|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 21, 2020 12:40:49 GMT
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). But they were also no gerrymander. You note the Tullymander (and rival more mildly gerrymandered maps of the same era) functioned largely by driving up the number of 3 or 4 seaters, which is inherently a bit low for STV to function properly (the larger the avg seat the smaller the share of wasted votes) - even though it's just in constituencies this small that it becomes more obviously preferrable to non-transferable systems.
|
|
kefin
Non-Aligned
Posts: 258
|
Post by kefin on Sept 21, 2020 12:45:44 GMT
Hugely popular = 4.1%. Right. Yes, they are - very right (wing) Unfortunately the Abolish the Assembly party are run by a bunch of, shall we be charitable, and say limited individuals. As I've mentioned before I base my judgement on living amongst, mixing and talking to the general public rather than relying on focus groups and polls like the political class do because they are in a world of their own in general. I once again quote those political giants who assured us over and over again that they would lead Wales in the fight not to leave the EU after Wales comfortably voted to stay in if England voted out and carried the day. I knew full well, that they hadn't a clue as to the true feelings and mood of the Welsh public as was subsequently shown to be the case. In regards to publicity and promoting curbing the monstrosity down the bay you have to take into account the massive interests determined to keep on fuelling their future prosperity by being clients of the assembly's political class. The massive NGO industry in Wales funded by the assembly The massive civil service funded by the assembly The industry scared stiff of losing grants they are entitled to if they criticise the assembly A compliant Welsh media whose jobs rely on the assembly
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Sept 21, 2020 12:46:48 GMT
Oops...I put better governance above proportionality. You would have the SNP essentially talking to itself in the Scottish Parliament? If a plurality election in Scotland returned a landslide for the SNP...yes. The pendulum swings.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,051
Member is Online
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Sept 21, 2020 16:32:47 GMT
You would have the SNP essentially talking to itself in the Scottish Parliament? If a plurality election in Scotland returned a landslide for the SNP...yes. The pendulum swings. winner takes all/let the victors take the spoils, nowt wrong with that
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Sept 21, 2020 18:28:08 GMT
Yes, they are - very right (wing) Unfortunately the Abolish the Assembly party are run by a bunch of, shall we be charitable, and say limited individuals. Which is representative of most (but not all) of their supporters....
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 21, 2020 20:14:54 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? This thread is about potential changes to the Senedd from 2026 onwards. It is generally agreed that by then an increase in the legislative workload by that point will make a modest expansion long overdue. Counter-proposals to keep the number of members the same, or even reduce the size of the chamber, I can vehemently disagree with but still engage with seriously. Advocating the outright abolition of Wales, on the other hand, is a truly the product of irrational thinking and certainly a sign of hatred of one's own country. Oops...I put better governance above proportionality. You would have the SNP essentially talking to itself in the Scottish Parliament? In a Holyrood elected entirely by FPTP, whilst that would be an unwelcome regression, there would at least be small pockets of resistance. Some members here genuinely seem to think that something akin to the result of the 1987 provincial election in New Brunswick, Canada would constitute "good governance" which beggars belief. They need not necessarily fear proportional systems though. Under MMP, the Bavarian CSU held an absolute majority in the Landtag (lower house only before 1999) from 1946-50, 1962-2008 and again from 2013-18. 'Winner take all' is a dangerously simplistic view of democracy. On a psephological forum, we ought to be above that.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Sept 21, 2020 20:42:19 GMT
Advocating the outright abolition of Wales, on the other hand, is a truly the product of irrational thinking and certainly a sign of hatred of one's own country. Yes, who wants to go back to that time pre-1999 when Wales didn't exist.
|
|
kefin
Non-Aligned
Posts: 258
|
Post by kefin on Sept 21, 2020 20:47:06 GMT
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? This thread is about potential changes to the Senedd from 2026 onwards. It is generally agreed that by then an increase in the legislative workload by that point will make a modest expansion long overdue. Counter-proposals to keep the number of members the same, or even reduce the size of the chamber, I can vehemently disagree with but still engage with seriously. Advocating the outright abolition of Wales, on the other hand, is a truly the product of irrational thinking and certainly a sign of hatred of one's own country. You would have the SNP essentially talking to itself in the Scottish Parliament? In a Holyrood elected entirely by FPTP, whilst that would be an unwelcome regression, there would at least be small pockets of resistance. Some members here genuinely seem to think that something akin to the result of the 1987 provincial election in New Brunswick, Canada would constitute "good governance" which beggars belief. They need not necessarily fear proportional systems though. Under MMP, the Bavarian CSU held an absolute majority in the Landtag (lower house only before 1999) from 1946-50, 1962-2008 and again from 2013-18. 'Winner take all' is a dangerously simplistic view of democracy. On a psephological forum, we ought to be above that. Are you able to point to where anyone has suggested the abolition of Wales? Or is your outraged imagination and sense of crazed distortion taken on a life of its own and started running riot now?
