johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850 
|
Post by johng on May 10, 2021 13:27:15 GMT
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. I didn't know it was called that either.
I also split my vote this time around, but I don't think it is necessarily a fair system. Many people don't understand the regional vote. It also requires voters to play guessing games on how well parties will do if they want their vote to count. Many voters votes are 'wasted' - more 'wasted' votes than in some FPTP elections.
A single ballot is a lot more accessible to the ordinary voter. It's clear. Who do you want as your local member and who do you which party do you want to run the country. Though I actually think some people don't want that.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on May 10, 2021 13:54:37 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. Do you likewise think the 101-member Birmingham City Council is overkill? If Wales gets 60 politicians, Birmingham would get about 20 proportionally. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on May 10, 2021 13:57:42 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. It would be easier to come up with a Labour+Conservative agreement in practice, if Labour play this in their own self-interest. Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dem would advocate election systems that would disadvantage Labour too much. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on May 10, 2021 14:00:12 GMT
 why not increase it to the exact size of the Scottish Parliament? 129 single member districts in all! (no, not a serious suggestion)That thing stretching up the western half of Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire is sheer pitchfork bait. |
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 4,377
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on May 10, 2021 14:01:34 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. Do you likewise think the 101-member Birmingham City Council is overkill? If Wales gets 60 politicians, Birmingham would get about 20 proportionally. If you are proposing the abolition of all welsh local government then maybe you would have a point. But the facts of the matter are that wales has nearly two dozen councils each with 40-80 cllrs AND 40 MPs AND 60 AMs. In fact (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) Birmingham has the highest population-politician ratio in the entire country. And we recently CUT the number of Cllrs! |
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on May 10, 2021 14:25:31 GMT
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. It would be easier to come up with a Labour+Conservative agreement in practice, if Labour play this in their own self-interest. Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dem would advocate election systems that would disadvantage Labour too much. It definitely wouldn't.
The Conservatives will only support the status quo. If there is going to be change a Labour - Plaid Cymru agreement is the only viable path. Plaid Cymru has an incredibly strong desire for an extended Senedd and aren't really in the position to pick and choose what they want. I think everyone realises that a system which notably disadvantages Labour/ advantages others isn't going to get much traction at all.
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on May 10, 2021 14:52:46 GMT
Do you likewise think the 101-member Birmingham City Council is overkill? If Wales gets 60 politicians, Birmingham would get about 20 proportionally. If you are proposing the abolition of all welsh local government then maybe you would have a point. But the facts of the matter are that wales has nearly two dozen councils each with 40-80 cllrs AND 40 MPs AND 60 AMs. In fact (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) Birmingham has the highest population-politician ratio in the entire country. And we recently CUT the number of Cllrs! Comparing councils to the Senedd is obviously comparing apples and oranges.
Birmingham is a poor comparison for councils too as it has too many residents per councillor to make it truly local. However, small local authorities with too many councilors is a bit of an issue in Wales. There are 1254 councillors between the 22 authorities meaning around one per 2,500 people. It's too difficult to deal with and there are too many strongly embedded interests though so don't expect much to happen.
There's huge variation in Wales too of course. In Cardiff, it's closer to one per 5,000 (which I think is pushing it in terms of how many residents there should be per cllr) whereas Blaenau Gwent has one per 1,600 residents (which is ridiculous for a fairly urban and compact area). |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on May 10, 2021 15:43:13 GMT
It would be easier to come up with a Labour+Conservative agreement in practice, if Labour play this in their own self-interest. Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dem would advocate election systems that would disadvantage Labour too much. It definitely wouldn't.
The Conservatives will only support the status quo. If there is going to be change a Labour - Plaid Cymru agreement is the only viable path. Plaid Cymru has an incredibly strong desire for an extended Senedd and aren't really in the position to pick and choose what they want. I think everyone realises that a system which notably disadvantages Labour/ advantages others isn't going to get much traction at all.
