|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on May 11, 2022 20:15:23 GMT
Sorry to interrupt an argument between to people who are (and Iβm saying this politely) on the autistic end of the forum.
John, not everyone is as good as maths as you, if Harry wants to ask Alexa a maths question heβs perfectly in his rights to, as for the rest of us, weβve probably got other things to be getting on with.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 11, 2022 20:39:19 GMT
Sorry to interrupt an argument between to people who are (and Iβm saying this politely) on the autistic end of the forum. John, not everyone is as good as maths as you, if Harry wants to ask Alexa a maths question heβs perfectly in his rights to, as for the rest of us, weβve probably got other things to be getting on with. Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I was under the impression that Harry was clever enough to calculate the hypothetical result of a 96-seat STV election for the whole of Wales as 1 constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by ππΎπΊππβπΆπΎππ on May 12, 2022 12:32:31 GMT
16 paired constituencies would be pretty bad, whichever pairing you choose. I took a look at what happens if you try to draw 16 constituencies from scratch instead, and that's even worse. Given the geography of Wales, there are certain numbers of seats that are just guaranteed to produce bad outcomes, and this is definitely one of them. What makes this all the more remarkable is that it isn't that difficult to come up with a plausible eight. But there are multiple places where this doesn't halve nicely. Maybe 24 would be easier (I doubt it!). |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,273 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 12, 2022 12:51:22 GMT
Sorry to interrupt an argument between to people who are (and Iβm saying this politely) on the autistic end of the forum. John, not everyone is as good as maths as you, if Harry wants to ask Alexa a maths question heβs perfectly in his rights to, as for the rest of us, weβve probably got other things to be getting on with. Sorry, I must have misunderstood. I was under the impression that Harry was clever enough to calculate the hypothetical result of a 96-seat STV election for the whole of Wales as 1 constituency. All the numbers I generate are created by things such as Excel and the like. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 12, 2022 13:04:11 GMT
16 paired constituencies would be pretty bad, whichever pairing you choose. I took a look at what happens if you try to draw 16 constituencies from scratch instead, and that's even worse. Given the geography of Wales, there are certain numbers of seats that are just guaranteed to produce bad outcomes, and this is definitely one of them. What makes this all the more remarkable is that it isn't that difficult to come up with a plausible eight. But there are multiple places where this doesn't halve nicely. Maybe 24 would be easier (I doubt it!). One way to think about it is to break it down the electorates by preserved county: | Clwyd | 380087 | | Gwynedd | 137241* | | Powys | 103954 | | Dyfed | 293461 | | West Glamorgan | 287076 | | Mid Glamorgan | 327909 | | South Glamorgan | 351332 | | Gwent | 439202 |
*I couldn't be bothered to look up the electorate of Anglesey at the freeze date, so I just assumed it was 50000. It might be out by a thousand or two either way, but not by enough to matter. Some of those counties are easier to combine than others, but there are always going to be advantages to eg keeping Powys whole. And it's worth noting that the electorate of North Wales is about five times as large as that of Powys and that the two combined are about 22% of Wales' population. Which implies that 22 or 23 constituencies might be the ideal figure, though you could manage 24 if you moved from a 5% tolerance to a 10% one? |
|
|
|
Post by ππΎπΊππβπΆπΎππ on May 12, 2022 15:53:12 GMT
What makes this all the more remarkable is that it isn't that difficult to come up with a plausible eight. But there are multiple places where this doesn't halve nicely. Maybe 24 would be easier (I doubt it!). One way to think about it is to break it down the electorates by preserved county: | Clwyd | 380087 | | Gwynedd | 137241* | | Powys | 103954 | | Dyfed | 293461 | | West Glamorgan | 287076 | | Mid Glamorgan | 327909 | | South Glamorgan | 351332 | | Gwent | 439202 |
*I couldn't be bothered to look up the electorate of Anglesey at the freeze date, so I just assumed it was 50000. It might be out by a thousand or two either way, but not by enough to matter. Some of those counties are easier to combine than others, but there are always going to be advantages to eg keeping Powys whole. And it's worth noting that the electorate of North Wales is about five times as large as that of Powys and that the two combined are about 22% of Wales' population. Which implies that 22 or 23 constituencies might be the ideal figure, though you could manage 24 if you moved from a 5% tolerance to a 10% one? 52,415. I'm not actually that bothered by keeping Powys whole. Montgomeryshire is a northern county, Brecknockshire is a southern one, and Radnorshire has more big cats than people. If any county is splittable into natural, errmm, counties, it's Powys. With 22, the only preserved counties that are within the realistic zone for a 5% tolerance are Powys (0.98) and Mid Glamorgan (3.11). But this doesn't work, because South Glamorgan (3.33) and Gwent (4.16) end up being an awkward size and cut off from crossing into anything other than Mid Glamorgan and/or Powys. (I've arbitrarily treated "realistic" as 1Β±0.05, 2Β±0.08, 3Β±0.12, 4Β±0.16, 5Β±0.20, then higher numbers as nΒ±0.05(n-1).) With 23, again it's only two counties within a realistic 5%: Powys (1.03) and Dyfed (2.91), but this is more likely to prove workable. Seemingly helpfully it gets Wrexham to 0.97 and the Vale of Glamorgan to 0.98. But the rest of Clwyd and Gwynedd is a very tight 4.18 (probably unworkable in practice); and Dyfed would not be tidy with Pembrokeshire on an annoying 0.94. At 24, Pembrokeshire is at 0.98, Wrexham is at 1.01, and the Vale of Glamorgan is at 1.03. Denbighshire and Flintshire would work for two (1.98), Conwy is at the steal Bethesda point (0.94) from Anglesey and Arfon (0.98). Then Dwyfor, Meirionnydd, and Montgomeryshire are 0.97 (the famous configuration designed to annoy Plaid Cymru). Ceredigion and Carmarthenshire would also work for two (2.05). I'm just not convinced there's a sensible solution for the rest of the country on 24. In short, I don't think the preserved counties approach by itself is likely to be fruitful for drawing consistently sized mid-range areas. At any sensible number, you'll end up crossing at least one boundary of most preserved counties. |