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 21, 2020 22:35:17 GMT
Before 1999, Wales existed in football and rugby terms (except for the Olympic Games) and as a TV region. The UK Parliament had, over the course of the previous century and a bit, legislated to recognise differences regarding the languages spoken there and the relationship between church and state. So yes, I was exaggerating, but only slightly.
If anybody really wants go back to that pathetic level of non-decentralisation, then they must despise Welsh identity and/or be utterly unhinged. It is not a tenable position in 2020. The Senedd is here to stay and to suggest otherwise is not the viewpoint of a democrat or of anybody who wants the best possible outcomes for Wales and its people.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Sept 22, 2020 5:58:08 GMT
Before 1999, Wales existed in football and rugby terms (except for the Olympic Games) and as a TV region. The UK Parliament had, over the course of the previous century and a bit, legislated to recognise differences regarding the languages spoken there and the relationship between church and state. So yes, I was exaggerating, but only slightly. If anybody really wants go back to that pathetic level of non-decentralisation, then they must despise Welsh identity and/or be utterly unhinged. It is not a tenable position in 2020. The Senedd is here to stay and to suggest otherwise is not the viewpoint of a democrat or of anybody who wants the best possible outcomes for Wales and its people. Sorry that is just plain wrong. You can be a democrat and not believe in any decentralisation. It may be an unusual view at the moment, but it doesn't mean that a person holding it is unhinged, despises the Welsh or anything like that. What year it is, is irrelevant, views are views, of course its tenable to defend such a view now, such a view may not be successful at the moment, but it doesn't make it untenable, it just means what the person thinks is best for the Welsh people is very different from the current majority view.
|
|
kefin
Non-Aligned
Posts: 258
|
Post by kefin on Sept 22, 2020 8:43:00 GMT
Before 1999, Wales existed in football and rugby terms (except for the Olympic Games) and as a TV region. The UK Parliament had, over the course of the previous century and a bit, legislated to recognise differences regarding the languages spoken there and the relationship between church and state. So yes, I was exaggerating, but only slightly. If anybody really wants go back to that pathetic level of non-decentralisation, then they must despise Welsh identity and/or be utterly unhinged. It is not a tenable position in 2020. The Senedd is here to stay and to suggest otherwise is not the viewpoint of a democrat or of anybody who wants the best possible outcomes for Wales and its people. And its hysterical unpleasant views such as those displayed by yourself that will ensure that Wales will never vote with the nationalists. Presumably like many you're not bright enough to realise that.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Sept 22, 2020 9:16:13 GMT
Before 1999, Wales existed in football and rugby terms (except for the Olympic Games) and as a TV region. The UK Parliament had, over the course of the previous century and a bit, legislated to recognise differences regarding the languages spoken there and the relationship between church and state. So yes, I was exaggerating, but only slightly. If anybody really wants go back to that pathetic level of non-decentralisation, then they must despise Welsh identity and/or be utterly unhinged. It is not a tenable position in 2020. The Senedd is here to stay and to suggest otherwise is not the viewpoint of a democrat or of anybody who wants the best possible outcomes for Wales and its people. And its hysterical unpleasant views such as those displayed by yourself that will ensure that Wales will never vote with the nationalists. Presumably like many you're not bright enough to realise that. I approach this whole question as a disinterested observer with no axe to grind about Welsh politics except to be generally pro-devolution, with no particular view on the nitty-gritty as to how that is practised, leaving that as a matter for the Welsh themselves to decide. However, this post is couched in just the sort of language to help me decide. "Hysterical unpleasant views" (pots and kettles?), "you're not bright enough to realise" are just the sort of phrases to make my mind up in the opposite direction to yours.
