J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,784 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 21, 2022 14:13:37 GMT
Whilst I agree that constituencies shouldn't be drawn simply for the convenience of the elected member or their campaign, I do think it helps an MP to be able to speak and act on behalf of their voters when those voters form to a significant extent a community of place. It's by no means of the same importance as when defining national or local government boundaries, but communities of place do exist and should be recognised, particularly by those of a more conservative disposition. Disregarding is not helpful to encouraging political engagement, and reduces the affinity of the elected member with the place they are elected to represent. And drawing local government boundaries is a lot easier as they don't have to contain the same population. Imagine South Yorkshire being forced to be four councils with exactly the same population in each! |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Nov 21, 2022 14:57:24 GMT
But why? Why all this blather every time. The electors will not notice as it does not affect them in any manner at all. No one ever needs to go from one part to another, ever. Constituencies are there merely for voting and to be as fair and equal in size as is possible. they are not designed for an extreme minority of nerks with very odd desires, nor for poltical parties convenience, nor for those odd souls who are out to canvass. They are for fairness and for voting. The MP will have access to a car and or driver and will probably be sensible enough to use roads and bridges when moving about. Some of you really need to adopt a bit of common sense and to 'get a life'! I agree with carlton43 . People sometimes talk about the difficulties of travelling from one part of a constituency to another part of the same constituency, and the need to go through another constituency on the journey (or the difficulty of travelling on main roads or whatever). This would be a problem if there was a big wall on the boundary between each constituency, or if there was a law saying that a journey within a constituency can’t stray over the border into another constituency, but there isn’t. I am happy for there to be a number of exclaves and detached parts of constituencies, and it’s a pity there aren’t more. I would even like to see a whole map of the UK looking like Baarle-Nassau, just for the fun of it. Perhaps we could have 650 constituencies, constructed of whole unsplit wards, with the only criterion being the desire to minimise the difference in electorate between the smallest and largest constituencies. P.S. perhaps that method could be used for an elected replacement for the House of Lords. Exclaves and detached areas are quite an interesting idea which arguably would help with creating communities of interest. I'm afraid the BCE would never wear it. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Nov 21, 2022 15:23:26 GMT
Whilst I agree that constituencies shouldn't be drawn simply for the convenience of the elected member or their campaign, I do think it helps an MP to be able to speak and act on behalf of their voters when those voters form to a significant extent a community of place. It's by no means of the same importance as when defining national or local government boundaries, but communities of place do exist and should be recognised, particularly by those of a more conservative disposition. Disregarding is not helpful to encouraging political engagement, and reduces the affinity of the elected member with the place they are elected to represent. And drawing local government boundaries is a lot easier as they don't have to contain the same population. Imagine South Yorkshire being forced to be four councils with exactly the same population in each!I can't resist a challenge like that! But looking at the figures, the outcome actually wouldn't be too bad. Barnsley can just take Stocksbridge and the two Ecclesfield wards from Sheffield (which are semi-detached from the city anyway) and expand along the Dearne Valley to take in Wath, Swinton, and Mexborough. Then Doncaster can expand down to Maltby and Wickersley which fit well with the Tickhill area. Finally, Rotherham needs to take some of northern and eastern Sheffield - I moved the four "Brightside" wards, together with Darnall, Woodhouse, Beighton, and Mosborough. The River Don and A57 form fairly clear boundaries; if a split ward was allowed then Richmond ward could be divided to unite all of Woodhouse in the new Rotherham borough and would mean the boundary would follow the A57 more closely. Having eastern Sheffield be part of Rotherham isn't ideal, but these are generally suburban and/or working class areas which have different needs and issues to the more middle class areas around the city centre with more students. And at least the new borough would have Meadowhell as a fairly central unifying point. All four have virtually identical populations on 2011 figures and divergences of about 2% on 2021 figures, and no towns or cities are split except for Rawmarsh and Sheffield (and the latter at least follows somewhat sensible and clear boundaries). |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 21, 2022 15:27:42 GMT
I agree with carlton43 . People sometimes talk about the difficulties of travelling from one part of a constituency to another part of the same constituency, and the need to go through another constituency on the journey (or the difficulty of travelling on main roads or whatever). This would be a problem if there was a big wall on the boundary between each constituency, or if there was a law saying that a journey within a constituency can’t stray over the border into another constituency, but there isn’t. I am happy for there to be a number of exclaves and detached parts of constituencies, and it’s a pity there aren’t more. I would even like to see a whole map of the UK looking like Baarle-Nassau, just for the fun of it. Perhaps we could have 650 constituencies, constructed of whole unsplit wards, with the only criterion being the desire to minimise the difference in electorate between the smallest and largest constituencies. P.S. perhaps that method could be used for an elected replacement for the House of Lords. Exclaves and detached areas are quite an interesting idea which arguably would help with creating communities of interest. I'm afraid the BCE would never wear it. You mean something like this? 
