ricmk
Lib Dem
Posts: 2,633 
|
Post by ricmk on May 10, 2022 15:56:12 GMT
The mathematician in me wonders how many permutations there will be for pairing 32 constituencies into 16 adjacent pairs. Presumably only one choice with Anglesey. Depending on the shape of the map that may well force adjacent pairs. If there is a bottleneck in Mid-Wales then very few again. Looking at the draft map there are only a handful of options for N Wales, but there will be a large number in the south. Because I have no life: In the draft proposals I reckon everything hinges on how you handle Gwynedd. If it goes with Anglesey, that leaves 3 options for N Wales and 824 for south = 2472. If it goes with Montgomery, that forces the rest of North Wales and leaves the same 824 option in the south. If it goes with Ceredigon, then Powys remains intact but North Wales is forced as is much of south wales - 131 options. adding them up I make 3,427 possible options. May have made mistakes, and I may have got wrong which constituencies actually border each other based on a glance at the map. Outnerd that.... |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on May 10, 2022 16:03:20 GMT
Hmm.
Combining quota chasing constituencies together, some of which might be geographical abominations makes little sense when you could create ones that an more closely to council and other boundaries and have some variation in numbers elected in each.
D'hondt over STV isn't necessarily bad as it probably ends up more proportional particularly if you are a transfer unfriendly party. It also gives parties some control over who gets in which running individual candidates under STV does no. Which is good or bad depending on your view.
I think legislating for gender quotas is a problem because it's not being done for BAME, disability, LGBT representation etc. The whole thing becomes unweildy.
|
|
myth11
Non-Aligned
too busy at work!
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by myth11 on May 10, 2022 16:17:26 GMT
Much as I am in favour of roughly equal female representation, I have to agree that writing this into law is ridiculous. You can’t really tell parties who to stand for them in a democracy. As an STV hater but supporter of PR, 6 member seats elected by d’hondt I entirely approve of. zipping means its going to be 50/50 elected..... or have I misread. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 10, 2022 16:37:13 GMT
I have done the calculations and have come to an opinion I don't like it (Andy Pikin from Little Britain) In fact, let me qualify the statement I really don't like it (mashup of Andy Pikin and Richard Hammond from Brainiac)This is an absolute Labour / Plaid Cymru stitch up. How matter how you pair up the constituencies using the regional list vote you get Lab and Plaid with enough to form a coalition, the Conservatives always the main opposition and aside from an occasional Liberal Democrat, all other parties are excluded. I'm sorry, but in my opinion I'm Out! (Dragon's Den) |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on May 10, 2022 16:42:05 GMT
Much as I am in favour of roughly equal female representation, I have to agree that writing this into law is ridiculous. You can’t really tell parties who to stand for them in a democracy. As an STV hater but supporter of PR, 6 member seats elected by d’hondt I entirely approve of. zipping means its going to be 50/50 elected..... or have I misread. I would presume that zipping means lists must be male-female-male-female-... or female-male-female-male-... and that each party should have an equal number of lists headed by a male as headed by a female. Of course, with 16 lists, the vagaries of voter choice would still mean any party could end up with a gender misbalance of up to 8, in either direction. If you really want to stop the compulsory gender balance, go for STV. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on May 10, 2022 16:48:44 GMT
zipping means its going to be 50/50 elected..... or have I misread. I would presume that zipping means lists must be male-female-male-female-... or female-male-female-male-... and that each party should have an equal number of lists headed by a male as headed by a female. Forcing an equal number of male-headed lists as female-headed lists would require a separate rule to zipping. |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 10, 2022 17:06:41 GMT
I have done the calculations and have come to an opinion I don't like it (Andy Pikin from Little Britain)In fact, let me qualify the statement I really don't like it (mashup of Andy Pikin and Richard Hammond from Brainiac)This is an absolute Labour / Plaid Cymru stitch up. How matter how you pair up the constituencies using the regional list vote you get Lab and Plaid with enough to form a coalition, the Conservatives always the main opposition and aside from an occasional Liberal Democrat, all other parties are excluded. I'm sorry, but in my opinion I'm Out! (Dragon's Den)I may regret asking this but what alternative voting system is there where Labour and Plaid don't have enough seats for a majority? |
|
|
|
Post by Penddu on May 10, 2022 17:39:30 GMT
One in which every LD vote counts as 4 ?
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on May 10, 2022 17:46:51 GMT
Together Labour and Plaid got over 60% of the vote. Any system that didn’t essentially guarantee them a majority on the basis of that result would be a fix, not the other way round.
