|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 11, 2020 21:05:47 GMT
The AMS system is perverse, but to have two member STV seats would be too. Either have proper STV with 4+ member seats (which isn't my preference) or stick to FPTP. If people insist on having lists, they should be open lists. Closed lists remove the power of the electorate to boot politicians out. Though that would lead to ballot papers metres long and be confusing for many.I don't see how keeping to linkage to Westminster seats wouldn't work either. Each seat could elect two members. Simple: use separate ballot papers for each party with a list on each paper for people to mark like they do in most European countries What if you despise one candidate on the lists? The only form of list acceptable then is an open list. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Sept 11, 2020 22:09:33 GMT
(And who says that Alexa is a waste of time) "Alexa, what are the factors of 80?" Answer: 1 2 4 5 8 10 16 20 40 48 "Alexa, what are the factors of 90?" Answer: 1 2 3 5 6 9 10 15 18 30 45 90 With the suggestions that Wales would go down to 32 Westminster constituencies you could easily have 16 electing 5 members without any problem at all by pairing constituencies. 32 each with 3 members would give 96. Not keeping the boundaries aligned with Westminster for the sake of 6 AMs over the artificial limit seems silly. Of course the idea that the assembly needs an increase in members is also silly.. If we use the same population ratio as the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd "should" have 74 members. Rounding to two members per Westminster constituency (or 4 per pair of constituencies) would be acceptable. Using the same Westminster seats per devolved seats as Scotland, Wales "should" have 60 members. Of course, if they abolish Welsh local government, then there is scope for many more assembly members to take on all the Wales County Council functions.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2020 22:50:52 GMT
Simple: use separate ballot papers for each party with a list on each paper for people to mark like they do in most European countries What if you despise one candidate on the lists? The only form of list acceptable then is an open list. Yes.....that is......the thing being discussed and........the point being made? |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,599
|
Post by cibwr on Sept 12, 2020 9:36:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 12, 2020 9:55:37 GMT
FPTP would be a much better idea all round. Less gameable than the AMS system or that perverse STV thing. And it would mean that Welsh people would have genuinely hyper-local assembly-members, rather than people who cover some abstruse region that extends from Crickhowell to Bardsey Island and from Llanymynech to Pembroke Dock. You could get rid of the list seats with multi member STV seats,mirroring the Westminister constituencies with 3 reps for each. No thank you. We've seen what a silly game of undernomination and telling voters in different parts of a constituency to vote for different lead candidates that lousy electoral system devolves into in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. We should not be importing the ultimate Irish joke of an electoral system. We should instead divide Wales into however many FPTP constituencies (and quite frankly, I don't particularly mind if it's 60 or 80 or 90 or 140) and abolish the AMS element. |
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on Sept 12, 2020 10:19:12 GMT
The last Irish general election is one of many examples which show how perverse STV is. Why some are still campaigning for it, especially with ludicrous 3 member seats, is incomprehensible to me. I still think retaining the link between Westminster seats and ones in Cardiff has a lot more positives than negatives. Whether that's through them being split into two/three seats or electing 2-3 members each.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 12, 2020 10:48:19 GMT
The last Irish general election is one of many examples which show how perverse STV is. Why some are still campaigning for it, especially with ludicrous 3 member seats, is incomprehensible to me. I still think retaining the link between Westminster seats and ones in Cardiff has a lot more positives than negatives.