|
|
kefin
Non-Aligned
Posts: 258
|
Post by kefin on Sept 22, 2020 13:46:12 GMT
And its hysterical unpleasant views such as those displayed by yourself that will ensure that Wales will never vote with the nationalists. Presumably like many you're not bright enough to realise that. I approach this whole question as a disinterested observer with no axe to grind about Welsh politics except to be generally pro-devolution, with no particular view on the nitty-gritty as to how that is practised, leaving that as a matter for the Welsh themselves to decide. However, this post is couched in just the sort of language to help me decide. "Hysterical unpleasant views" (pots and kettles?), "you're not bright enough to realise" are just the sort of phrases to make my mind up in the opposite direction to yours. I'm afraid that I'll just have to live with that heavy burden. Meanwhile on a brighter note on a similar theme nice to see that others around the globe agree with my less politicians rather than more philosophy. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8759597/Italians-overwhelmingly-vote-cut-number-MPs-cost-cutting-measure.html
|
|
myth11
Non-Aligned
too busy at work!
Posts: 2,736
|
Post by myth11 on Sept 22, 2020 15:54:08 GMT
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). But they were also no gerrymander. You note the Tullymander (and rival more mildly gerrymandered maps of the same era) functioned largely by driving up the number of 3 or 4 seaters, which is inherently a bit low for STV to function properly (the larger the avg seat the smaller the share of wasted votes) - even though it's just in constituencies this small that it becomes more obviously preferrable to non-transferable systems. I know SF underperformed in 3 seaters in the last Irish election winning 4 out of 27 and they lost out on a couple of seats when they were 2nd or 3rd on 1st round votes. FF and FG both got 7 out of 27.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Sept 22, 2020 16:57:09 GMT
Before 1999, Wales existed in football and rugby terms (except for the Olympic Games) and as a TV region. The UK Parliament had, over the course of the previous century and a bit, legislated to recognise differences regarding the languages spoken there and the relationship between church and state. So yes, I was exaggerating, but only slightly. If anybody really wants go back to that pathetic level of non-decentralisation, then they must despise Welsh identity and/or be utterly unhinged. It is not a tenable position in 2020. The Senedd is here to stay and to suggest otherwise is not the viewpoint of a democrat or of anybody who wants the best possible outcomes for Wales and its people. And its hysterical unpleasant views such as those displayed by yourself that will ensure that Wales will never vote with the nationalists. Presumably like many you're not bright enough to realise that. I certainly hope you're right that Wales will never again vote with the British nationalists. Wales will never vote for Plaid Cymru in large numbers either, and I'm perfectly content with that fact. If you've mistaken me for a separatist then you haven't been paying attention. I'm strongly in favour of Welsh membership of both unions. The only thing that might drive large numbers of Welsh voters into their arms is the attitude of the far right in Wales (and increasingly heard from Conservatives in England) that the Senedd should be put back in its box having got ideas above its station.
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Sept 22, 2020 17:45:29 GMT
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). But they were also no gerrymander. You note the Tullymander (and rival more mildly gerrymandered maps of the same era) functioned largely by driving up the number of 3 or 4 seaters, which is inherently a bit low for STV to function properly (the larger the avg seat the smaller the share of wasted votes) - even though it's just in constituencies this small that it becomes more obviously preferrable to non-transferable systems. No, that wasn't how the Tullymander worked. The number of 3-seaters remained the same: 26 in the 1973 election and 26 in the 1977 election. It replaced 4/5-seaters with 3-seaters in areas where Fianna FĂĄil were weak, mainly Greater Dublin. Simultaneously, a number of 3-seaters (Cork City NW, Cork City SE, Donegal NE, Donegal-Leitrim, Cavan, and Monaghan) were all merged into 5-seaters. Those were all strong Fianna FĂĄil areas where they had won 2 of 3 seats in all of them in 1973 so it was expected this would limit them to 3 out of 5 instead. It would be akin to a UK Conservative gerrymander having 5-seaters in urban areas and 3-seaters in rural areas (switch that for a Labour gerrymander.) Basically it's selective use of 3-seaters in areas where your opponent is weak and 5-seaters where they are strong.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 23, 2020 3:10:37 GMT
