|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 19, 2020 20:34:35 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? Allowing variation in the number of seats might actually limit gerrymandering, as it'd be easier to impose stipulations about having to follow local authority boundaries and the like. |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Sept 20, 2020 15:36:20 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? How do you arrive at that conclusion? I am just trying to avoid some huge unnatural seats in Powys... |
|
kefin
Non-Aligned
Posts: 260 
Member is Online
|
Post by kefin on Sept 20, 2020 17:09:46 GMT
Surely the most obvious solution to this problem is the hugely popular, and allied to my own view, option to just scrap the increasingly scruffy edifice to incompetence, cronyism and nose troughing down the bay of plenty.
And problem solved
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 20, 2020 17:29:17 GMT
Surely the most obvious solution to this problem is the hugely popular, and allied to my own view, option to just scrap the increasingly scruffy edifice to incompetence, cronyism and nose troughing down the bay of plenty. And problem solved There is less incompetence, cronyism, nose-troughing in the crumbling edifice of the Palace of Westminster, in your view? Or is that kind of incompetence okay because the right people have their noses in the trough at UK level, but the wrong people do in Wales? If you really were opposed to membership of the EU due to a democratic deficit, then please start applying those same tests to British institutions. On the flexibility of constituency sizes point: I would like to reiterate that this is possible with electoral systems other than STV. |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,720
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Sept 20, 2020 19:51:07 GMT
Why does this sound like extreme gerrymandering? How do you arrive at that conclusion? I am just trying to avoid some huge unnatural seats in Powys... If you carefully arrange things so that there are lots of 3-member constituencies in areas where Party A is strong, and 7-member constituencies where Party B is strong, then Party A gets 67% of the seats in areas where it gets 50% of the votes, but Party B only gets 57% of the seats where it gets 50% of the votes. You would have to be very convoluted and devious to get a set of boundaries where there is a very significant unfair advantage, but there might be a net advantage of 2 or 3 seats in one direction if you're not careful. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Sept 20, 2020 19:53:24 GMT
How do you arrive at that conclusion? I am just trying to avoid some huge unnatural seats in Powys... If you carefully arrange things so that there are lots of 3-member constituencies in areas where Party A is strong, and 7-member constituencies where Party B is strong, then Party A gets 67% of the seats in areas where it gets 50% of the votes, but Party B only gets 57% of the seats where it gets 50% of the votes. You would have to be very convoluted and devious to get a set of boundaries where there is a very significant unfair advantage, but there might be a net advantage of 2 or 3 seats in one direction if you're not careful. Another example of an arrangement like that would be having plenty of 3-member constituencies where Minor Party C is weak, but putting loads of 7-member seats where they get more than 10% of the vote. Under that arrangement, that Party C might win several more seats than they would if the pattern was reversed. |
|
kefin
Non-Aligned
Posts: 260
Member is Online
|
Post by kefin on Sept 20, 2020 21:14:46 GMT
Surely the most obvious solution to this problem is the hugely popular, and allied to my own view, option to just scrap the increasingly scruffy edifice to incompetence, cronyism and nose troughing down the bay of plenty. And problem solved There is less incompetence, cronyism, nose-troughing in the crumbling edifice of the Palace of Westminster, in your view? Or is that kind of incompetence okay because the right people have their noses in the trough at UK level, but the wrong people do in Wales? If you really were opposed to membership of the EU due to a democratic deficit, then please start applying those same tests to British institutions. On the flexibility of constituency sizes point: I would like to reiterate that this is possible with electoral systems other than STV. I don't recall giving a vote of confidence in the incompetent nose bagging fools at Westminster, Have you just invented and attributed such a sentiment to me just because it suits your agenda? I would offer three points. 1). Why have two sets of incompetent, wage, expenses, enhanced pension, family and friend employing troughing parasites rather than just one set? 2) Why have two sets of incompetent, wage, expenses, enhanced pension, family and friend employing troughing parasites rather than just one set...........again 3) If anything surely this crisis has proved one thing, that an all UK approach to national emergencies or Health Service is required rather than having a bunch of immature pathetic self important nobodies squabbling and rushing to be the first to announce agreed policies or plans of action like a handful of 5 year olds eager to look the most important by beating the other 5 year olds to the tape and scoring imaginary points off each other when comparing daily fluctuating infection rates and spotting a lower one today as opposed to yesterday compared with the administrations in the other home countries. They're all pathetic individuals and full of their own puffed up self imagined importance, but why have two, or actually three sets of the same bunch of clowns when one set is bad enough? |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Sept 20, 2020 21:19:48 GMT
Labour would soon cotton on to any magnitude gerrymandering in Wales because it would hurt them most. (Like some of the proposed UK schemes).
