|
|
Post by greenhert on Sept 15, 2020 19:25:40 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. On current electoral figures, and those predicted for March 2020 (which will not differ much), there will likely be 32 Welsh constituencies (including the now protected Ynys Mon) emerging from the next boundary review, not 30. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 15, 2020 19:44:08 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. Having people who were specifically rejected by the electorate get in anyway seems the worst of all worlds. You get things like Stuttgart II, where the CDU candidate got over double (24.4%) the vote of the FDP candidate (10.7%) yet the latter gets a seat and the former doesn't. I'd rather just go for FPTP in single member constituencies than see that. At least the latter group of members have been explicitly endorsed by the voters. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 15, 2020 21:07:38 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. Having people who were specifically rejected by the electorate get in anyway seems the worst of all worlds. You get things like Stuttgart II, where the CDU candidate got over double (24.4%) the vote of the FDP candidate (10.7%) yet the latter gets a seat and the former doesn't. I'd rather just go for FPTP in single member constituencies than see that. At least the latter group of members have been explicitly endorsed by the voters. Every system has something people can find fault with, but in my judgement this is the least bad one. As mentioned upthread, something similar happened under the current closed-list MMP system in Clwyd West in 2003, which isn't seen as some scandalous, lingering legacy of shame since a similar result will still be possible next May. BaWü has the advantage of the ballot paper looking the same as it does for House of Commons elections, being filled out in the same way, and being counted in the same way at as present, whilst still delivering a more proportional result. If one of the best-performing FDP candidates getting in ahead of one of the worst-performing CDU candidates seems somehow unfair to you, then of course you're only ever going to like majoritarian systems. By your logic, the FDP should have zero seats in the Landtag. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Sept 16, 2020 7:05:15 GMT
A model for a 90 member Senedd elected by Single Transferable Vote made up of 16 constituencies (electoral quota +/- 5%) each electing five members
1) Caerphilly and Islwyn
2) Cardiff
3) Denbighshire and the Conwy Coast
4) Flintshire
5) Glamorgan Coastal
6) Gwent West and Cardiff East
7) Heads of the Valleys
8) Heart of Wales
9) Llanelli and the Gower
10) Monmouthshire
11) Neath and Swansea East
12) Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire Coast
13) Snowdonia and Ynys Môn
14) The Marches
15) The Rhondda Valley
16) Vale of Glamorgan East and Cardiff North West
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 16, 2020 8:27:21 GMT
A model for a 90 member Senedd elected by Single Transferable Vote made up of 16 constituencies (electoral quota +/- 5%) each electing five members 1) Caerphilly and Islwyn 2) Cardiff 3) Denbighshire and the Conwy Coast 4) Flintshire 5) Glamorgan Coastal 6) Gwent West and Cardiff East 7) Heads of the Valleys 8) Heart of Wales 9) Llanelli and the Gower 10) Monmouthshire 11) Neath and Swansea East 12) Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire Coast 13) Snowdonia and Ynys Môn 14) The Marches 15) The Rhondda Valley 16) Vale of Glamorgan East and Cardiff North West 16x5=80? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2020 14:51:04 GMT
A model for a 90 member Senedd elected by Single Transferable Vote made up of 16 constituencies (electoral quota +/- 5%) each electing five members 1) Caerphilly and Islwyn 2) Cardiff 3) Denbighshire and the Conwy Coast 4) Flintshire 5) Glamorgan Coastal 6) Gwent West and Cardiff East7) Heads of the Valleys 8) Heart of Wales 9) Llanelli and the Gower10) Monmouthshire 11) Neath and Swansea East12) Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire Coast 13) Snowdonia and Ynys Môn 14) The Marches 15) The Rhondda Valley 16) Vale of Glamorgan East and Cardiff North WestThank you for demonstrating so nicely why STV is the worst electoral system invented. Enforcing such large constituencies inevitably means monstrosities like the highlighted ones which harms local representation and defeats the object of having any constituency-based electoral system |
|
myth11
Non-Aligned
too busy at work!