But they were also no gerrymander. You note the Tullymander (and rival more mildly gerrymandered maps of the same era) functioned largely by driving up the number of 3 or 4 seaters, which is inherently a bit low for STV to function properly (the larger the avg seat the smaller the share of wasted votes) - even though it's just in constituencies this small that it becomes more obviously preferrable to non-transferable systems. No, that wasn't how the Tullymander worked. The number of 3-seaters remained the same: 26 in the 1973 election and 26 in the 1977 election. It replaced 4/5-seaters with 3-seaters in areas where Fianna Fåil were weak, mainly Greater Dublin. Simultaneously, a number of 3-seaters (Cork City NW, Cork City SE, Donegal NE, Donegal-Leitrim, Cavan, and Monaghan) were all merged into 5-seaters. Those were all strong Fianna Fåil areas where they had won 2 of 3 seats in all of them in 1973 so it was expected this would limit them to 3 out of 5 instead. It would be akin to a UK Conservative gerrymander having 5-seaters in urban areas and 3-seaters in rural areas (switch that for a Labour gerrymander.) Basically it's selective use of 3-seaters in areas where your opponent is weak and 5-seaters where they are strong. yes, deciding which areas should be 3 and which should be 4 seaters is the obvious next step, and Tully was controversial because it disrupted the existing pattern in blatant hopes of political gain. But it also didn't "work like that" because it didn't work at all. The point is in the bit you bolded already - the map Tully replaced was also a gerrymander. The push for as many threeseaters and fourseaters as possible and the abolution of all 6seaters or larger was always about rigging the results. The former has been gradually undone somewhat in recent decades (ever since the matter has been taken out of the hands of the gov't of the day). The latter sadly has not. A single county that happens to be worth 6 or even 7 seats should be a single constituency, not divided along a random squiggly line. Edit: okay so there were a few new fiveseaters. Less effective than fourseaters (where 3 out of 4 would be a real stretch) at the goal intended, though, and probably largely due to deference to county lines.
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Sept 23, 2020 3:31:24 GMT
But they were also no gerrymander. You note the Tullymander (and rival more mildly gerrymandered maps of the same era) functioned largely by driving up the number of 3 or 4 seaters, which is inherently a bit low for STV to function properly (the larger the avg seat the smaller the share of wasted votes) - even though it's just in constituencies this small that it becomes more obviously preferrable to non-transferable systems. I know SF underperformed in 3 seaters in the last Irish election winning 4 out of 27 and they lost out on a couple of seats when they were 2nd or 3rd on 1st round votes. FF and FG both got 7 out of 27. Kildare S was a three seater as well (due to the bizarre things Ireland does with the Speaker) making it 8-7-5. Of course it's hard to see much of a gerrymander here - DLR would have needed to be a single 7seat constituency to eke SF in, they threw away a second seat in Dublin NW by not running a second candidate (and narrowly failed to accidentally elect a Trot on transfers). Cork would have elected an extra SF TD if it were four rather than five constituencies, as it easily could be.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 3, 2020 15:53:00 GMT
And its hysterical unpleasant views such as those displayed by yourself that will ensure that Wales will never vote with the nationalists. Presumably like many you're not bright enough to realise that. I certainly hope you're right that Wales will never again vote with the British nationalists. Wales will never vote for Plaid Cymru in large numbers either, and I'm perfectly content with that fact. If you've mistaken me for a separatist then you haven't been paying attention. I'm strongly in favour of Welsh membership of both unions. The only thing that might drive large numbers of Welsh voters into their arms is the attitude of the far right in Wales (and increasingly heard from Conservatives in England) that the Senedd should be put back in its box having got ideas above its station. Are you a Welshman, Foggy?
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,507
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 3, 2020 19:54:52 GMT
I certainly hope you're right that Wales will never again vote with the British nationalists. Wales will never vote for Plaid Cymru in large numbers either, and I'm perfectly content with that fact. If you've mistaken me for a separatist then you haven't been paying attention. I'm strongly in favour of Welsh membership of both unions. The only thing that might drive large numbers of Welsh voters into their arms is the attitude of the far right in Wales (and increasingly heard from Conservatives in England) that the Senedd should be put back in its box having got ideas above its station. Are you a Welshman, Foggy ? I am not. I was last in Wales for Cardiff ComicCon 13 months ago. I was based in North Wales for my undergraduate degree, whilst my mother has cousins in the Valleys, an area to which my brother-in-law's parents have also recently moved. My friend over the road owns properties in Newport as well, so I have various reasons to take an interest. Oh, and I still sometimes watch S4C for the sports coverage even if the channel's not what it used to be. I remain amused by the notion from others in this thread that advocating a smaller increase in the size of the Assembly for 2026 than was recommended by the Richard Commission in 2004 constitutes an "hysterical and unpleasant" attitude. Then again, I have also since been reminded of the propaganda exercise Huw Edwards engaged in on the institution's 20th anniversary and I wasn't impressed by that either.
|
|