If it guaranteed them a majority they didn’t deserve it would be a different story, but you can’t be angry at a voting system for giving voters the government they actually want.
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on May 10, 2022 18:47:32 GMT
One in which every LD vote counts as 4 ? Sounds good, where do we sign. 😀 |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on May 10, 2022 19:03:08 GMT
You can pair Ynys Mon with either Gwynedd or Conwy and then work around from there - but pretty much writes itself once that decision is made The other big limiter is Gower, which has to go with Swansea or Llanelli, put it with Swansea and I think that decides everything in the north and west for you , your next decision is who gets Brecon and Radnor. Put it with Llanelli and you get a different hellscape. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 11, 2022 6:19:06 GMT
I have done the calculations and have come to an opinion I don't like it (Andy Pikin from Little Britain)In fact, let me qualify the statement I really don't like it (mashup of Andy Pikin and Richard Hammond from Brainiac)This is an absolute Labour / Plaid Cymru stitch up. How matter how you pair up the constituencies using the regional list vote you get Lab and Plaid with enough to form a coalition, the Conservatives always the main opposition and aside from an occasional Liberal Democrat, all other parties are excluded. I'm sorry, but in my opinion I'm Out! (Dragon's Den)I may regret asking this but what alternative voting system is there where Labour and Plaid don't have enough seats for a majority? Single Transferrable Vote (STV). Using the quota system of calculation (I will admit out of the gate that until I experience first hand an Ulster assembly election or an Eire general election or a Scottish local election, I do not get STV) the 2021 election (using the regional list vote) gave us Lab 35, Con 24, Plaid 20, Lib Dem 4, Greens 4, Abolish 4, UKIP 2, Reform UK 1 (which totals 93) and there we have a Lab / Plaid coalition, however with STV the great unknown is transfers meaning that (as we saw in Ulster last week) a party can break through in quite spectacular manner. With d'Hondt, there is no chance of a breakthrough and we have the same old parties in constant coalition deals until the end of time (which gets really rather boring after a while) |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,112
|
Post by ilerda on May 11, 2022 7:30:09 GMT
Unfortunately politics and elections don’t exist solely to provide a hobby for amateur psephologists.
If the people want to elect the same old parties who end up in the same coalitions then that’s entirely up to them. One surefire way to make sure a minor party does get representation would be for it to actually become popular enough to get enough votes to win a seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on May 11, 2022 8:34:25 GMT
I may regret asking this but what alternative voting system is there where Labour and Plaid don't have enough seats for a majority? Single Transferrable Vote (STV). Using the quota system of calculation (I will admit out of the gate that until I experience first hand an Ulster assembly election or an Eire general election or a Scottish local election, I do not get STV) the 2021 election (using the regional list vote) gave us Lab 35, Con 24, Plaid 20, Lib Dem 4, Greens 4, Abolish 4, UKIP 2, Reform UK 1 (which totals 93) and there we have a Lab / Plaid coalition, however with STV the great unknown is transfers meaning that (as we saw in Ulster last week) a party can break through in quite spectacular manner. With d'Hondt, there is no chance of a breakthrough and we have the same old parties in constant coalition deals until the end of time (which gets really rather boring after a while) That is completely wrong. What you appear to be proposing is actually one nationwide list constituency. If Reform UK got 1.06% nationwide on the list vote, there is no way they would win any seats in 6-seater constituencies, regardless of whether you use D'Hondt or STV. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 11, 2022 8:51:52 GMT
Single Transferrable Vote (STV). Using the quota system of calculation (I will admit out of the gate that until I experience first hand an Ulster assembly election or an Eire general election or a Scottish local election, I do not get STV) the 2021 election (using the regional list vote) gave us Lab 35, Con 24, Plaid 20, Lib Dem 4, Greens 4, Abolish 4, UKIP 2, Reform UK 1 (which totals 93) and there we have a Lab / Plaid coalition, however with STV the great unknown is transfers meaning that (as we saw in Ulster last week) a party can break through in quite spectacular manner. With d'Hondt, there is no chance of a breakthrough and we have the same old parties in constant coalition deals until the end of time (which gets really rather boring after a while) That is completely wrong. What you appear to be proposing is actually one nationwide list constituency. If Reform UK got 1.06% nationwide on the list vote, there is no way they would win any seats in 6-seater constituencies, regardless of whether you use D'Hondt or STV. Because, as I admitted I do not know how STV works on a constituency basis, I added up all the quotas across Wales. I stated this at the beginning and would hope that you would understand that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2022 9:15:20 GMT
