|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 13, 2020 20:15:42 GMT
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. But AMS top-up lists can easily be elected via an open list system. There is no reason at all why AMS would have to go in order to get rid of closed lists. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2020 20:47:43 GMT
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. Or, just possibly, AMS....with an open list? |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Sept 14, 2020 1:31:59 GMT
One thing to bear in mind is that the forthcoming Westminster boundary review is going to cut the number of constituencies in Wales quite significantly. So, unless there's a willingness to cut the number of Senedd constituencies similarly, the Senedd boundaries are going to diverge from the Westminster ones anyway. Given the number of STV constituencies we're talking about, would there be any sense in aligning them to the council areas? I'd think it would require some constituencies to have different numbers of seats, but at the very least it would avoid creating another completely new set of boundaries. That's an interesting idea, but if you want 80 seats, it would give a range of constituency sizes of 2-9 (using Local Government Electors from December 2019 and the Huntington-Hill method of apportionment): 9 – Cardiff 6 – Swansea, Rhondda Cynon Taf 5 – Carmarthenshire 4 – Caerphilly, Flintshire, Newport, Neath Port Talbot, Bridgend, Powys 3 – Wrexham, Vale of Glamorgan, Pembrokeshire, Conwy, Gwynedd, Denbighshire 2 – Monmouthshire, Torfaen, Ceredigion, Isle of Anglesey, Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr Tydfil Some of these also average some pretty awful deviations from average constituency size: Powys: -11% Caerphilly: +13% Vale of Glamorgan: +14% Isle of Anglesey: -14% Blaenau Gwent: -14% Wrexham: +15% Denbighshire: -15% Torfaen: +18% Monmouthshire: +24% Merthyr Tydfil: -24% If you want everywhere to have at least 3 seats, Merthyr Tydfil finally goes up to 3 at a house size of 132, by which time Cardiff has 15 members, Swansea and Rhondda Cynon Taf 10 apiece, and Carmarthenshire 8. But if you then combined the Councils into regions you would then get: Newport & East Gwent 8 West Gwent 6 Cardiff 9 East Glamorgan 8 Central Glamorgan 7 West Glamorgan 10 South Dyfed 8 Central 6 Gwynedd 8 Clwyd 10 Those seats are large enough for either STV or a AMS system |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Sept 14, 2020 7:23:51 GMT
By the way, since Stormont has 90 members for roughly half the population of Wales, and fewer powers, 80 or 90 members for the Senedd does not seem excessive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 14, 2020 11:25:17 GMT
I am saying plenty of people would oppose a new electoral system involving a closed list for that reason,so AMS has to go. But AMS top-up lists can easily be elected via an open list system. There is no reason at all why AMS would have to go in order to get rid of closed lists. What would happen if you had lists full of independent candidates? |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 14, 2020 11:26:39 GMT
But AMS top-up lists can easily be elected via an open list system. There is no reason at all why AMS would have to go in order to get rid of closed lists. What would happen if you had lists full of independent candidates? A list of independents is effectively a party. |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 14, 2020 11:36:42 GMT
What would happen if you had lists full of independent candidates? A list of independents is effectively a party. I meant independents who have no affiliation to each other and may well have very different ideologies. I absolutely detest this system of rewarding people who lost FPTP elections. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 14, 2020 12:04:58 GMT
A list of independents is effectively a party. I meant independents who have no affiliation to each other and may well have very different ideologies. I absolutely detest this system of rewarding people who lost FPTP elections. If they have no affiliation to each other then they would, by definition, be on different lists. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2020 14:43:02 GMT
A list of independents is effectively a party. I meant independents who have no affiliation to each other and may well have very different ideologies. I absolutely detest this system of rewarding people who lost FPTP elections. It's a good thing that AMS doesn't do that then isn't it. Please at least develop a basic understanding of what you're talking about before trying to argue about it |
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 15, 2020 0:00:14 GMT
I meant independents who have no affiliation to each other and may well have very different ideologies. I absolutely detest this system of rewarding people who lost FPTP elections. If they have no affiliation to each other then they would, by definition, be on different lists. Yes,then you have a million different lists. That would add to the confusion of what is already a complicated voting system. |
|
kefin
Non-Aligned
Posts: 260 
Member is Online
|
Post by kefin on Sept 15, 2020 0:07:13 GMT
By the way, since Stormont has 90 members for roughly half the population of Wales, and fewer powers, 80 or 90 members for the Senedd does not seem excessive. Or on the other hand of course, Stormont has............. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 15, 2020 0:33:40 GMT
Lists and STV are both crap. The Baden-Württemberg system is the correct way around most of the pitfalls with the former. Although if we're reverting to single-member constituencies only then I'd like to make a plea for some form of approval voting.