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by myth11 on Sept 16, 2020 15:08:19 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. Yes that is what i would do but fact that UKIP/BNP type parties get elected under PR has caused a move towards STV . |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 16, 2020 16:22:01 GMT
A model for a 90 member Senedd elected by Single Transferable Vote made up of 16 constituencies (electoral quota +/- 5%) each electing five members 1) Caerphilly and Islwyn 2) Cardiff 3) Denbighshire and the Conwy Coast 4) Flintshire 5) Glamorgan Coastal 6) Gwent West and Cardiff East7) Heads of the Valleys 8) Heart of Wales 9) Llanelli and the Gower10) Monmouthshire 11) Neath and Swansea East12) Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire Coast 13) Snowdonia and Ynys Môn 14) The Marches 15) The Rhondda Valley 16) Vale of Glamorgan East and Cardiff North WestThank you for demonstrating so nicely why STV is the worst electoral system invented. Enforcing such large constituencies inevitably means monstrosities like the highlighted ones which harms local representation and defeats the object of having any constituency-based electoral system You think STV is worse than Supplementary Vote?  |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 17, 2020 16:13:28 GMT
A model for a 90 member Senedd elected by Single Transferable Vote made up of 16 constituencies (electoral quota +/- 5%) each electing five members ... Thank you for demonstrating so nicely why STV is the worst electoral system invented. Enforcing such large constituencies inevitably means monstrosities like the highlighted ones which harms local representation and defeats the object of having any constituency-based electoral system The nincompoopism is not inherent in STV; the nincompoopism is in the idea that STV should be used with uniform 5-member constituencies. The whole point of STV (along with several other whole points) is that the number of members per constituency is flexible according to the community concerned. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 17, 2020 16:39:30 GMT
It may be that you can't draw a good map for uniform 5-seater STV constituencies for Wales. I fail to see how a map from Harry is evidence either way, though, especially when he's got the number of seats wrong.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 17, 2020 17:48:44 GMT
Flexibility of constituency size is one of the few plus points with STV, but for UK-wide elections, even a (not very proportional) 3-seater would contain around 225,000 electors and could potentially cover a huge area of land as well. As has been demonstrated, an enlarged Senedd with 5-seaters would still produce constituencies that are remote from any notion of community representation.
The same advantage of flexibility can exist with multi-member d'Hondt or Sainte-Laguë (with either closed or open lists) though, and can also be used at the compensatory tier under AMS. It's about time that Cardiff Bay – and Holyrood while we're at it – took advantage of that instead of clinging to one of the details from the original late 1990s devolution settlement.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 17, 2020 19:13:21 GMT
It may be that you can't draw a good map for uniform 5-seater STV constituencies for Wales. I fail to see how a map from Harry is evidence either way, though, especially when he's got the number of seats wrong. By definition, you can't draw a good map for uniform 5-seat constituencies for any society - unless that whole society is heavily deliberately systematically gerrymandered in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 17, 2020 19:28:53 GMT
It may be that you can't draw a good map for uniform 5-seater STV constituencies for Wales. I fail to see how a map from Harry is evidence either way, though, especially when he's got the number of seats wrong. By definition, you can't draw a good map for uniform 5-seat constituencies for any society - unless that whole society is heavily deliberately systematically gerrymandered in the first place. Only if your definition of "uniform" means "no variance in electorate". and even then it might be theoretically possible for a city state. Yes, it's unlikely that the population distribution will be such that you can draw good constituencies of equal size, but to say that it's impossible is going too far. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 17, 2020 20:33:18 GMT