|
|
|
Post by ππΎπΊππβπΆπΎππ on May 13, 2022 12:51:42 GMT
Actually, 24 is pretty nice. Here it is with a 7.5% tolerance (the extra 2.5% eliminates a couple of particularly nasty compromises β worth it):  1 Wrexham 97718 Yes 2 East Flintshire 96697 Yes 3 Denbighshire and West Flintshire 95144 Yes 4 Conwy 90528 Yes 5 Anglesey and Arfon (+52415=95072) 42657 -46863 6 Montgomeryshire, Meirionnydd, and Dwyfor 93684 Yes  7 Pembrokeshire 94732 Yes 8 Ceredigion and North Carmarthenshire 99055 Yes 9 South Carmarthenshire 99674 Yes 10 Neath, Brecon, and Radnor 102662 Yes 11 Gower 100712 Yes 12 Swansea 95793 Yes  13 Aberavon and Ogmore 91010 Yes 14 Bridgend and Llantrisant 95977 Yes 15 Vale of Glamorgan 99424 Yes 16 Rhondda Cynon 97293 Yes 17 Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney 95887 Yes 18 Cardiff West and Pontypridd 99576 Yes 19 Cardiff North 97404 Yes 20 Cardiff South 96239 Yes 21 Caerphilly 93062 Yes 22 Torfaen and Blaenau Gwent 102209 Yes 23 Newport 98465 Yes 24 Monmouth 94660 Yes |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 16, 2022 13:39:23 GMT
Iβm not convinced the right to select candidates on a discriminatory basis is a right that exists or should be respected by law. Why do you assume that an uneven number of male and female candidates would be a result of discrimination? When I was running UKIP in St Albans I think I had at most 3 or 4 female activicists who were willing to stand as candidates and three or four times as many men. If a similar rule as this had applied I would have had to contest only half the seats I did simply because I could not find sufficient candidates. I can imagine many smaller parties would have that kind of issue - perhaps that is the intention? And what the law here is doing is actually imposing an obligation to select candidates on a 'discriminatory' basis. Yes. Statutory gender balance really needs a small party exception. |
|
boogieeck
Scottish Whig
Posts: 29,912
Member is Online
|
Post by boogieeck on May 29, 2022 18:17:49 GMT
Statutory gender balance is a loathsome concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on May 30, 2022 11:13:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on May 30, 2022 11:46:39 GMT
The section on voting systems shows Jane Dodds (Lib Dem) opposing closed lists and pushing for STV. SiΓ’n Gwenllian (PC) shared her preferences, but decided to compromise.
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on May 30, 2022 13:20:06 GMT
Editorial criticising the proposed system and querying why the recommendation of the expert panel was dropped:
|
|
finsobruce
Labour
Everyone ought to go careful in a city like this.
Posts: 36,670
|
Post by finsobruce on May 30, 2022 13:25:45 GMT
Editorial criticising the proposed system and querying why the recommendation of the expert panel was dropped: I always thought the point of appointing an expert panel was to ignore its recommendations. 
Seems that way.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 751
|
Post by ilerda on May 30, 2022 13:51:14 GMT
Editorial criticising the proposed system and querying why the recommendation of the expert panel was dropped: I always thought the point of appointing an expert panel was to ignore its recommendations.
Seems that way.
Which is ironic given that most expert panels are deliberately chosen with the understanding in advance of what their conclusions will be. |
|
finsobruce
Labour
Everyone ought to go careful in a city like this.
Posts: 36,670
|
Post by finsobruce on May 30, 2022 13:55:10 GMT
I always thought the point of appointing an expert panel was to ignore its recommendations.
Seems that way.
Which is ironic given that most expert panels are deliberately chosen with the understanding in advance of what their conclusions will be. Has a nice circular feel to it.  |
|
CatholicLeft
Co-operative Party
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 4,296
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on May 30, 2022 18:17:14 GMT
Which is ironic given that most expert panels are deliberately chosen with the understanding in advance of what their conclusions will be. Has a nice circular feel to it. I still get invited to take part in Ministry of Justice panels but realise that when I express an opinion that shows up the lack of knowledge of those in charge of the committees, they just smile, nod, thank me warmly, and ignore me. |
|
|
|
Post by ππΎπΊππβπΆπΎππ on Jun 2, 2022 10:00:14 GMT
Huw Irranca-Davies admits the gender quota bollocks is liable to be chucked out by the Supreme Court and that if they're not careful they'll lose the rest of their proposals with it: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-61664266 |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,463
|
Post by cibwr on Jun 2, 2022 13:57:14 GMT
The likelyhood is 2 bills, one on the general principles of the scheme and a second one for zipping the lists to achieve gender balance.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,273
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jun 8, 2022 18:31:16 GMT
On a motion proposed by Huw Iranca Davies MS (Lab, Ogmore) that "This Senedd agrees with the report of the Senedd Reform Committee", the Senedd voted: YES 40, Abstain 0, NO 14, therefore the motion is carried.
The next Senedd election in 2026 will elect 96 members from 16 constituencies (the 32 constituencies being created by the Welsh Boundary Commission which will be paired by the Welsh Local Government Boundary Commission) with six members in each constituency elected by d'Hondt PR.
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jun 19, 2022 17:31:30 GMT
Welsh Labour not 100% behind the govtβs plans
Special Conf 2nd July to discuss.
|
|