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,943
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 21, 2022 16:20:10 GMT
Yes I do defend it completely. Why does it matter in any way at all to anyone at all, including you? Who on earth would ever contemplate such a senseless journey ever? And for what purpose? What on earth is this blithering idiocy about? Explain it tome in simple terms old chap. If we allow seats to be drawn any which way, then we're opening the doors to American -style gerrymandering where "anything goes" would result in biased consistencies and unfair elections. As far as possible a constituency needs to be credible, and that includes whether you can travel from one end to the other without needing to inform Mountain Rescue. You have an entrenched opinion. I have mine. We differ. Why on earth does it matter one jot or one tittle? What is the point you are trying to make? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 21, 2022 16:25:45 GMT
If we allow seats to be drawn any which way, then we're opening the doors to American -style gerrymandering where "anything goes" would result in biased consistencies and unfair elections. As far as possible a constituency needs to be credible, and that includes whether you can travel from one end to the other without needing to inform Mountain Rescue. You have an entrenched opinion. I have mine. We differ. Why on earth does it matter one jot or one tittle? What is the point you are trying to make? If it matters so little why do you keep commenting on the matter? Your views on this subject are as well known as Mike's on voting reform, trans rights and Palestinians. It doesn't seem unreasonable that those of us who are interested in constituency boundaries and think they do matter should comment about them on a thread about the 2023 Review. Its less obvious to me why someone who constantly proclaims their lack of interest in the topic persists in posting comments on it. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Nov 21, 2022 16:32:23 GMT
While I fully agree with the sentiment that this constituency (the Perthshire appendage to it - the Clackmannanshire and random towns near Falkirk link can be defended on common interests grounds) makes a mockery of the idea of fptp, I must strongly protest the notion that these low hills can't be traversed: www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=47051 |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,943
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 21, 2022 16:39:30 GMT
Why on earth does it matter one jot or one tittle? What is the point you are trying to make? If it matters so little why do you keep commenting on the matter? Your views on this subject are as well known as Mike's on voting reform, trans rights and Palestinians. It doesn't seem unreasonable that those of us who are interested in constituency boundaries and think they do matter should comment about them on a thread about the 2023 Review. Its less obvious to me why someone who constantly proclaims their lack of interest in the topic persists in posting comments on it. On the contrary, I am very interested in the topic and have been far longer than any of you. I am concerned about the size of the electorates being much closer than they are now; about a sensible naming policy; about reasonable demographic and identity cohesion (if sensibly possible) and about keeping to a raft of issues that I find often too far distorted. The thing I cannot understand is with the excitement and obsession with difficulties over getting from one part of a constituency to another part of it, as it affects not a solitary voter in any way and no one wishes ever to do it. It is a non concern of utter stupidity and I wish to know why so many of you obsess about it and if you continue to so I shall continue to challange it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 16:48:11 GMT
If we allow seats to be drawn any which way, then we're opening the doors to American -style gerrymandering where "anything goes" would result in biased consistencies and unfair elections. As far as possible a constituency needs to be credible, and that includes whether you can travel from one end to the other without needing to inform Mountain Rescue. You have an entrenched opinion. I have mine. We differ. Why on earth does it matter one jot or one tittle? What is the point you are trying to make? I'll combine all my previous answers into this and then, for the better relations between both of us, pause this correspondence. Defenders of FPTP argue that that voting system is the best we have, and one part of that argument is the constituency link between MP and voter. If that argument holds water, then the constituencies have to be themselves "valid". Otherwise there is no link between MP and voter because the lines have been drawn any which way, such as having mountains and the Forth River between population centres. MPs represent consistencies (or should). If they don't, then there is no argument against the introduction of proportional representation, because MPs could be elected to represent massive regions and it doesn't matter. I'm interested in parliamentary boundaries, it's perhaps my big interest above others. It interests me that seats are coherent and valid and logical. It bothers me when they're not. And believe me, if the rules were thrown out and seats were drawn in the American format, we'd have a Commons effectively nominated rather than voted for, because seats would be drawn to a party's best interest rather than a community's make-up. If you can't drive from one side of a constituency to another, easily and without intermediate barriers, then that seat might need redrawing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 16:50:39 GMT
