|
|
Post by Penddu on Nov 23, 2021 19:23:22 GMT
A Senedd with the same proportionality as Holyrood should have an additional 11 regional seats. 2 additional seats per region seems the simplest thing to do. That wont work because of the redrawing of boundaries from 40 to 32. Increasing seats from 60 to 80 at the same time would need 28 extra regional seats or around 5-6 per region - which would result in too many fringe party seats. Needs a complete rethink. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 23, 2021 19:36:57 GMT
I believe the Senedd should keep AMS but increase the number of regional seats per region; if they want "80 to 100 members" then 82 sounds like a good number: 32 constituency seats plus 50 list MSs (10 for each region, no threshold needed). This also ensures a reasonable balance between list seats and constituency seats whilst also achieving proper proportionality at list level.
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,474 
|
Post by peterl on Nov 23, 2021 19:59:31 GMT
No need for any increase. The last thing the general public want is more politicians. The number in any elected body should be as low as reasonably possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Nov 23, 2021 22:32:38 GMT
A Senedd with the same proportionality as Holyrood should have an additional 11 regional seats. 2 additional seats per region seems the simplest thing to do. That wont work because of the redrawing of boundaries from 40 to 32. Increasing seats from 60 to 80 at the same time would need 28 extra regional seats or around 5-6 per region - which would result in too many fringe party seats. Needs a complete rethink. Hasn't the link between Westminster and Senedd constituencies not been broken? |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Nov 23, 2021 22:39:54 GMT
That wont work because of the redrawing of boundaries from 40 to 32. Increasing seats from 60 to 80 at the same time would need 28 extra regional seats or around 5-6 per region - which would result in too many fringe party seats. Needs a complete rethink. Hasn't the link between Westminster and Senedd constituencies not been broken? It has. I was originally dead against separate boundaries (especially if we have a Cardiff Central or Caerphilly seat in both etc), but I’ve largely accepted that it needs to happen. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 23, 2021 23:00:16 GMT
No need for any increase. The last thing the general public want is more politicians. The number in any elected body should be as low as reasonably possible. Overlapping with the "90% of people think government is corrupt" thread, people ask why government attacts people who want to corrupt power - it's because that's where the power is. The solution is to remove that power from government. There's a huge industry in lobbying government because government interfers in the lives of those being lobbed, so of course those being interfered with lobby those doing the interfering to stop the interfering. The solution to the problem of a lobbying industry is to remove the ability of government to interfer in the lives of those doing the lobbying. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2021 0:21:49 GMT
Unfortunately I see no way they don't end up with STV using Westminster boundaries
|
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Nov 24, 2021 1:17:43 GMT
How much of a pay cut will be required for this to be cost neutral? More than covered by reduction of 8 MPs. |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Nov 24, 2021 1:20:10 GMT
That wont work because of the redrawing of boundaries from 40 to 32. Increasing seats from 60 to 80 at the same time would need 28 extra regional seats or around 5-6 per region - which would result in too many fringe party seats. Needs a complete rethink. Hasn't the link between Westminster and Senedd constituencies not been broken? It has been broken but the political parties are not happy to do it, hence expect the compromise to retain it in some form... |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on Nov 24, 2021 1:35:08 GMT
Unfortunately I see no way they don't end up with STV using Westminster boundaries Or at least pairs of Westminster seats. There are 8 seats in north Wales so starting with Ynys Môn, this would either join with Gwynedd, which would result in a Montgomeryshire & Wrexham pair; or Ynys Môn joins with Aberconwy resulting in a Montgomeryshire & Gwynedd pair. Neither option is pretty but only other alternative is to keep Powys together which would neccesitate a huge Gwynedd & Ceredigion pair which is even uglier. Dyfed would include 2 pairs and Glamorgan and Gwent pair up quite easily - but this would result in another awkward pair of Brecon and Monmouthshire. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Nov 24, 2021 12:03:15 GMT
“Pairing up” Wrexham and Montgomeryshire would be absolute madness by every stretch of the imagination.
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on Nov 24, 2021 12:52:24 GMT
How much of a pay cut will be required for this to be cost neutral? Typical narrow thinking on your part. The government makes up a quarter of the chamber. How much extra cost is incurred due to lack of scrutiny in the Senedd?
