
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Mar 25, 2020 21:00:46 GMT
The main issue was never the % variation but the intolerance to ward splitting. I just tried 54 seats Yorkshire, 7.5% deviation and the result is only slightly improved, compared to the last 2 sets of horrific proposals.
|
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Mar 25, 2020 21:13:00 GMT
It’s not the snappiest title for a thread, meaningless for the uninitiated. Like a lot of people commenting on detailed arrangements for drawing electoral boundaries are "the uninitiated". Well I didn’t get it and I’m a boundary geek. Try finding the right thread in a year’s time, in amongst all the others. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2020 22:34:16 GMT
Will the number of Scottish MPs be reduced as well? Sounds like the government dodged the question when asked.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,069 
|
Post by jamie on Mar 25, 2020 23:07:44 GMT
Will the number of Scottish MPs be reduced as well? Sounds like the government dodged the question when asked. The government statement explicitly mentioned “Updated and equal boundaries will ensure that every constituent nation in the United Kingdom has equal representation”. Based on the 2017 electorate, Scotland would get 56 seats (-3), so looks like it. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Mar 26, 2020 0:06:49 GMT
The over-representation of Scotland ceased in 2005 - the Scottish quota was set as the same as the English quota. It ended up with slightly more seats only because the Highlands and Islands area triggered the old "special geographical considerations" rule - and still does, because of the two preserved constituencies.
|
|
dundas
Non-Aligned
Hope Not Hate is Lumpen MI5
Posts: 1,006
|
Post by dundas on Mar 26, 2020 10:51:07 GMT
The Tories love of holding elections and referenda between 2014 and 2019 was always at least partly motivated by the desire to avoid reducing the number of seats in Parliament. Nick Clegg should come off facebook and castigate them for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by kvasir on Apr 10, 2020 10:59:02 GMT
The main issue was never the % variation but the intolerance to ward splitting. I just tried 54 seats Yorkshire, 7.5% deviation and the result is only slightly improved, compared to the last 2 sets of horrific proposals. As someone who lives in Leeds with some of the largest wards in the country, I have a vested interest in increasing the variation to 10% which is still very tough in my area. But I also think it is just common sense. If you asked the average person (who even cares) whether they'd favour keeping communities together and have "sensible" seats or have absolute equivalency, based on my anecdotal evidence (not rigorous I know), the former wins out. In part I think that people struggle to visualise the representational difference between 3,000 people (I think the difference of 5% and 10% is about 3,000 people either side or something like that). While that's a very abstract concept it is not abstract when Leeds North is stuffed in with rural Harrogate District. Or when a community is represented by two different MPs. That's far more tangible. Also, when you consider just how many votes are completely wasted in FTPT, it makes the difference between 5% and 10% even more trivial. There is the idea that this can be completely removed by ward splitting. That opens up a whole new can of worms. Gerrymandering becomes far more easier once we can start doing that, and gerrymandering that is harder to detect. It also adds more complications with different ward councillors having different MPs representing different wards. Polling stations make wards, wards make constituencies. Of course, this is really a problem of the voting system. If we had STV this would not be a problem. |
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,454
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Apr 10, 2020 11:26:03 GMT
The main issue was never the % variation but the intolerance to ward splitting. I just tried 54 seats Yorkshire, 7.5% deviation and the result is only slightly improved, compared to the last 2 sets of horrific proposals.
Also, when you consider just how many votes are completely wasted in FTPT, it makes the difference between 5% and 10% even more trivial. There is the idea that this can be completely removed by ward splitting. That opens up a whole new can of worms. Gerrymandering becomes far more easier once we can start doing that, and gerrymandering that is harder to detect. It also adds more complications with different ward councillors having different MPs representing different wards. Polling stations make wards, wards make constituencies. Of course, this is really a problem of the voting system. If we had STV this would not be a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by kvasir on Apr 10, 2020 11:35:59 GMT
As someone who lives in Leeds with some of the largest wards in the country, I have a vested interest in increasing the variation to 10% which is still very tough in my area. But I also think it is just common sense. If you asked the average person (who even cares) whether they'd favour keeping communities together and have "sensible" seats or have absolute equivalency, based on my anecdotal evidence (not rigorous I know), the former wins out. In part I think that people struggle to visualise the representational difference between 3,000 people (I think the difference of 5% and 10% is about 3,000 people either side or something like that). While that's a very abstract concept it is not abstract when Leeds North is stuffed in with rural Harrogate District. Or when a community is represented by two different MPs. That's far more tangible.