There's no justification for FPTP if the constituencies created do not make some sort of sense (which does not necessarily have to be a strictly geographical one). None. Apart from sensibleness. That's like saying if we introduced PR then MPs can just forget about constituency work because it doesn't matter, which obviously isn't the case. The fact is you don't need a 10 mile wide geographic bridge between urban centres and a motorway connecting them. In all practicalities relating to representation it matters not a jot if there's a detached blob or you have to cross an estuary. I mean, if the people of Orkney and Shetland can manage the disjointedness I'm sure everyone else could. It's just that people don't like how it looks, or don't like the idea or it, or think it breaks up the populace 'in spirit.' But so what? That would be the case under PR as well. It's still representation regardless of the voting system. To say it invalidates FPTP when the far, far bigger advantage with the latter is the much greater likelihood of majority governments, is bizarre. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Nov 21, 2022 16:55:49 GMT
If it matters so little why do you keep commenting on the matter? Your views on this subject are as well known as Mike's on voting reform, trans rights and Palestinians. It doesn't seem unreasonable that those of us who are interested in constituency boundaries and think they do matter should comment about them on a thread about the 2023 Review. Its less obvious to me why someone who constantly proclaims their lack of interest in the topic persists in posting comments on it. On the contrary, I am very interested in the topic and have been far longer than any of you. I am concerned about the size of the electorates being much closer than they are now; about a sensible naming policy; about reasonable demographic and identity cohesion (if sensibly possible) and about keeping to a raft of issues that I find often too far distorted. The thing I cannot understand is with the excitement and obsession with difficulties over getting from one part of a constituency to another part of it, as it affects not a solitary voter in any way and no one wishes ever to do it. It is a non concern of utter stupidity and I wish to know why so many of you obsess about it and if you continue to so I shall continue to challange it. What demographic cohesion is there between the part of the constituency north of the Ochils and the rest of it? Realistically elections in the constituency will always be decided by the desires of Clackmannanshire and the towns north of Falkirk; unless the local MP takes a particular interest in the Perthshire section, that part of the seat will never get the same attention or care. The current Ochil and South Perthshire seat is bad enough - but at least the two halves are roughly equally sized so neither half dominates and essentially disenfranchises the other. I think there can be excessive nit picking around boundaries, but this is an example where the proposals are totally egregious and where it will be impossible for one MP to adequately represent the whole constituency. They could also be easily resolved if the commission was willing to split Stirling (just the district, not the city proper). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 16:59:06 GMT
There's no justification for FPTP if the constituencies created do not make some sort of sense (which does not necessarily have to be a strictly geographical one). None. Apart from sensibleness. That's like saying if we introduced PR then MPs can just forget about constituency work because it doesn't matter, which obviously isn't the case. The fact is you don't need a 10 mile wide geographic bridge between urban centres and a motorway connecting them. In all practicalities relating to representation it matters not a jot if there's a detached blob or you have to cross an estuary. I mean, if the people of Orkney and Shetland can manage the disjointedness I'm sure everyone else could. It's just that people don't like how it looks, or don't like the idea or it, or think it breaks up the populace 'in spirit.' But so what? That would be the case under PR as well. It's still representation regardless of the voting system. To say it invalidates FPTP when the far, far bigger advantage with the latter is the much greater likelihood of majority governments, is bizarre. I disagree. Taking Clackmannanshire and Leftovers as the example we're all talking about, what is the constituency link between those who live on one side of the mountains, and those who live on the other side? Are their votes really worth the same because of shared interests, shared communities, shared experiences? Orkney and Shetland is a bad example. There are roads connecting the islands, there are flights between the islands. Orkney hasn't been connected to Aberdeenshire. What buses run between the two halves of this seat? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2022 17:09:37 GMT
Apart from sensibleness. That's like saying if we introduced PR then MPs can just forget about constituency work because it doesn't matter, which obviously isn't the case. The fact is you don't need a 10 mile wide geographic bridge between urban centres and a motorway connecting them. In all practicalities relating to representation it matters not a jot if there's a detached blob or you have to cross an estuary. I mean, if the people of Orkney and Shetland can manage the disjointedness I'm sure everyone else could. It's just that people don't like how it looks, or don't like the idea or it, or think it breaks up the populace 'in spirit.' But so what? That would be the case under PR as well. It's still representation regardless of the voting system. To say it invalidates FPTP when the far, far bigger advantage with the latter is the much greater likelihood of majority governments, is bizarre. I disagree. Taking Clackmannanshire and Leftovers as the example we're all talking about, what is the constituency link between those who live on one side of the mountains, and those who live on the other side? Are their votes really worth the same because of shared interests, shared communities, shared experiences? Orkney and Shetland is a bad example. There are roads connecting the islands, there are flights between the islands. Orkney hasn't been connected to Aberdeenshire. What buses run between the two halves of this seat? Far be it from me to suggest you are being obtuse  but I don't rate having to catch a plane to get to part of the constituency as better than having to drive a mile though someone elses to get to part of yours. And you're speaking as if an MP is somehow incapable of telling that one part of his constituency is concerned about milk prices and the other about house rents. Well... that can be said of large rural seats which contain towns where people frankly don't have much in common with the shepherd 20 miles away. These things are not beyond the wit of man. They are not insurmountables. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,784