But that renders the whole exercise pointless because that isn't how STV works
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on May 11, 2022 10:20:50 GMT
It seems unavoidable that Powys will be split between two different seats in this scenario. I can see the sense of pairing Westminster constituencies but it will make for one or two odd bedfellows. Why not just come up with 16 areas of roughly equal size (but you'd have to got for either 3 or 4 in North Wales to enable both Powys and Carmarthenshire to remain intact) There's one particular oddity I foresee. Looking at the South based on the initial proposals, most of the pairings are bleeding obvious – coming from the west one gets: - Ceredigion+Pembroke
- Carmarthen+Llanelli
- Gower+Swansea
- Neath+Brecon & Radnor
- Aberavon+Bridgend
And from the east: - Monmouth+Torfaen
- Newport East+West
- Islwyn (or whatever the rump Caerphilly constituency ends up being called)+Blaenau Gwent
- Merthyr+Pontypridd
- Cardiff North+West
- Cardiff Central+South
This leaves in the middle the pitchforkiest of pitchfork bait: - Vale of Glamorgan+Rhondda
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on May 11, 2022 10:25:21 GMT
It seems unavoidable that Powys will be split between two different seats in this scenario. I can see the sense of pairing Westminster constituencies but it will make for one or two odd bedfellows. Why not just come up with 16 areas of roughly equal size (but you'd have to got for either 3 or 4 in North Wales to enable both Powys and Carmarthenshire to remain intact) There's one particular oddity I foresee. Looking at the South based on the initial proposals, most of the pairings are bleeding obvious – coming from the west one gets: - Ceredigion+Pembroke
- Carmarthen+Llanelli
- Gower+Swansea
- Neath+Brecon & Radnor
- Aberavon+Bridgend
And from the east: - Monmouth+Torfaen
- Newport East+West
- Islwyn (or whatever the rump Caerphilly constituency ends up being called)+Blaenau Gwent
- Merthyr+Pontypridd
- Cardiff North+West
- Cardiff Central+South
This leaves in the middle the pitchforkiest of pitchfork bait: - Vale of Glamorgan+Rhondda
I ended up in exactly that situation when playing around last night! The alternative is the far more logical Neath + Aberavon then Bridgend + Vale but ultimately you end up with the problem of what to do with Brecon & Radnor. I understand the logic of linking it with Neath given the extension of the new constituency in that area but you might just as well link it with Merthyr, Blaenau Gwent or even Monmouth |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on May 11, 2022 10:37:50 GMT
I‘ve done one with Brecon and Merthyr which I‘m still fiddling with but I quite like.
|
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on May 11, 2022 10:50:26 GMT
There's one particular oddity I foresee. Looking at the South based on the initial proposals, most of the pairings are bleeding obvious – coming from the west one gets: - Ceredigion+Pembroke
- Carmarthen+Llanelli
- Gower+Swansea
- Neath+Brecon & Radnor
- Aberavon+Bridgend
And from the east: - Monmouth+Torfaen
- Newport East+West
- Islwyn (or whatever the rump Caerphilly constituency ends up being called)+Blaenau Gwent
- Merthyr+Pontypridd
- Cardiff North+West
- Cardiff Central+South
This leaves in the middle the pitchforkiest of pitchfork bait: - Vale of Glamorgan+Rhondda
I ended up in exactly that situation when playing around last night! The alternative is the far more logical Neath + Aberavon then Bridgend + Vale but ultimately you end up with the problem of what to do with Brecon & Radnor. I understand the logic of linking it with Neath given the extension of the new constituency in that area but you might just as well link it with Merthyr, Blaenau Gwent or even Monmouth Yeah, it's just that ends up with a horrible split of Bridgend CB on the initial proposals (but hopefully that gets fixed anyway). Really the whole pairing idea isn't good, but basically liveable with (simply going for 3-member constituencies would have been much less fuss); and I'd far rather have open lists than closed ones, so that we don't get the European Parliament situation of not being able to vote Conservative without voting for that woman from Ledbury who enriched herself by taking Deutsche Bank to a tribunal – but thank goodness we're avoiding the even worse Irish strategic undernomination system. And I'm with you on the bonkers sex discrimination thing being the truly mad aspect of this – wouldn't be surprised if that ended up in litigation. |
|
