|
|
Post by greenhert on May 9, 2021 21:25:04 GMT
Not sure if this is the right place but does anyone know what will happen to the Senedd seats when the Westminster seats are reduced from 40 to 28? I'm guessing it is in Welsh Labour's interests to break the coterminosity rather than have an increase in the lists seats. If they do keep at 40, they will still need to have a boundary review for the new assembly seats. 40 seats for Wales works out quite well Anglesey - 1 Gwynedd + Conwy - 3 Denbigh + Wrexham - 3 Flint - 2 "Dyfed" - 3 Swansea - 3 NPT - 2 Bridgend - 2 RCT - 3 Cardiff and Vale - 6 BG - 1 Caerphilly + Merthyr - 3 Monmouth and Powys - 3 Torfaen and Newport - 3 So the North would lose 1 seat (Clwyd W) and Cardiff and Vale would gain 1 32, not 28. And the Senedd might then increase the number of list-PR seats to compensate. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on May 9, 2021 21:36:32 GMT
Not sure if this is the right place but does anyone know what will happen to the Senedd seats when the Westminster seats are reduced from 40 to 28? I'm guessing it is in Welsh Labour's interests to break the coterminosity rather than have an increase in the lists seats. If they do keep at 40, they will still need to have a boundary review for the new assembly seats. 40 seats for Wales works out quite well Anglesey - 1 Gwynedd + Conwy - 3 Denbigh + Wrexham - 3 Flint - 2 "Dyfed" - 3 Swansea - 3 NPT - 2 Bridgend - 2 RCT - 3 Cardiff and Vale - 6 BG - 1 Caerphilly + Merthyr - 3 Monmouth and Powys - 3 Torfaen and Newport - 3 So the North would lose 1 seat (Clwyd W) and Cardiff and Vale would gain 1 32, not 28. And the Senedd might then increase the number of list-PR seats to compensate. The simplest, more proportional, 60-seat solution, and hence not a "runner", would be 4 new regions of 8 FPTP constituencies coterminous with the new Westminster seats and 7 list places in each of the 4 regions. |
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850 
|
Post by johng on May 9, 2021 21:46:27 GMT
32, not 28. And the Senedd might then increase the number of list-PR seats to compensate. The simplest, more proportional, 60-seat solution, and hence not a "runner", would be 4 new regions of 8 FPTP constituencies coterminous with the new Westminster seats and 7 list places in each of the 4 regions. It's really not a runner.
Labour isn't going to go for a system which massively disadvantages us/ advantages the opposition. 7 list places would also make it much easier for fringe parties like UKIP and AWAP to get elected which nobody wants. Edit: A few of the posters below think this is good as it would benefit their own party's interests, but they are sorely mistaken.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on May 9, 2021 21:50:57 GMT
The simplest, more proportional, 60-seat solution, and hence not a "runner", would be 4 new regions of 8 FPTP constituencies coterminous with the new Westminster seats and 7 list places in each of the 4 regions. It's really not a runner.
Labour isn't going to go for a system which massively disadvantages us/ advantages the opposition. 7 list places would also make it much easier for UKIP/ AWAP type parties to get elected which nobody wants.
Not nobody, the voters who support AWAP/Reform/UKIP do. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,772
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 9, 2021 21:59:35 GMT
The simplest, more proportional, 60-seat solution, and hence not a "runner", would be 4 new regions of 8 FPTP constituencies coterminous with the new Westminster seats and 7 list places in each of the 4 regions. It's really not a runner.
Labour isn't going to go for a system which massively disadvantages us/ advantages the opposition. 7 list places would also make it much easier for UKIP/ AWAP type parties to get elected which nobody wants.
If they get elected that disproves the assertion that nobody wants them elected. |
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on May 9, 2021 22:28:02 GMT
It's really not a runner.
Labour isn't going to go for a system which massively disadvantages us/ advantages the opposition. 7 list places would also make it much easier for UKIP/ AWAP type parties to get elected which nobody wants.
Not nobody, the voters who support AWAP/Reform/UKIP do. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to say they'd get elected with parish council levels of support.
Even STV would be better than lists with seven places.
|
|
|
|
Post by sisterjude on May 9, 2021 22:53:00 GMT
Not nobody, the voters who support AWAP/Reform/UKIP do. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to say they'd get elected with parish council levels of support.