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 21, 2022 19:11:15 GMT
Taking Clackmannanshire and Leftovers as the example we're all talking about, what is the constituency link between those who live on one side of the mountains, and those who live on the other side? Are their votes really worth the same because of shared interests, shared communities, shared experiences? Orkney and Shetland is a bad example. There are roads connecting the islands, there are flights between the islands. Orkney hasn't been connected to Aberdeenshire. What buses run between the two halves of this seat? When I was at Stirling University, the number 91 ran from Perth through Blackford to Dunblane, through Bridge of Allan, and then through Clackmannanshire to St. Andrews. Went past the university gates at about 8:15am. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,943
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 21, 2022 21:54:02 GMT
Why on earth does it matter one jot or one tittle? What is the point you are trying to make? I'll combine all my previous answers into this and then, for the better relations between both of us, pause this correspondence. Defenders of FPTP argue that that voting system is the best we have, and one part of that argument is the constituency link between MP and voter. If that argument holds water, then the constituencies have to be themselves "valid". Otherwise there is no link between MP and voter because the lines have been drawn any which way, such as having mountains and the Forth River between population centres. MPs represent consistencies (or should). If they don't, then there is no argument against the introduction of proportional representation, because MPs could be elected to represent massive regions and it doesn't matter. I'm interested in parliamentary boundaries, it's perhaps my big interest above others. It interests me that seats are coherent and valid and logical. It bothers me when they're not. And believe me, if the rules were thrown out and seats were drawn in the American format, we'd have a Commons effectively nominated rather than voted for, because seats would be drawn to a party's best interest rather than a community's make-up. If you can't drive from one side of a constituency to another, easily and without intermediate barriers, then that seat might need redrawing. Thank you for the courtesy of a clearly expressed response. I am grateful for that two-fold answer. I have thought about your responses and do not think that the relativity to FPTP has any cogency at all. I cannot see what difference the methodology employed as to the counting routine or the added complexity of any form of PR could possibly have, nor how the one could validate or invalidate the other in any way. I still cannot see why the sort of constituency I lived in for years (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) is deficient because it is very difficult indeed and very time consuming indeed to get from most of it to ANY other bit of it! Yet it must be one of the most homogenous constituencies of all in nearly every demographic; yet separated by sea sounds than can be fearsomely dangerous, fjord inlets causing massive detours, much of the Torridon range of mountains, some very long and majestic lochs with no crossing places or ferries. In geographical terms it is a bit of a nightmare even in high summer, let alone the deep depths of a severe winter. The problems there make the problems described in so many columns of this Forum look just plain silly by way of comparison. I accept that you have that view but i see no validity in it at all. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Nov 22, 2022 13:25:29 GMT
I think you need to swim the river Forth as well. But why? Why all this blather every time. The electors will not notice as it does not affect them in any manner at all. No one ever needs to go from one part to another, ever. Constituencies are there merely for voting and to be as fair and equal in size as is possible. they are not designed for an extreme minority of nerks with very odd desires, nor for poltical parties convenience, nor for those odd souls who are out to canvass. They are for fairness and for voting. The MP will have access to a car and or driver and will probably be sensible enough to use roads and bridges when moving about. Some of you really need to adopt a bit of common sense and to 'get a life'! I must protest that unwelcome slur on what was once my homeland. It was a full county with a long history and it is obviously very much akin to Perthshire or N E Fife. It does not deserve dismemberment nor being associated with industrial and/or rough downmarket areas with which it has no affinity or identity of any sort. Which one is it? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 22, 2022 13:55:50 GMT
While internal connectivity is a desirable feature in itself, I think the main reason for such a rule is less to ease travel between the different parts of the seat and much more as an indirect way of stopping whoever draws the boundaries from doing things like this.