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 20, 2020 21:29:26 GMT
There is less incompetence, cronyism, nose-troughing in the crumbling edifice of the Palace of Westminster, in your view? Or is that kind of incompetence okay because the right people have their noses in the trough at UK level, but the wrong people do in Wales? If you really were opposed to membership of the EU due to a democratic deficit, then please start applying those same tests to British institutions. On the flexibility of constituency sizes point: I would like to reiterate that this is possible with electoral systems other than STV. I don't recall giving a vote of confidence in the incompetent nose bagging fools at Westminster, Have you just invented and attributed such a sentiment to me just because it suits your agenda? I would offer three points. 1). Why have two sets of incompetent, wage, expenses, enhanced pension, family and friend employing troughing parasites rather than just one set? 2) Why have two sets of incompetent, wage, expenses, enhanced pension, family and friend employing troughing parasites rather than just one set...........again 3) If anything surely this crisis has proved one thing, that an all UK approach to national emergencies or Health Service is required rather than having a bunch of immature pathetic self important nobodies squabbling and rushing to be the first to announce agreed policies or plans of action like a handful of 5 year olds eager to look the most important by beating the other 5 year olds to the tape and scoring imaginary points off each other when comparing daily fluctuating infection rates and spotting a lower one today as opposed to yesterday compared with the administrations in the other home countries. They're all pathetic individuals and full of their own puffed up self imagined importance, but why have two, or actually three sets of the same bunch of clowns when one set is bad enough? Yes, those are all standard anti-politician populist points, and not entirely without merit (apart from un-devolving the four NHSes). But why, in the case of London, does that attitude manifest itself as "let's grumble and throw the bums out next time" but in the cases of Brussels and Cardiff Bay it becomes "this entire institution must be destroyed"? Is it because those bodies only came about later, or maybe it's because those organisations tend not to have a right-wing majority? Why have three layers of governance? Because some things are best decided at a continent-wide level, other things at a (sadly non-existent) federal British level, and others still at the national level. It's all about finding a balance between economies of scale and bringing decision-making closer to the people, and I'm not going to pretend I have a perfect answer for that. But a 25% increase in the size of the Senedd in 2026, when it's had the same number of members since 1999, strikes me as far from an outrageous suggestion. |
|
kefin
Non-Aligned
Posts: 260
Member is Online
|
Post by kefin on Sept 21, 2020 0:38:11 GMT
I don't recall giving a vote of confidence in the incompetent nose bagging fools at Westminster, Have you just invented and attributed such a sentiment to me just because it suits your agenda? I would offer three points. 1). Why have two sets of incompetent, wage, expenses, enhanced pension, family and friend employing troughing parasites rather than just one set? 2) Why have two sets of incompetent, wage, expenses, enhanced pension, family and friend employing troughing parasites rather than just one set...........again 3) If anything surely this crisis has proved one thing, that an all UK approach to national emergencies or Health Service is required rather than having a bunch of immature pathetic self important nobodies squabbling and rushing to be the first to announce agreed policies or plans of action like a handful of 5 year olds eager to look the most important by beating the other 5 year olds to the tape and scoring imaginary points off each other when comparing daily fluctuating infection rates and spotting a lower one today as opposed to yesterday compared with the administrations in the other home countries. They're all pathetic individuals and full of their own puffed up self imagined importance, but why have two, or actually three sets of the same bunch of clowns when one set is bad enough? Yes, those are all standard anti-politician populist points, and not entirely without merit (apart from un-devolving the four NHSes). But why, in the case of London, does that attitude manifest itself as "let's grumble and throw the bums out next time" but in the cases of Brussels and Cardiff Bay it becomes "this entire institution must be destroyed"? Is it because those bodies only came about later, or