Also, when you consider just how many votes are completely wasted in FTPT, it makes the difference between 5% and 10% even more trivial. There is the idea that this can be completely removed by ward splitting. That opens up a whole new can of worms. Gerrymandering becomes far more easier once we can start doing that, and gerrymandering that is harder to detect. It also adds more complications with different ward councillors having different MPs representing different wards. Polling stations make wards, wards make constituencies. Of course, this is really a problem of the voting system. If we had STV this would not be a problem. A wasted vote should be viewed as a vote that has no effect on the outcome of the election. FTPT has far more wasted votes than any other system. You may not care that it has no effect on the system. You may want to reject the label (I actually don't care what it is called). But that doesn't stop it being true. Other voting systems can increase the number of votes that actually have an effect on the results. Now, you may think that it is okay that votes have no consequence on the outcome, the "its the taking part" approach to elections. But what that actually means is that people's views aren't being heard in the halls of power. It's undemocratic, and honestly unjust. And just to provide more context, for FPTP these votes which don't have meaningful effects, it isn't just those who vote for failing candidates. It is the over-vote. It is for example the person in Liverpool voting Labour who knows their vote doesn't make a difference, it is just one more to the pile. EDIT: There is no major need to consider the size of local authorities for most PR elections. In multi-member PR seats you just change how many MPs are represented by the area. With list PR there is also no need. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Apr 10, 2020 12:28:58 GMT
EDIT: There is no major need to consider the size of local authorities for most PR elections. In multi-member PR seats you just change how many MPs are represented by the area. With list PR there is also no need. There is still an issue, although not as much as with single member seats. If a council area is entitled to 4.5 seats, do you give it 4 or 5 seats, or annex a couple of wards from the next door council area to bring it closer to a round number? |
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,454
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Apr 10, 2020 12:43:35 GMT
OK, I agreeI reject this idea that not voting for a winner constitutes a 'wasted vote'.Well it can be; whether you agree or disagree it just objectively can be.The boundary commission doesn't gerrymander. From what we have seen of their work I doubt they are competent enough in map making to do it, even if they tried.How will they ever cope!Well then the debate would likely move as to whether we should split local authorities. A wasted vote, should be viewed as a vote that has no effect on the outcome of the election. FTPT has far more wasted votes than any other system. You may not care that it has no effect on the system. You may want to reject the label (I actually don't care what it is called). But that doesn't stop it being true. Other voting systems can increase the number of votes that actually have an effect on the results. Now, you may think that it is okay that votes have no consequence on the outcome, the "its the taking part" approach to elections. But what that actually means is that people's views aren't being heard in the halls of power. It's undemocratic, and honestly unjust. And just to provide more context, for FPTP these votes which don't have meaningful effects, it isn't just those who vote for failing candidates. It is the over-vote. It is for example the person in Liverpool voting Labour who knows their vote doesn't make a difference, it is just one more to the pile. EDIT: There is no major need to consider the size of constituencies for most PR elections. In multi-member PR seats you just change how many MPs are represented by the area. With list PR there is also no need.This is '1 vote won't make a difference' line is a warped way to see elections, which are a collective exercise that can have any outcome. It's not unjust, you just didn't win. Must we rerun this tedious argument. If you want to discuss the merits of splitting wards I'm all ears. No; Ireland, Scotland, etc etc. STV is not a silver bullet |
|
|
|
Post by kvasir on Apr 10, 2020 13:04:11 GMT
This is '1 vote won't make a difference' line is a warped way to see elections, which are a collective exercise that can have any outcome. It's not unjust, you just didn't win. It is not about about whether you "win". We all lose. Look I'm a Labour party member, this isn't about trying to get more seats at Westminster. It is what is right and fair. There are voting systems which attempt to empower as many votes as possible. What you see as a tedious argument I see as people's votes not having power and to be honest it pisses me off. Because lets be honest here "this vote doesn't make a difference" is actually very very true in FPTP. Now you are correct that it is a collective exercise, but we can have voting systems where their votes matter more. |
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,454
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Apr 10, 2020 13:10:32 GMT
This is '1 vote won't make a difference' line is a warped way to see elections, which are a collective exercise that can have any outcome. It's not unjust, you just didn't win. It is not about about whether you "win". We all lose. Look I'm a Labour party member, this isn't about trying to get more seats at Westminster. It is what is right and fair. There are voting systems which attempt to empower as many votes as possible. What you see as a tedious argument I see as people's votes not having power and to be honest it pisses me off. Because lets be honest here "this vote doesn't make a difference" is actually very very true in FPTP. Now you are correct that it is a collective exercise, but we can have voting systems where their votes matter more. Look this is obsessive. I have never had time for it. Issues of justice and fairness relate to the food in peoples cupboards and the law in our courts. |
|