As for Stormont having more powers than Cardiff Bay: I must've missed the news of justice and policing being devolved to the Senedd then. It does have more powers than it had in 1999 though (and the population has increased since then), so an increase to around 75 members from 2026 onwards would not be unreasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 15, 2020 1:26:54 GMT
If they have no affiliation to each other then they would, by definition, be on different lists. Yes,then you have a million different lists. That would add to the confusion of what is already a complicated voting system. How often do you get any independents putting themselves forward for a list seat in an AMS/MMP system, let alone a million different independents?
And it's rather ironic claiming that AMS is a complicated system when you're advocating STV. The complication in both systems is in the counting, rather than the voting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Delighted Of Tunbridge Wells on Sept 15, 2020 9:03:03 GMT
Yes,then you have a million different lists. That would add to the confusion of what is already a complicated voting system. How often do you get any independents putting themselves forward for a list seat in an AMS/MMP system, let alone a million different independents?
And it's rather ironic claiming that AMS is a complicated system when you're advocating STV. The complication in both systems is in the counting, rather than the voting.
Don't they elect the Scottish Parliament by AMS? I'm pretty sure there are some independents standing in next year's election. And how is STV complicated? You basically distribute the preferences of each voter until all of the seats have been filled and the required number of candidates have reached the quota. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 15, 2020 12:15:21 GMT
How often do you get any independents putting themselves forward for a list seat in an AMS/MMP system, let alone a million different independents?
And it's rather ironic claiming that AMS is a complicated system when you're advocating STV. The complication in both systems is in the counting, rather than the voting.
Don't they elect the Scottish Parliament by AMS? I'm pretty sure there are some independents standing in next year's election. And how is STV complicated? You basically distribute the preferences of each voter until all of the seats have been filled and the required number of candidates have reached the quota. Virtually all of the methods of calculating STV surplus are way more complicated than the calculations for d'hondt or sante-lague list seats (and the one that arguably isn't - taking a random sample of the surplus votes - is easily the least fair method). If you think that STV surplus calculations are not complicated then you cannot reasonably claim that AMS ones are, and hence your position is inconsistent.
Yes, there have been a couple of independents standing for Scottish Parliament seats (though only one of them has ever been elected), but they are very rare. After all, an independent is much more likely to be able to win a constituency seat than they are to be able to win a list seat. Large numbers of independents seem to be more common in STV systems than they do in AMS ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Sept 15, 2020 13:01:14 GMT
No plans to move to Wales so should not comment but... why not use the new 30 Westminster constituencies as a template, elect two MWAs from each constituency (voter has two votes to cast) and it's very likely that the parties will present a gender-balanced ticket to their supporters. For the additional 20 members retain the top-up areas but the voters cast a single vote for a candidate. No lists. The outcome will be semi-proportional. Two crosses on one paper, one cross on the other. Easy peasy and by-elections could be held for all vacancies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Sept 15, 2020 16:31:15 GMT
No plans to move to Wales so should not comment but... why not use the new 30 Westminster constituencies as a template, elect two MWAs from each constituency (voter has two votes to cast) and it's very likely that the parties will present a gender-balanced ticket to their supporters. For the additional 20 members retain the top-up areas but the voters cast a single vote for a candidate. No lists. The outcome will be semi-proportional. Two crosses on one paper, one cross on the other. Easy peasy and by-elections could be held for all vacancies. What is a MWA.....even when it was an Assembly they werent called that..... The correct term is MS - Member of Senedd. But why the need to follow Westminster constituencies? Your system is not remotely proportionate and just exaggerates the inequality of FPTP. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Sept 15, 2020 16:53:13 GMT
No plans to move to Wales so should not comment but... why not use the new 30 Westminster constituencies as a template, elect two MWAs from each constituency (voter has two votes to cast) and it's very likely that the parties will present a gender-balanced ticket to their supporters. For the additional 20 members retain the top-up areas but the voters cast a single vote for a candidate. No lists. The outcome will be semi-proportional. Two crosses on one paper, one cross on the other. Easy peasy and by-elections could be held for all vacancies. What is a MWA.....even when it was an Assembly they werent called that..... The correct term is MS - Member of Senedd. But why the need to follow Westminster constituencies? Your system is not remotely proportionate and just exaggerates the inequality of FPTP. Oops...I put better governance above proportionality. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 15, 2020 17:24:52 GMT
The obvious and extremely simple solution is to keep assembly size, keep the Westminster link, and up the number of list constituencies, thus making the system actually proportional. Oughtn't to be hard... oughtn't to be... but isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Sept 15, 2020 17:47:41 GMT
What is a MWA.....even when it was an Assembly they werent called that..... The correct term is MS - Member of Senedd. But why the need to follow Westminster constituencies? Your system is not remotely proportionate and just exaggerates the inequality of FPTP. Oops...I put better governance above proportionality. If by better governance you mean increased majority then I refer you to the shambolic clusterf##k at Westminster as an example of what to expect.. |
|