 This is the MD-03 congressional district as it has stood since 2013. And before anyone complains about Republican gerrymandering, it was the Democrats that contrived this.
But evidently Marylanders have changed their approach to districting because with effect from 2023 (i.e. the Congress just elected) the state looks like this. (The redrawn MD-03 is the one including Annapolis.)  |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,943
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 22, 2022 13:59:03 GMT
But why? Why all this blather every time. The electors will not notice as it does not affect them in any manner at all. No one ever needs to go from one part to another, ever. Constituencies are there merely for voting and to be as fair and equal in size as is possible. they are not designed for an extreme minority of nerks with very odd desires, nor for poltical parties convenience, nor for those odd souls who are out to canvass. They are for fairness and for voting. The MP will have access to a car and or driver and will probably be sensible enough to use roads and bridges when moving about. Some of you really need to adopt a bit of common sense and to 'get a life'! I must protest that unwelcome slur on what was once my homeland. It was a full county with a long history and it is obviously very much akin to Perthshire or N E Fife. It does not deserve dismemberment nor being associated with industrial and/or rough downmarket areas with which it has no affinity or identity of any sort. Which one is it? Two points. One was personal and therefore mattered to me and was mainly jocular (and you didn't notice!) and nothing at all to do with any principles. And they are not in the 'same right'. One being an argument about basic strcture and the other merely personal preference. I bang on about this because I see it as important. Getting the sizes as near equal as possible is far, far more imortant than anything else at all. And the notion that it actually matters if the bus ride from one side to the other involves three changes and a walk is of zero importance, as is the fact that the journey from top to bottom involves crossing some hills! So bloody what? Nobody ever needs to do it so it doesn't matter at all. It is all just so bloody stupid. I don't know why you are all fixated on the rubbishy factor. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 22, 2022 14:04:42 GMT
Two points. One was personal and therefore mattered to me and was mainly jocular (and you didn't notice!) and nothing at all to do with any principles. And they are not in the 'same right'. One being an argument about basic strcture and the other merely personal preference. I bang on about this because I see it as important. Getting the sizes as near equal as possible is far, far more imortant than anything else at all. And the notion that it actually matters if the bus ride from one side to the other involves three changes and a walk is of zero importance, as is the fact that the journey from top to bottom involves crossing some hills! So bloody what? Nobody ever needs to do it so it doesn't matter at all. It is all just so bloody stupid. I don't know why you are all fixated on the rubbishy factor. I refer you to my post of a few minutes ago, which I think crossed with yours. |
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Nov 22, 2022 14:25:32 GMT
While internal connectivity is a desirable feature in itself, I think the main reason for such a rule is less to ease travel between the different parts of the seat and much more as an indirect way of stopping whoever draws the boundaries from doing things like this.
This is the MD-03 congressional district as it has stood since 2013. And before anyone complains about Republican gerrymandering, it was the Democrats that contrived this.
But evidently Marylanders have changed their approach to districting because with effect from 2023 (i.e. the Congress just elected) the state looks like this. (The redrawn MD-03 is the one including Annapolis.) Though it's worth point out that a lot of the time that sort of gerrymandering is mandated by law. The Voting Rights Act effectively requires the creation of majority minority seats, which means in areas which are moderately diverse (perhaps 30-40% minority) boundaries tend to have to be quite contrived. Also, their maximum variance is 0.75% (iirc) which makes our 5% look incredibly loose! Between 2010 and 2020 Maryland got quite a bit more diverse so presumably it became much easier to create such seats without resorting to horrific boundary gore. |
|
but I don't rate having to catch a plane to get to part of the constituency as better than having to drive a mile though someone elses to get to part of yours.