Even STV would be better than lists with seven places.
Am I correct in thinking that any change to the size of the parliament and the voting system requires 2/3 support in the Senned? If so presumably that means Plaid and the Liberal will have to buy into Labour's proposal as I assume the Conservatives will refuse to play ball. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 9, 2021 23:02:25 GMT
Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to say they'd get elected with parish council levels of support. Even STV would be better than lists with seven places.
Am I correct in thinking that any change to the size of the parliament and the voting system requires 2/3 support in the Senned? If so presumably that means Plaid and the Liberal will have to buy into Labour's proposal as I assume the Conservatives will refuse to play ball. Yes: Government of Wales Act 2006, s. 111A as inserted by Wales Act 2017, s. 9 |
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on May 9, 2021 23:05:53 GMT
Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to say they'd get elected with parish council levels of support.
Even STV would be better than lists with seven places.
Am I correct in thinking that any change to the size of the parliament and the voting system requires 2/3 support in the Senned? If so presumably that means Plaid and the Liberal will have to buy into Labour's proposal as I assume the Conservatives will refuse to play ball. Labour + Plaid would be sufficient though, for legitimacy reasons, it would almost certainly be a three party thing. The Conservatives wouldn't support it purely due to ideology.
The Senedd Electoral Reform Committee was made up of Labour, Plaid and, for most of its existence, Brexit party members. It was supported by the sole Lib Dem. The Conservatives refused to work with the committee.
Their report is here - senedd.wales/laid%20documents/cr-ld13452/cr-ld13452%20-e.pdf
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on May 9, 2021 23:14:47 GMT
I personally would be eternally grateful if Wales did not go down the route of adopting STV for Senedd elections. At one time I was a supporter of such a system, but seeing how STV elections have gone down in Scotland and Ireland has put me right off it. My preference is to just increase the amount of list seats per region (to ~7 or 8), and as a stretch goal, make the lists open too; I acknowledge that this is extremely unlikely to happen.
Just no sodding Baden-Württemberg method, quite frankly I'd sooner take STV (or untempered FPTP for that matter) over that!
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on May 9, 2021 23:38:54 GMT
I personally would be eternally grateful if Wales did not go down the route of adopting STV for Senedd elections. At one time I was a supporter of such a system, but seeing how STV elections have gone down in Scotland and Ireland has put me right off it. My preference is to just increase the amount of list seats per region (to ~7 or 8), and as a stretch goal, make the lists open too; I acknowledge that this is extremely unlikely to happen. It certainly seems like the front-runner at the moment, but there is/ will be a lot of resistance to the system if it becomes a serious prospect.
Seven members elected on lists would be disastrous for democracy. It would make majority/ workable minority government essentially impossible*, cut the link between MS and constituent and make it too easy for weird fringe parties to get elected on a tiny number of votes (OK, some people want this, but it isn't a good thing). It's supported by the Lib Dems above as they think it would benefit their party more than others under the pretense it's 'fairer'.
*If anyone thinks this would allow other parties to govern, they are very mistaken. We'd be left with a permanent Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition.
My personal preference would be to maintain the link between Westminster and Senedd constituencies. That would be done by splitting the 32 Westminster constituencies in two to create 64 seats each electing an MS using FPTP. Then have four regions electing four members each to improve proportionality. There would be no regional ballot though and the regional totals would be determined by adding each party's vote in the 16 constituencies in each region.
|
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,379
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on May 10, 2021 0:26:08 GMT
The best option for Labour that is in keeping with the current system (2/3 FPTP, 1/3 list) and that allows for constituency continuity would be 32 constituencies each electing two members and 8 regions (each made up of 4 seats) each electing 4AMs. For 96 total.