maybe it's because those organisations tend not to have a right-wing majority? Why have three layers of governance? Because some things are best decided at a continent-wide level, other things at a (sadly non-existent) federal British level, and others still at the national level. It's all about finding a balance between economies of scale and bringing decision-making closer to the people, and I'm not going to pretend I have a perfect answer for that. But a 25% increase in the size of the Senedd in 2026, when it's had the same number of members since 1999, strikes me as far from an outrageous suggestion. One would assume that you are dismissing the constant rebuttals made by the political establishment in the face of the oft repeated claims made by the No to Greater Powers opposition team that a yes vote in the 2011 Welsh referendum would lead to a large increase in the number of AMs. This is a matter of record. There were repeated, outraged indignant, rebuttals to these claims by the vote Yes supporters who repeatedly requested their No campaigner opponents to stop lying to the Welsh public by making such claims of extra AMs being the result of a Yes vote. On record rebuttals now conveniently ignored by a compliant Welsh media now that the subject is being pursued by those wishing to introduce more of their political cronies to a life of guaranteed wealth far in excess of that which most of them could otherwise have experienced back in the real world. Presumably rebuttals made many of those who haven't stopped whining about lies and slogans on the side of a bus during the EU referendum but accused the No campaign of lying in regards this matter in 2011 So who is being held accountable for the misleading denials now conveniently forgotten which helped to swing the 2011 referendum for a yes vote? Nobody of course. Which doesn't cover for the fact that this increase was always the plan from the start of the 'bright new dawn' And you will of course know, as we all do, that the increasingly scruffy building down the Bay of Plenty's chamber has the infamous plywood wall section which can be removed in half a day in order to accommodate the space needed for exactly the amount of extra AMs proposed as was always planned from the start of the institution. The last thing that Wales or anywhere else needs is more politicians. We've only just got rid of expensive joke that were the MEPs in Brussels. Thats why the public won't be given the chance to vote on the matter, having been mislead in 2011, because we all know what the verdict of the pubic would be if asked whether they want more highly paid political and support staff positions created. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 21, 2020 1:34:38 GMT
The 2011 referendum hadn't even crossed my mind, actually, though I see it clearly still haunts the dreams of self-hating Welshmen. I cannot recall the specific promise you mention in the 2011 campaign and even one such guarantee were made, it can hardly have been decisive in a vote that was won by 63.5% to 35.5%.
In any event, a modest increase in the number of AMs (following an increase in both powers and population) a full fifteen years after that referendum could scarcely constitutes breaking a pact with the electorate.
Wales never had more than 5 MEPs, didn't it? And it only had 4 except during the 1994-99 and 1999-2004 terms. That's hardly a huge expense that you desperately needed rid of.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Sept 21, 2020 8:33:34 GMT
Surely the most obvious solution to this problem is the hugely popular, and allied to my own view, option to just scrap the increasingly scruffy edifice to incompetence, cronyism and nose troughing down the bay of plenty. And problem solved  |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 21, 2020 9:43:30 GMT
How do you arrive at that conclusion? I am just trying to avoid some huge unnatural seats in Powys... If you carefully arrange things so that there are lots of 3-member constituencies in areas where Party A is strong, and 7-member constituencies where Party B is strong, then Party A gets 67% of the seats in areas where it gets 50% of the votes, but Party B only gets 57% of the seats where it gets 50% of the votes. You would have to be very convoluted and devious to get a set of boundaries where there is a very significant unfair advantage, but there might be a net advantage of 2 or 3 seats in one direction if you're not careful. Exactly what happened with the Tullymander in Ireland in the 1970s. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_(Amendment)_Act_1974They miscalculated badly and lost the 1977 election as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Sept 21, 2020 9:49:17 GMT
Hugely popular = 4.1%.
