|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 19, 2021 9:48:27 GMT
It's been suggested a few times. A brief mention in the Jenkins' report. Mooted by AP Herbert (and the Libs?) in the 50s. It's a non-starter because a blatant magnitude gerrymander. To be fair, the third-party perspective is a reasonable, albeit self-interested one – it shouldn't be restricted to the Lib Dems: I'd imagine the Green Party would heartily enjoy a 4-member Bristol. I'm surprised this didn't come up in the 2010 coalition negotiations, as it would have been much better for the Lib Dems than AV.
Nick Clegg was more interested in being in government than he was bothered about PR.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Apr 19, 2021 9:51:53 GMT
To be fair, the third-party perspective is a reasonable, albeit self-interested one – it shouldn't be restricted to the Lib Dems: I'd imagine the Green Party would heartily enjoy a 4-member Bristol. I'm surprised this didn't come up in the 2010 coalition negotiations, as it would have been much better for the Lib Dems than AV. Some Libs are (privately) lukewarm about STV in multi-member constituencies. David Steel has written that he would not have favoured such a scheme especially for the Scottish Borders. Think that Jeremy Thorpe had similar views. The Scottish Borders are an obvious area where single-member constituencies are obviously justifiable on geographical terms. It's quite something seeing the mileages on the route confirmation signs as one leaves some towns up there. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 19, 2021 10:03:04 GMT
Some Libs are (privately) lukewarm about STV in multi-member constituencies. David Steel has written that he would not have favoured such a scheme especially for the Scottish Borders. Think that Jeremy Thorpe had similar views. The Scottish Borders are an obvious area where single-member constituencies are obviously justifiable on geographical terms. It's quite something seeing the mileages on the route confirmation signs as one leaves some towns up there. I'm unconvinced. A three-member STV seat would be no bigger than Highland constituencies that already exist and where STV has been used in other countries representatives have often informally divided up the seat between them in terms of which areas they primarily focus on. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Apr 19, 2021 10:11:00 GMT
Some Libs are (privately) lukewarm about STV in multi-member constituencies. David Steel has written that he would not have favoured such a scheme especially for the Scottish Borders. Think that Jeremy Thorpe had similar views. The Scottish Borders are an obvious area where single-member constituencies are obviously justifiable on geographical terms. It's quite something seeing the mileages on the route confirmation signs as one leaves some towns up there. The 1918 scheme adopted by the HoL (from page 112):- archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.459482/page/n111/mode/2up |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 19, 2021 14:58:46 GMT
The Scottish Borders are an obvious area where single-member constituencies are obviously justifiable on geographical terms. It's quite something seeing the mileages on the route confirmation signs as one leaves some towns up there. The 1918 scheme adopted by the HoL (from page 112):- archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.459482/page/n111/mode/2upThe way that large rural constituencies suddenly stop being a problem when they start voting Labour is really not subtle in that report. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Apr 19, 2021 15:06:18 GMT
The way that large rural constituencies suddenly stop being a problem when they start voting Labour is really not subtle in that report. A very fair point. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 19, 2021 15:28:47 GMT
The Scottish Borders are an obvious area where single-member constituencies are obviously justifiable on geographical terms. It's quite something seeing the mileages on the route confirmation signs as one leaves some towns up there. I'm unconvinced. A three-member STV seat would be no bigger than Highland constituencies that already exist and where STV has been used in other countries representatives have often informally divided up the seat between them in terms of which areas they primarily focus on. Quite. If it's possible to have a 1-member constituency in Nunavut or Kalgoorlie or in Vuntut Gwitchin (electorate 200, area 25,000 square miles) then it's perfectly reasonable to have a 3-member constituency in the Scottish Borders (or Highlands). |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 19, 2021 15:39:06 GMT
I'm unconvinced. A three-member STV seat would be no bigger than Highland constituencies that already exist and where STV has been used in other countries representatives have often informally divided up the seat between them in terms of which areas they primarily focus on. Quite. If it's possible to have a 1-member constituency in Nunavut or Kalgoorlie or in Vuntut Gwitchin (electorate 200, area 25,000 square miles) then it's perfectly reasonable to have a 3-member constituency in the Scottish Borders (or Highlands).
3 member constiuencies are poor for proportional representation, really need 5 member constituencies to be the minimum size.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 19, 2021 18:24:22 GMT
The way that large rural constituencies suddenly stop being a problem when they start voting Labour is really not subtle in that report. A very fair point. Although to be fair, some of the distinction between one-seaters and three-seaters is just odd. I see why they didn't want to give single-seaters to County Durham, but I don't understand why they thought they were necessary in Suffolk but not in Cambridgeshire or Essex. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 19, 2021 18:40:36 GMT
The Scottish Borders are an obvious area where single-member constituencies are obviously justifiable on geographical terms. It's quite something seeing the mileages on the route confirmation signs as one leaves some towns up there. The 1918 scheme adopted by the HoL (from page 112):- archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.459482/page/n111/mode/2upThat scheme would have worked wonders with the Conservatives and Liberals to prevent Labour ever leading a government, especially given where the single member seats lie. Labour's Irish counterparts have never been senior partners in any government in the Republic of Ireland, and will not be in a position to be even junior coalition partners in the Dail for the foreseeable future. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 19, 2021 19:50:18 GMT
Quite. If it's possible to have a 1-member constituency in Nunavut or Kalgoorlie or in Vuntut Gwitchin (electorate 200, area 25,000 square miles) then it's perfectly reasonable to have a 3-member constituency in the Scottish Borders (or Highlands). 3 member constiuencies are poor for proportional representation, really need 5 member constituencies to be the minimum size.