The point is that the status quo is virtually the best situation possible for Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on May 10, 2021 15:49:42 GMT
why not increase it to the exact size of the Scottish Parliament? 129 single member districts in all! (no, not a serious suggestion)That thing stretching up the western half of Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire is sheer pitchfork bait. What kind of lines would you draw there? |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on May 10, 2021 16:05:44 GMT
That thing stretching up the western half of Radnorshire and Montgomeryshire is sheer pitchfork bait. What kind of lines would you draw there? 6 is a fairly horrid number to divide Powys into, but something like this:  1 Brecon 18857 Yes 2 Hay 17964 Yes 3 Radnor 18033 Yes 4 South Montgomeryshire 16941 Yes 5 Welshpool and Newtown 16509 Yes 6 North Montgomeryshire 15650 Yes |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 10, 2021 16:49:48 GMT
What kind of lines would you draw there? 6 is a fairly horrid number to divide Powys into, but something like this: 1 Brecon 18857 Yes 2 Hay 17964 Yes 3 Radnor 18033 Yes 4 South Montgomeryshire 16941 Yes 5 Welshpool and Newtown 16509 Yes 6 North Montgomeryshire 15650 Yes Why not Welshpool, Newtown and NW seats? That would have been my first thought. Builth & Hay looks odd but is probably the right thing to do. |
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on May 10, 2021 17:56:56 GMT
6 is a fairly horrid number to divide Powys into, but something like this: 1 Brecon 18857 Yes 2 Hay 17964 Yes 3 Radnor 18033 Yes 4 South Montgomeryshire 16941 Yes 5 Welshpool and Newtown 16509 Yes 6 North Montgomeryshire 15650 Yes Why not Welshpool, Newtown and NW seats? That would have been my first thought. Builth & Hay looks odd but is probably the right thing to do. Mainly because of quite how poorly connected the NW bit is to other bits of itself (although in the alternate reality, that is no doubt the map Plaid Cymru would draw) – the extremities really connect best via Meirionnydd – you could call my 4-5-6 Newtown Rural, Montgomeryshire Boroughs, and Welshpool Rural if you wanted. Hay is definitely the leftovers seat there, but the rural wards facing Builth (Llanelwedd) and Hay (Painscastle) are the two obvious candidates to move out of Radnorshire, and the positions of Ystradgynlais and Brecon towns really limit options on how to split Brecknockshire. |
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on May 11, 2021 10:34:37 GMT
It definitely wouldn't.
The Conservatives will only support the status quo. If there is going to be change a Labour - Plaid Cymru agreement is the only viable path. Plaid Cymru has an incredibly strong desire for an extended Senedd and aren't really in the position to pick and choose what they want. I think everyone realises that a system which notably disadvantages Labour/ advantages others isn't going to get much traction at all.
The point is that the status quo is virtually the best situation possible for Labour. I think there'll be a lot of pressure from within Labour to increase the Senedd's size. Everyone knows it is too small to do it's job well. |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,589
|
Post by cibwr on May 12, 2021 16:57:16 GMT
Various reports have all come down in favour of 1. Increasing the size of the Senedd 2. changing the electoral system preferably to STV. The trick is getting Labour to support it, which is doable if they see that it doesn't too much adversely affect them. Increasing the number on the list and using Westminster constituencies would.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on May 12, 2021 17:06:36 GMT
Various reports have all come down in favour of 1. Increasing the size of the Senedd 2. changing the electoral system preferably to STV. The trick is getting Labour to support it, which is doable if they see that it doesn't too much adversely affect them. Increasing the number on the list and using Westminster constituencies would. I'd be surprised if Labour backed STV. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on May 12, 2021 17:17:41 GMT
Various reports have all come down in favour of 1. Increasing the size of the Senedd 2. changing the electoral system preferably to STV. The trick is getting Labour to support it, which is doable if they see that it doesn't too much adversely affect them. Increasing the number on the list and using Westminster constituencies would. I'd be surprised if Labour backed STV. Which system would your money be on if they did back some sort of PR? www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/proportional-representation-in-practice.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on May 12, 2021 17:19:34 GMT
Essentially some sort of AMS similar to current Scottish and Welsh systeme |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,450
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on May 12, 2021 17:25:27 GMT
Essentially some sort of AMS similar to current Scottish and Welsh systeme Makes sense unless they want to revisit the Jenkins' system.. |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on May 13, 2021 13:07:13 GMT
There are a few constraints which need to be adressed - general consensus is that size of Senedd needs to be increased - to around 80 MS. The UK parliament constituencies are to be redrawn to 32.
An AMS type voting system - which retains UK constituencies - would either have 32 seats plus 48 on the list - which is stupid... or 64 seats plus 16 on the list - which loses proportionality.
AMS will only work by breaking the Westminster seat link and having say 50 seats plus 30 list. In which case I would favour the 30 being distributed from party lists as now but ranked by votes cast (I think this is Baden Wurtenburg method?).
Nothing is perfect but this could be path of least resistance!
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on May 13, 2021 18:19:00 GMT
The point is that the status quo is virtually the best situation possible for Labour. I think there'll be a lot of pressure from within Labour to increase the Senedd's size. Everyone knows it is too small to do it's job well. The fairly miserable compromise I see this landing on is 32 constituencies, plus 32 from eight regional lists. It allows everyone to claim they've won. It's technically an increase in size (by 4), but a small enough increase that it can be portrayed as the grown-ups voting down separatist waste, it essentially keeps Labour's favoured system whilst avoiding lists of a length that would let oddballs in, and it could be plausibly claimed to be making things more proportional, whilst actually intensifying the constituency effect by reducing the size of the regions. Would Labour and the Conservatives both vote for that system? I'd imagine the answer is "probably". The third party and the dead parrot are likely to push for something too extreme that a more straightforward bipartisan compromise between government and main opposition parties is much more in everyone's interests. |
|