It may be that you can't draw a good map for uniform 5-seater STV constituencies for Wales. I fail to see how a map from Harry is evidence either way, though, especially when he's got the number of seats wrong. I think the "you" vs "one" distinction is important there. Aside from whether one would actually want to do this, it's actually possible to draw a 16-constituency Wales that looks far less bad than that without much difficulty:  1 Monmouth 134420 Yes 2 Newport 138519 Yes 3 Caerphilly 137621 Yes 4 Valleys 136611 Yes 5 Vale of Glamorgan 141705 Yes 6 Cardiff East 135372 Yes 7 Cardiff West and Pontypridd 133456 Yes 8 Bridgend and Aberavon 130855 Yes 9 Neath, Brecon, and Radnorshire 139163 Yes 10 Swansea 134623 Yes 11 Carmarthen 133887 Yes 12 Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion 137494 Yes 13 Wrexham and Montgomeryshire 142869 Yes 14 Gwynedd 135459 Yes 15 Conwy and Denbigh 139800 Yes 16 Flintshire 129987 Yes It's not my preferred electoral system, but it doesn't force a bad map in itself. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 17, 2020 21:02:00 GMT
Yes. In a previous iteration of Boundary Assistant, I worked out how you could draw Wales with anywhere from 2 to 50 seats, with a 10% tolerance (I think I was looking in to the potential partisan effects of different constituency sizes, but it's hazy now and I think I've lost the maps.) Some sizes worked better than others, but pretty much all of them were doable without requiring anything too terrible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2020 21:22:46 GMT
It may be that you can't draw a good map for uniform 5-seater STV constituencies for Wales. I fail to see how a map from Harry is evidence either way, though, especially when he's got the number of seats wrong. I think the "you" vs "one" distinction is important there. Aside from whether one would actually want to do this, it's actually possible to draw a 16-constituency Wales that looks far less bad than that without much difficulty: 1 Monmouth 134420 Yes 2 Newport 138519 Yes 3 Caerphilly 137621 Yes 4 Valleys 136611 Yes 5 Vale of Glamorgan 141705 Yes 6 Cardiff East 135372 Yes 7 Cardiff West and Pontypridd 133456 Yes 8 Bridgend and Aberavon 130855 Yes 9 Neath, Brecon, and Radnorshire 139163 Yes 10 Swansea 134623 Yes 11 Carmarthen 133887 Yes 12 Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion 137494 Yes 13 Wrexham and Montgomeryshire 142869 Yes 14 Gwynedd 135459 Yes 15 Conwy and Denbigh 139800 Yes 16 Flintshire 129987 Yes It's not my preferred electoral system, but it doesn't force a bad map in itself. "less" being the operative word there. It's still a bit of a horror show, especially in Mid Wales |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Sept 19, 2020 5:50:09 GMT
If you force a 'one size fits all' solution you will inevitablly end up with some terrible seats. But if you allow a variation in number of seats per constituency from say 3-7 (5-6 preferred) then you can develop some good options.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 19, 2020 19:08:03 GMT
If you force a 'one size fits all' solution you will inevitablly end up with some terrible seats. But if you allow a variation in number of seats per constituency from say 3-7 (5-6 preferred) then you can develop some good options. Why does this sound like extreme gerrymandering? |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 19, 2020 19:22:21 GMT
I think the "you" vs "one" distinction is important there. Aside from whether one would actually want to do this, it's actually possible to draw a 16-constituency Wales that looks far less bad than that without much difficulty: 1 Monmouth 134420 Yes 2 Newport 138519 Yes 3 Caerphilly 137621 Yes 4 Valleys 136611 Yes 5 Vale of Glamorgan 141705 Yes 6 Cardiff East 135372 Yes 7 Cardiff West and Pontypridd 133456 Yes 8 Bridgend and Aberavon 130855 Yes 9 Neath, Brecon, and Radnorshire 139163 Yes 10 Swansea 134623 Yes 11 Carmarthen 133887 Yes 12 Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion 137494 Yes 13 Wrexham and Montgomeryshire 142869 Yes 14 Gwynedd 135459 Yes 15 Conwy and Denbigh 139800 Yes 16 Flintshire 129987 Yes It's not my preferred electoral system, but it doesn't force a bad map in itself. "less" being the operative word there. It's still a bit of a horror show, especially in Mid Wales But no worse than actual Westminster proposals. I agree that the whole Oswestry Outer set-up is horrible, but it's better than the alternative of splitting Anglesey if one tries to combine Montgomeryshire northward the other way round (and the numbers really force that it goes northward). Otherwise, the only major nasties are putting parts of the former Neath district in with Port Talbot (Briton Ferry and Coedffranc – and this is exactly the current constituency boundary) and splitting the Bridgend district. There are bits that are really nice in there – Gwent and Dyfed are really tidy, Swansea closely matches its 1974-1996 district, and it doesn't even upset the Gwynedd gerrymanderers. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 19, 2020 19:41:33 GMT
If you force a 'one size fits all' solution you will inevitablly end up with some terrible seats. But if you allow a variation in number of seats per constituency from say 3-7 (5-6 preferred) then you can develop some good options. Why does this sound like extreme gerrymandering? Because you are naturally inclined to interpret it that way due to tribalism and/or confirmation bias. |
|