A House of Commons elected by STV with a mixture of 3-member and 2-member constituencies would be perfectly adequate for the purpose of spreading more evenly the geographical spread of representation of the two main parties, and thus eliminating so-called "electoral deserts". The objective of achieving proportionality is a much lesser and substantially irrelevant criterion, as far as I am concerned. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2021 19:50:55 GMT
I'm unconvinced. A three-member STV seat would be no bigger than Highland constituencies that already exist and where STV has been used in other countries representatives have often informally divided up the seat between them in terms of which areas they primarily focus on. Quite. If it's possible to have a 1-member constituency in Nunavut or Kalgoorlie or in Vuntut Gwitchin (electorate 200, area 25,000 square miles) then it's perfectly reasonable to have a 3-member constituency in the Scottish Borders (or Highlands). But that doesn't mean it's desirable to do it where it can be avoided |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 20, 2021 6:33:54 GMT
3 member constiuencies are poor for proportional representation, really need 5 member constituencies to be the minimum size.
A House of Commons elected by STV with a mixture of 3-member and 2-member constituencies would be perfectly adequate for the purpose of spreading more evenly the geographical spread of representation of the two main parties, and thus eliminating so-called "electoral deserts". The objective of achieving proportionality is a much lesser and substantially irrelevant criterion, as far as I am concerned.
Self interest personified.
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 20, 2021 10:17:38 GMT
Nobody in their right mind can confuse single member AV votes with multi-member STV. With the possible exception of Nick Clegg who was suckered into accepting the AV referendum when joining the coalition? That myth kicks around a lot but the referendum wasn't on AV because of Clegg's negotiating skills in May 2010. It was on it because of the pre-existing consensus amongst the electoral system change elite around Westminster and Whitehall. By 2004 at the latest the various groups had converged on AV as a first step forward (though notably did not have proper internal discussions with their wider membership as to whether this was a good thing). Remember in the last year of the Brown government there was a Bill for an AV referendum that died in the wash-up. AV was the system that the pre-existing coalition of changers was committed to only to spectacularly screw it up. Yes, either of the party's nominee or from a list lodged by an independent when elected. There has been at least one by-election where the departed independent's list ran out of available people. It used to be unanimous co-option by councils or otherwise a by-election which generally served to protect the minority community in a ward from losing its seats (unless its parties were in such conflict they preferred to risk a by-election showdown) but allowed the majority community at least to chose between the new applicants. One alternative option is "countback" whereby the ballot papers are re-examined to elect the next available candidate. This contributes to why elections in Tasmania and the ACT have full party slates and (in the former) sometimes even more candidates than vacancies. Usually the replacement is from the same party but you can get odd results as very popular runner ups find the ballot papers for them are not in play whilst less popular candidates had more second choice amongst the departing member. I'm sure someone could run a computer simulation to determine the method to best elect replacements in such a system. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 20, 2021 10:19:44 GMT
That only applies to councillors elected as independents. For councillors elected on a party ticket, that party is asked to nominate a replacement. What happens if the party has collapsed? Some councillors have their own micro party that is really just a branding mechanism. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 20, 2021 10:31:06 GMT
The Scottish Borders are an obvious area where single-member constituencies are obviously justifiable on geographical terms. It's quite something seeing the mileages on the route confirmation signs as one leaves some towns up there. I'm unconvinced. A three-member STV seat would be no bigger than Highland constituencies that already exist and where STV has been used in other countries representatives have often informally divided up the seat between them in terms of which areas they primarily focus on. Ireland and Malta don't have the equivalent of the Highlands. Tasmania and the ACT are also small. And all have pretty small quotas of voters. The Australian mainland upper houses really tend to work as party list systems with transfers between parties for good measure. Also how many parties would have more than one seat in a Highlands constituency? It's a bit difficult to informally divide up the constituency with those you're in competition with. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 20, 2021 10:39:18 GMT
Back on topic to at least a degree, there is an "interesting" snippet in the latest Private Eye about this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Apr 20, 2021 10:47:44 GMT
Back on topic to at least a degree, there is an "interesting" snippet in the latest Private Eye about this one. That isn't a very enlightening contribution really, unless you're going to tell us what it is |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 20, 2021 10:52:02 GMT
They (as a deliberate policy) don't put much of their stuff online  But basically it was that Ed Davey made a high profile trip to the constituency the weekend *before* Gillan died. As the headline to the piece said "Vultures Circling"...... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2021 14:24:29 GMT
3 member constiuencies are poor for proportional representation, really need 5 member constituencies to be the minimum size.
A House of Commons elected by STV with a mixture of 3-member and 2-member constituencies would be perfectly adequate for the purpose of spreading more evenly the geographical spread of representation of the two main parties, and thus eliminating so-called "electoral deserts". The objective of achieving proportionality is a much lesser and substantially irrelevant criterion, as far as I am concerned. I think 2 member STV constituencies should be avoided in general, especially where there's any resemblance of a two party system in place. I say this as in areas where there is never 2:1 or greater support for one main party over another (i.e. most places, including most of the UK), results will never change in elections. The Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory Senate seats are good example of this - the result has been exactly the same for each territory in all 15 elections since 1980. Whereas three seats in much of the UK (or Australia, for that matter) would lead to one seat each for the two biggest parties and a third which may be competitive between the two parties and/or a third party. |
|