Whether that's through them being split into two/three seats or electing 2-3 members each. Is there any evidence that "uncoupling" them has been detrimental in Scotland? The number of Welsh seats at Westminster being cut to the low 30s in the next review makes Cardiff going its own way the best option IMO. |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,599
|
Post by cibwr on Sept 12, 2020 15:39:47 GMT
Both the recent committee report and the expert panel suggested a lower limit of 4 and an upper limit of 6 members per constituency. They proposed either pairing of the current Westminster constituencies (20) or using Local Government units (17 constituencies)
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 13, 2020 2:12:06 GMT
You could get rid of the list seats with multi member STV seats,mirroring the Westminister constituencies with 3 reps for each. No thank you. We've seen what a silly game of undernomination and telling voters in different parts of a constituency to vote for different lead candidates that lousy electoral system devolves into in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. We should not be importing the ultimate Irish joke of an electoral system. We should instead divide Wales into however many FPTP constituencies (and quite frankly, I don't particularly mind if it's 60 or 80 or 90 or 140) and abolish the AMS element. Replace "Irish" with "Jewish" or "gay" in the above statement and you'll see how problematic it is. Besides that, it's incorrect. STV is only used in Ireland. Scotland, Australia, India, Malta, Nepal, Pakistan, the US and New Zealand. That list of countries should give you a clue where it originated. They were given it at some point in time by a British government. To be more specific, it was invented by an Englishman, Dorset teacher Thomas Hare, and it's a laudable British attempt at finding a halfway house between local representation and proportionality, while usually containing a bias against more extreme parties. Third parties telling voters in different places where to vote happens explicitly in STV but implicitly under FPTP, since the Lib Dems and others make a strategic decision on where to focus resources. Apart from that, are you, as a Conservative, really that miffed that Sinn Féin didn't get the representation they hoped for due to their own stupidity? Really? |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 13, 2020 2:22:51 GMT
The last Irish general election is one of many examples which show how perverse STV is. Why some are still campaigning for it, especially with ludicrous 3 member seats, is incomprehensible to me. I still think retaining the link between Westminster seats and ones in Cardiff has a lot more positives than negatives. Whether that's through them being split into two/three seats or electing 2-3 members each.
Among the criticisms of STV are that it's too proportional or not proportional enough. If you choose the latter argument, that 3-member constituencies are a poor choice under STV or any PR system, I'd totally agree with you. They don't deliver a decent level of proportionality (5-6 is the optimal number.) But if you do go down that road then the alternative should be either larger PR constituencies (STV or whatever) or single-member FPTP constituencies. 2-3 member FPTP constituencies deliver neither proportionality nor the more local representation that single-member constituencies gives. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Sept 13, 2020 6:45:07 GMT
The last Irish general election is one of many examples which show how perverse STV is. Why some are still campaigning for it, especially with ludicrous 3 member seats, is incomprehensible to me.ie I still think retaining the link between Westminster seats and ones in Cardiff has a lot more positives than negatives. Whether that's through them being split into two/three seats or electing 2-3 members each. Among the criticisms of STV are that it's too proportional or not proportional enough. If you choose the latter argument, that 3-member constituencies are a poor choice under STV or any PR system, I'd totally agree with you. They don't deliver a decent level of proportionality (5-6 is the optimal number.) But if you do go down that road then the alternative should be either larger PR constituencies (STV or whatever) or single-member FPTP constituencies. 2-3 member FPTP constituencies deliver neither proportionality nor the more local representation that single-member constituencies gives. Time for me to make one of my sporadic pleas for SNTV. Multi-member (n) seats but 1 vote per person. Top n votes win. Great for voters - by definition it means the maximum number of voters get the person they voted for elected (that's what proportionality is, yeah?). Crap for parties though, so unlikely to see the light of day. |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,599
|
Post by cibwr on Sept 13, 2020 7:47:08 GMT
I would urge people to read both the committee's report and the expert panel's report, it goes into great detail why stv should be adopted, and the numbers of MS elected from each constituency dependent on the size of the Senedd. The importance of the link between Westminster and the Senedd is overblown, Scotland has managed quite well. BTW how do you paste maps directly into here? As opposed to linking?