The cost of an MS is lower than an MP so the eight seat cut in Westminster seats makes up for some of it and provides a public relations diversionary excuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Nov 24, 2021 18:16:42 GMT
I honestly don't see why they don't add 4 seats to the regional list regions, quick and simple. Because the boundaries are so horribly out of date that a vote in Arfon is worth significantly more than one in Cardiff South and Penarth. Okay, there's a workaround of mainly keeping the old boundaries, but redrawing South Glamorgan and Gwent with extra constituencies, but that wouldn't be pretty (it'd either end up with splitting Barry or some weird Rural Vale and bits of Cardiff thing). |
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on Nov 24, 2021 19:40:04 GMT
I honestly don't see why they don't add 4 seats to the regional list regions, quick and simple. Because the boundaries are so horribly out of date that a vote in Arfon is worth significantly more than one in Cardiff South and Penarth. Okay, there's a workaround of mainly keeping the old boundaries, but redrawing South Glamorgan and Gwent with extra constituencies, but that wouldn't be pretty (it'd either end up with splitting Barry or some weird Rural Vale and bits of Cardiff thing). It's the same issue with some of the suggestions above with the new boundaries as Ynys Mon is around 25k smaller than other seats. You can just pair up seats as any pairs with Ynys Mon will either have to be overrepresented or underrepresented. Obviously it's like that now, but any new seats should be based on all seats being fairly comparably represented.
With STV this works well if each new seat gets 3 STV members whilst Ynys Mon gets 2.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,111
|
Post by ilerda on Nov 24, 2021 20:03:50 GMT
Just merging existing constituencies is as flawed as creating new local authorities by just merging existing ones. The communities on the edge will often end up in inappropriate mergers, and better alternatives could usually be arrived at by starting from scratch with the new constituency electorate as the target.
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on Nov 24, 2021 22:19:47 GMT
Just merging existing constituencies is as flawed as creating new local authorities by just merging existing ones. The communities on the edge will often end up in inappropriate mergers, and better alternatives could usually be arrived at by starting from scratch with the new constituency electorate as the target. I believe the person's suggestion above was that each FPTP seat be paired and they elect their 2 FPTP members and 3 AMS members. Otherwise, I am not sure anyone has suggested it.
Though I have to say looking at some of the BCW's initial proposals for the new Westminster seats, I am not sure starting from scratch helped much.
|
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,599
|
Post by cibwr on Nov 25, 2021 9:18:59 GMT
Again read the expert report and their suggestions based on pairing of current westminster boundaries and the varying number of AS that each would have depending on the size of the Senedd and the alternative method using local government units. They also propose a boundary commission and suggest that STV is the most favoured method of election - lists as a poor second using multi member constituencies as above.
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,850
|
Post by johng on Nov 25, 2021 12:19:31 GMT
The best system would be 13 STV constituencies based on the historic counties. At a push, Glamorgan could be two, Cardiff and Not Cardiff That would be a rather odd situation.
Radnorshire with its population of 25k and Glamorgan with its 1.3 million (or 950k and 350k if split like that).
cibwr - Where is the political appetite for retaining the current boundaries? My feeling is that there is a strong appetite for the opposite and maintaining the link between Westminster and Senedd. Local authority STV seats has its difficulties too. The main one, for me, is that we have too many small authorities which exist for no genuine reason and should be merged into more viable ones.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Nov 25, 2021 12:22:35 GMT
Again read the expert report and their suggestions based on pairing of current westminster boundaries and the varying number of AS that each would have depending on the size of the Senedd and the alternative method using local government units. They also propose a boundary commission and suggest that STV is the most favoured method of election - lists as a poor second using multi member constituencies as above. So therefore, is it safe to assess that: - The New Parliament will have a number of members divisible by 3
- The New Parliament will be elected solely by the Single Transferable Vote
- The next elections will be for the New Parliament
In which case, should we open a new thread with the title "Design the new electoral map for Wales for 2026"?
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Nov 25, 2021 13:34:58 GMT
If you stick with AMS, how about a formula where the number of constituencies is set by dividing the mainland electorate by that of Ynys Mon? That way Ynys Mon can be protected while ensuring all constituencies are roughly the same size. IIRC that's basically how New Zealand does it - there's a requirement for a minimum of 16 general roll seats on South Island despite it being the slowest growing of the three parts of the electorate so the number of constituencies steadily creeps up at the expense of the list and adds to the possibility of overhangs. 2) I said that voters don't have to play guessing games. Which they don't. If a party only gets one candidate elected when they would be 'entitled' to two, that is because their second candidate is not popular enough. I don't have a problem with that. The issue I accepted was that parties 'have' to play guessing games. Apart from they don't 'have' to, they choose to. In these isles parties have to because voters don't always stay within the party. So the parties do what they can to maximise the vote to get the most candidates elected. This is standard in all voting systems. Voters in Ireland know what the parties are doing and why and usually support the aims though even they sometimes have to play guessing games in working out the most effective vote transfers. And the first preferences for candidates are not a simple popularity total but a reflection on the overall party appeal and tactics. The extreme case that comes to mind is Belfast East in 1975 and 1982 where in the former election Peter Robinson tried a vote balancing strategy but had a running mate with the worst possible Unionist surname for this (Mrs Paisley) then in the second he tried the reverse tactic of getting all the DUP first preferences himself and electing running mates on transfers. The results show something other than a local deification of Robinson in seven years. |
|