I personally think that is insane overkill on politicians for such a small area and population. But it is the only option that would preserve Labour’s inbuilt advantage. All other changes seem likely to hurt the party to various degrees.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 10, 2021 3:17:22 GMT
Just keep the current 5 regions, as amended, and up the topup seats to six. 62 seats total, Labour's undemocratic advantage is reduced to normal healthy levels but not abolished entirely and your "fringe AMs" consist of a Green or two.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on May 10, 2021 3:48:53 GMT
I personally would be eternally grateful if Wales did not go down the route of adopting STV for Senedd elections. At one time I was a supporter of such a system, but seeing how STV elections have gone down in Scotland and Ireland has put me right off it. My preference is to just increase the amount of list seats per region (to ~7 or 8), and as a stretch goal, make the lists open too; I acknowledge that this is extremely unlikely to happen. Just no sodding Baden-Württemberg method, quite frankly I'd sooner take STV (or untempered FPTP for that matter) over that! To whom does one report an offensive Admin post?  |
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on May 10, 2021 4:14:47 GMT
 why not increase it to the exact size of the Scottish Parliament? 129 single member districts in all! (no, not a serious suggestion) |
|
|
|
Post by sisterjude on May 10, 2021 9:47:07 GMT
One possibility would be to use the 32 new Westminster seats and simply hace 3 member STV constituencies. The moderate to low lecel of proportionality in 3 member seats would preserve Labour's in built advantage and the Senned would (proportionally) have a similar make up as now.
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on May 10, 2021 11:41:10 GMT
Seven members elected on lists would be disastrous for democracy. It would make majority/ workable minority government essentially impossible*, cut the link between MS and constituent and make it too easy for weird fringe parties to get elected on a tiny number of votes (OK, some people want this, but it isn't a good thing). It's supported by the Lib Dems above as they think it would benefit their party more than others under the pretense it's 'fairer'. *If anyone thinks this would allow other parties to govern, they are very mistaken. We'd be left with a permanent Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition. Well naturally I disagree that more list members would be a bad thing for democracy, whilst it doesn't need to be exact I believe that there should be a greater degree of proportionality between seats & votes. The issue we're dealing with here is that the political parties of the UK are (quite understandably) very much entrenched in a majoritarian FPTP mindset, and simply changing the electoral system isn't going to change that mindset overnight; I am reasonably confident that over time the parties would adapt to the new arrangements, they'd have to. I very doubt we'd be left with a permanent Lab-PC coalition, though doubtless it'd feel like that at the beginning. And no, I don't particularly see fringe parties getting in to be necessarily a bad thing either, if they can achieve the necessary critical mass of votes to get in then they deserve to win representation- it's up to the other parties to make their cases & countercases to the electorate. Addendum: I'm also not a fan of statutory thresholds for the lists either. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on May 10, 2021 11:41:50 GMT
I personally would be eternally grateful if Wales did not go down the route of adopting STV for Senedd elections. At one time I was a supporter of such a system, but seeing how STV elections have gone down in Scotland and Ireland has put me right off it. My preference is to just increase the amount of list seats per region (to ~7 or 8), and as a stretch goal, make the lists open too; I acknowledge that this is extremely unlikely to happen. Just no sodding Baden-Württemberg method, quite frankly I'd sooner take STV (or untempered FPTP for that matter) over that! To whom does one report an offensive Admin post? The complaints department can be found here:   |
|
|
|
Post by islington on May 10, 2021 12:17:06 GMT
I personally would be eternally grateful if Wales did not go down the route of adopting STV for Senedd elections. At one time I was a supporter of such a system, but seeing how STV elections have gone down in Scotland and Ireland has put me right off it. My preference is to just increase the amount of list seats per region (to ~7 or 8), and as a stretch goal, make the lists open too; I acknowledge that this is extremely unlikely to happen. Just no sodding Baden-Württemberg method, quite frankly I'd sooner take STV (or untempered FPTP for that matter) over that! What is the Baden-Wurttemberg method?
Is it like the Melbourne method?
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on May 10, 2021 12:27:10 GMT
I personally would be eternally grateful if Wales did not go down the route of adopting STV for Senedd elections. At one time I was a supporter of such a system, but seeing how STV elections have gone down in Scotland and Ireland has put me right off it. My preference is to just increase the amount of list seats per region (to ~7 or 8), and as a stretch goal, make the lists open too; I acknowledge that this is extremely unlikely to happen. Just no sodding Baden-Württemberg method, quite frankly I'd sooner take STV (or untempered FPTP for that matter) over that! What is the Baden-Wurttemberg method? Is it like the Melbourne method? It's a single ballot variant of the Mixed-Member System. Voters choose a candidate to be their constituency rep, with the allocation of the top-up seats determined by a combination the aggregate of the constituency votes and the results in all the individual seats; in lieu of a list the top-up seats are filled unsuccessful constituency candidates, depending on how they performed and what their party is entitled to. Personally, I quite like being able to split my votes different ways with standard two-ballot MMS. |
|