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Sept 13, 2020 8:54:39 GMT
BTW how do you paste maps directly into here? As opposed to linking? Using the IMG tag like so: [img src="http://imageurlhere" alt=" "]You will need to find an external site to upload the picture to. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 13, 2020 13:52:56 GMT
Among the criticisms of STV are that it's too proportional or not proportional enough. If you choose the latter argument, that 3-member constituencies are a poor choice under STV or any PR system, I'd totally agree with you. They don't deliver a decent level of proportionality (5-6 is the optimal number.) But if you do go down that road then the alternative should be either larger PR constituencies (STV or whatever) or single-member FPTP constituencies. 2-3 member FPTP constituencies deliver neither proportionality nor the more local representation that single-member constituencies gives. Time for me to make one of my sporadic pleas for SNTV. Multi-member (n) seats but 1 vote per person. Top n votes win. Great for voters - by definition it means the maximum number of voters get the person they voted for elected (that's what proportionality is, yeah?). Crap for parties though, so unlikely to see the light of day. Crap also for low-information supporters of parties who'll pile up on the party leader if the parties don't micromanage them, quite conceivably leading to two big parties receiving 80%+ of the vote together and 1 seat each out of, say, 7 available seats. Or else you'd see area divisions and nomination strategies as in Ireland but with infinitely more unpedictable results if strategies backfire. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 13, 2020 17:17:27 GMT
The last Irish general election is one of many examples which show how perverse STV is. Why some are still campaigning for it, especially with ludicrous 3 member seats, is incomprehensible to me. I still think retaining the link between Westminster seats and ones in Cardiff has a lot more positives than negatives. Whether that's through them being split into two/three seats or electing 2-3 members each. Among the criticisms of STV are that it's too proportional or not proportional enough. If you choose the latter argument, that 3-member constituencies are a poor choice under STV or any PR system, I'd totally agree with you. They don't deliver a decent level of proportionality (5-6 is the optimal number.) But if you do go down that road then the alternative should be either larger PR constituencies (STV or whatever) or single-member FPTP constituencies. 2-3 member FPTP constituencies deliver neither proportionality nor the more local representation that single-member constituencies gives. Who criticises STV for being too proportional? If opponents of PR are criticising STV in particular, rather than PR in general, they pretty much always go with "it's too complicated" (aka "voters in our country are more stupid than the Irish and Australians"). |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 13, 2020 18:47:03 GMT
What if you despise one candidate on the lists? The only form of list acceptable then is an open list. Yes.....that is......the thing being discussed and........the point being made? I am saying plenty of people would oppose a new electoral system involving a closed list for that reason,so AMS has to go. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 13, 2020 18:50:08 GMT
You could get rid of the list seats with multi member STV seats,mirroring the Westminister constituencies with 3 reps for each. No thank you. We've seen what a silly game of undernomination and telling voters in different parts of a constituency to vote for different lead candidates that lousy electoral system devolves into in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. We should not be importing the ultimate Irish joke of an electoral system. We should instead divide Wales into however many FPTP constituencies (and quite frankly, I don't particularly mind if it's 60 or 80 or 90 or 140) and abolish the AMS element. Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant here. You're not going to gain any sort of popular support for replacing a form of PR with FPTP,because it would inevitably be seen as a regressive step. |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Sept 13, 2020 19:27:40 GMT
The only people who advocate pairing Senedd seats with Westminster seem to be party activists. I can see their point but politics shouldnt be about what they want....
Personally I would go for STV based around local goverment boundaries but we need to sort out Welsh local government boundaries first!
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 13, 2020 19:36:09 GMT
No thank you. We've seen what a silly game of undernomination and telling voters in different parts of a constituency to vote for different lead candidates that lousy electoral system devolves into in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. We should not be importing the ultimate Irish joke of an electoral system. We should instead divide Wales into however many FPTP constituencies (and quite frankly, I don't particularly mind if it's 60 or 80 or 90 or 140) and abolish the AMS element. Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant here. You're not going to gain any sort of popular support for replacing a form of PR with FPTP,because it would inevitably be seen as a regressive step. Not at all. Dysfunctional electoral systems have been replaced by FPTP before. It just works. Minor parties having their five minutes of fame calling it "regressive" is something that can be lived with, as part of what works is driving minor parties down to low single figures of, or preferably no seats. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 13, 2020 19:56:59 GMT
Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant here. You're not going to gain any sort of popular support for replacing a form of PR with FPTP,because it would inevitably be seen as a regressive step. Not at all. Dysfunctional electoral systems have been replaced by FPTP before. It just works. Minor parties having their five minutes of fame calling it "regressive" is something that can be lived with, as part of what works is driving minor parties down to low single figures of, or preferably no seats. Have these changes ever been approved directly by the electorate via a referendum or plebiscite? It seems to all come down to differing views of democracy. I prefer an electoral system that is as close to totally representative of all the electors' preferences,but without going as far as direct democracy. |
|