Right.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,067
|
Post by The Bishop on Sept 21, 2020 10:20:51 GMT
Hugely popular = 4.1%. Right. Yes, they are - very right (wing)  |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Sept 21, 2020 10:33:58 GMT
The last thing that Wales or anywhere else needs is more politicians. We've only just got rid of expensive joke that were the MEPs in Brussels. Ah, yet another call for powers to be passed to unelected bureaucrats. And whilst UKIP/Brexit Party MEPs were, indeed, an expensive joke, most MEPs from other parties actually did the job they were supposed to - ensuring that new EU laws were fit for purpose. |
|
kefin
Non-Aligned
Posts: 260
Member is Online
|
Post by kefin on Sept 21, 2020 11:47:15 GMT
The 2011 referendum hadn't even crossed my mind, actually, though I see it clearly still haunts the dreams of self-hating Welshmen. I cannot recall the specific promise you mention in the 2011 campaign and even one such guarantee were made, it can hardly have been decisive in a vote that was won by 63.5% to 35.5%. In any event, a modest increase in the number of AMs (following an increase in both powers and population) a full fifteen years after that referendum could scarcely constitutes breaking a pact with the electorate. Wales never had more than 5 MEPs, didn't it? And it only had 4 except during the 1994-99 and 1999-2004 terms. That's hardly a huge expense that you desperately needed rid of. Of course you can't remember the specific promises made, I wouldn't have expected anything else. Your fictitious description of self hating Welshmen doesn't really do you any favours in letting others make a judgment in regard to your rational thinking on this subject or views in general does it? |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Sept 21, 2020 12:09:38 GMT
If you carefully arrange things so that there are lots of 3-member constituencies in areas where Party A is strong, and 7-member constituencies where Party B is strong, then Party A gets 67% of the seats in areas where it gets 50% of the votes, but Party B only gets 57% of the seats where it gets 50% of the votes. You would have to be very convoluted and devious to get a set of boundaries where there is a very significant unfair advantage, but there might be a net advantage of 2 or 3 seats in one direction if you're not careful. Exactly what happened with the Tullymander in Ireland in the 1970s. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_(Amendment)_Act_1974They miscalculated badly and lost the 1977 election as a result. Well, the former UK constituencies for the European parliament worked like that. Some had only 3 members (NI, North East England) but others (South East England, London) had many more (9 or 10 IIRC). |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Sept 21, 2020 12:13:53 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. You would have the SNP essentially talking to itself in the Scottish Parliament? |
|
kefin
Non-Aligned
Posts: 260
Member is Online
|
Post by kefin on Sept 21, 2020 12:33:06 GMT
The last thing that Wales or anywhere else needs is more politicians. We've only just got rid of expensive joke that were the MEPs in Brussels. Ah, yet another call for powers to be passed to unelected bureaucrats. And whilst UKIP/Brexit Party MEPs were, indeed, an expensive joke, most MEPs from other parties actually did the job they were supposed to - ensuring that new EU laws were fit for purpose. Of course they did. Or at least they did a very good job of convincing clearly a minority of the British public that they did. One can only assume that you never spent any time in the EU buildings during a working week observing the reality as delusional Green, Labour, Con and Lib dems rushed about earning lots of money helping the pretence of a democratic working organisation. I used to chuckle watching them scurrying about the buildings with sheafs of papers under their arms with earnest assistants trailing in their wake and I have no doubt that they had actually convinced themselves that they were the kiddos forcing change and determining the future of Europe. I think the term useful idiots would have been assigned to them by those more cynical than myself. There is no bigger critic than myself of quite a number of Mr Farage's actions and judgements in regards to his colleagues ( whilst also acknowledging he was more on the button and correct in regards the EU and its workings than any other British politician) but he was quite right there was no point in him turning up at fisheries committees for example it was all an illusion for a gullible political class and the public whilst all the power lay with the unelected bureaucrats. The simplest example to demonstrate this of course was the twice voted on decision by the EU parliament to stop the extraordinary waste of money and resources that it the monthly trek to Strasbourg. Twice voted to stop by the EU parliament and the decision just ignored by the EU without further ado. Perhaps you could explain how that happens that if you feel that your heroes were fit for purpose. And I do repeat that I really feel that those earnest scurrying MEPs had actually convinced themselves that they were important and doing great things. The Strasbourg example is the perfect example in demonstrating to you that the MEPs were simply delusional eye candy there just for the benefit of the naiive to think that they were carrying out important and meaningful tasks. They weren't. And thankfully the majority of the British public were intelligent enough to recognise that. I repeat ...that in my opinion the public just don't want to see more politicians......you of course may have a perfectly valid opposite view which of course I acknowledge and respect if not the sentiments of that view. |
|
