|
|
Post by johnloony on May 11, 2022 11:45:37 GMT
I was watching the Queen's Speech when Liz Saville Roberts MP (Plaid, Dwyfor) casually dropped this into the convcersation as "kick starting the Senedd" and the very first question I asked Alexa was "What are the factors of 96?" and when she said 32 it instantly clicked into place. The new 32 constituency map each electing three members by STV and … Why did you ask Alexa what the factors of 96 are? |
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,144
|
Post by cogload on May 11, 2022 11:45:56 GMT
Gender quotas
Closed lists
D'hondt.
What a load of drivel.
|
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on May 11, 2022 12:56:17 GMT
If this change goes through and people want to predict the rough make up of a 96 seat Senedd, it might be better to use the constituency voting figures rather than the regional ones, simply because currently people have two votes, in future they’ll have one. Just a thought.
AAlso as no one here needs reminding five years is a long time in politics and a lot can and will change over the comming four years.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on May 11, 2022 15:27:13 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.
|
|
myth11
Non-Aligned
too busy at work!
Posts: 2,843 
|
Post by myth11 on May 11, 2022 15:30:22 GMT
I‘ve done one with Brecon and Merthyr which I‘m still fiddling with but I quite like. Are you trying to give the lib dems no seats.  To honest I am not convinced using the new seats and system there would be a lib dem seat in 2021. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2022 15:39:07 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. Surely the only strength of this new system is the ability to draw different sized constituencies based on local identities? Why create this new system of they won't make use of literally its only positive? |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on May 11, 2022 16:16:50 GMT
I‘ve done one with Brecon and Merthyr which I‘m still fiddling with but I quite like. Are you trying to give the lib dems no seats. To honest I am not convinced using the new seats and system there would be a lib dem seat in 2021. Fairly sure we'd get between 3 and 5 no matter what the pairings. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,474
|
Post by peterl on May 11, 2022 16:20:45 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. Heresy! If all we wanted was a way to select politicians, we would just have a single national party list. Or co-option. The whole point of elections using a variety of systems is to provide data for us to number crunch and for the Lib Dems to turn into barcharts.  |
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on May 11, 2022 18:27:13 GMT
Are you trying to give the lib dems no seats. To honest I am not convinced using the new seats and system there would be a lib dem seat in 2021. Fairly sure we'd get between 3 and 5 no matter what the pairings. You'd probably get one wherever Brecon ends up - only probably because the Lib Dems are so weak everywhere it can be paired with. Beyond that, the only other places the list polled well enough to win a seat under six member D'Hondt were Montgomeryshire and Cardiff Central, but boundary changes and pairing would put you below 10% and out in a Montgomeryshire & Wrexham or any combination of Cardiff seats. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 11, 2022 19:28:39 GMT
I was watching the Queen's Speech when Liz Saville Roberts MP (Plaid, Dwyfor) casually dropped this into the convcersation as "kick starting the Senedd" and the very first question I asked Alexa was "What are the factors of 96?" and when she said 32 it instantly clicked into place. The new 32 constituency map each electing three members by STV and … Why did you ask Alexa what the factors of 96 are? Because that was the number of members that Liz said in that interview with the BBC. Working on the assumption that STV was going to be used, I wanted to know what combination of numbers could generate 96 and as Alexa told me, that could mean either: one national list of 96 members, two constituencies electing 48 members, three constituencies electing 32 members and so on and given that the new boundaries were likely to be the base came up with the idea that 32 new constituencies would elect three members each via STV. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 11, 2022 19:45:41 GMT
Why did you ask Alexa what the factors of 96 are? Because that was the number of members that Liz said in that interview with the BBC. Working on the assumption that STV was going to be used, I wanted to know what combination of numbers could generate 96 and as Alexa told me, that could mean either: one national list of 96 members, two constituencies electing 48 members, three constituencies electing 32 members and so on and given that the new boundaries were likely to be the base came up with the idea that 32 new constituencies would elect three members each via STV. But why did you ask Alexa (or indeed anybody else) what the factors of 96 are? You already knew (without having to ask anybody) that the factors of 96 are 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32 and 48. Even asking the question would have taken more time than just listing the answers in your head in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on May 11, 2022 20:15:23 GMT
Sorry to interrupt an argument between to people who are (and I’m 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 he’s perfectly in his rights to, as for the rest of us, we’ve 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 I’m 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 he’s perfectly in his rights to, as for the rest of us, we’ve 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 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ 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: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 12, 2022 12:51:22 GMT
Sorry to interrupt an argument between to people who are (and I’m 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 he’s perfectly in his rights to, as for the rest of us, we’ve 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 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ 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 1±0.05, 2±0.08, 3±0.12, 4±0.16, 5±0.20, then higher numbers as n±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 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ 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 – 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
I’m 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on May 30, 2022 11:13:45 GMT
|
|
