|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Sept 6, 2022 21:24:10 GMT
[Just to pick up on this, I hadn't realized to what extent Cardiff Boroughs was dominated by Cardiff itself. Assuming it contained the whole municipality of Cardiff, and I think it must have done, that accounts for 82761 of the total population of 85862, leaving only 3101 for the other two boroughs of Cowbridge and Llantrisant. I thought at first this must be wrong, but it turns out the population of Cowbridge MB was a mere 1229. I can't find a number for Llantrisant but that leaves 1872, which seems plausible given the very small number for Cowbridge. Cowbridge, as well as being a surprisingly small town for its commercial importance, had very tightly drawn borough boundaries. They did extend outside the walled town a short way east and west, but it was very much drawn in such a way as to remove as little as possible from Llanblethian parish. |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,589 
|
Post by cibwr on Sept 14, 2022 8:31:14 GMT
Cowbridge and Cardiff alternated as being the county town for a while for Glamorgan.... Not sure if the Courts of Great Session met there - but the Assizes did after 1830.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 26, 2023 12:37:04 GMT
The point is that the H-H method (geometric mean) as used in the USA is less likely to create a bias towards smaller states than the S-L divisors (arithmetic mean) in your example. We are in danger here of disappearing down a rabbit hole but with great respect to johnloony I can't let this pass. Let me make my point with a current real-world example. GPV = priority value calculated using the geometric mean (the method actually used); APV = priority value using the arithmetic mean (my preferred method). In the Congressional reapportionment based on the 2020 US census, the GPVs of seats either side of the cut-off at 435 are 435 762998 Minnesota 8 436 762994 New York 27 The arithmetic mean will always be larger than the geometric mean, so the APV for any seat will always be smaller than the GPV. But the difference will be smaller the larger the number of seats potentially allocated. This, the APV for NY 27 is 762311 while for MN 8 it is 760866. Therefore if APV were used NY, the larger state, would get its 27th seat and MN, the smaller, would have to make do with 7. Or would it? Remember that the fewer seats potentially allocated to a state, the greater the difference between GPV and APV. Well, in the current reapportionment seat 434 is Montana 2 with a GPV of 767499. But the APV of Montana 2 is only 722817, so if APV were used NY would get 27, MN 8, and MT 1. The upshot is that compared with APV, GPV gives Montana a second seat at the expense of New York's 27th; in other words, it favours the smaller state at the expense of the larger just as I said. My case rests, m'lud. Edited to add: Actually, it makes more difference than I thought. On looking further, if APV were used Rhode Island would also lose its second seat to the benefit of, I assume, Ohio 16. So again, the use of GPV benefits the smaller state and penalizes the larger. Edited further to add: A fuller check and much use of the calculator tends to confirm that if APV were used instead of GPV, RI and MT would lose their second seats to the benefit of NY 27 and OH 16 but all the other states would receive the same number of seats as they actually did, although not always allocated in the same order. If anyone wants to start a campaign for APV instead of GPV in US apportionment, you can sign me up - small-population states like RI and MT do quite well enough out of equal representation in the Senate without benefiting from a bias in House representation as well. I have now re-read the first 2 pages of this thread (probably more carefully and thoroughly than I did originally (because it's a lot of detailed gugglesquelch (instead of just normal colloquial contrafibularity))). When I wrote my original statementI was referring to the fact that Saint-Laguë divisors produce a bias towards small states, compared with D'Hondt divisors (i.e. not compared with H-H divisors (a.k.a. geometric mean)). Your further clarification about the distinction between S-L divisors (arithmetic mean) and H-H divisors (geometric mean) was clear enough, which meant that the conversation had come to a natural end and therefore meant that no further response was necessary. I regret it if you are offended by the fact that I did not make any further responses beyond that one, but I probably didn't think it was necessary. I can't rule out the possibility that i might have misread something in the middle of all the stuff you wrote, but I can't be sure which it was without having a transcript of all my brainwaves from 9 months ago. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 26, 2023 12:44:17 GMT
The Use of Population in the Redistribution of 1885 - Fit the Fourth
...
Perhaps even more significant, however, although less obvious from a glance at a map, was the decision that the ratio of population to each MP should nowhere be less than 15000 or greater than 90000.
This six-fold variation may seem unreasonable and excessive by modern standards, but in its historical context it was a huge step forward in terms of equalizing representation. Under the arrangements applying prior to 1885, the ratio (as found at the 1881 census) varied from 301655 (N Lanarkshire) to 2426 (Portarlington), meaning the inhabitants of the latter seat were 124 times more generously represented than those of N Lanarks.
...
F.W.S. Craig's book of results from 1882 to 1885 says that the electorate of North Lanarkshire in 1868, 1874 and 1880 was 5,458, 7,217 and 10,324 respectively (before 1868 it was part of a general Lanarkshire constituency). Does that mean that North Lanarkshire had a population of 301k but an electorate of only 10k? I know that in the 19th century there was a more restricted franchise of only certain (not all) adult men being allowed to vote, but a ratio of only 1 voter per 29 people seems excessively low. Or have I misunderstood something again? |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 26, 2023 12:45:59 GMT
The Use of Population in the Redistribution of 1885 - Fit the Second
Let us start with a few basic ground rules. ... ‘Borough’, ‘burgh’ and ‘ burghal’ refer to Parliamentary boroughs (burghs in Scotland) or, in the case of burghal districts, to the district as a whole rather than to the individual boroughs (or burghs) within it.
... Now I want to know how "burghal" was pronounced... "burgle"? "Burrell" (as in Paul)? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 26, 2023 14:38:50 GMT
We are in danger here of disappearing down a rabbit hole but with great respect to johnloony I can't let this pass. Let me make my point with a current real-world example. GPV = priority value calculated using the geometric mean (the method actually used); APV = priority value using the arithmetic mean (my preferred method). In the Congressional reapportionment based on the 2020 US census, the GPVs of seats either side of the cut-off at 435 are 435 762998 Minnesota 8 436 762994 New York 27 The arithmetic mean will always be larger than the geometric mean, so the APV for any seat will always be smaller than the GPV. But the difference will be smaller the larger the number of seats potentially allocated. This, the APV for NY 27 is 762311 while for MN 8 it is 760866. Therefore if APV were used NY, the larger state, would get its 27th seat and MN, the smaller, would have to make do with 7. Or would it? Remember that the fewer seats potentially allocated to a state, the greater the difference between GPV and APV. Well, in the current reapportionment seat 434 is Montana 2 with a GPV of 767499. But the APV of Montana 2 is only 722817, so if APV were used NY would get 27, MN 8, and MT 1. The upshot is that compared with APV, GPV gives Montana a second seat at the expense of New York's 27th; in other words, it favours the smaller state at the expense of the larger just as I said. My case rests, m'lud. Edited to add: Actually, it makes more difference than I thought. On looking further, if APV were used Rhode Island would also lose its second seat to the benefit of, I assume, Ohio 16. So again, the use of GPV benefits the smaller state and penalizes the larger. Edited further to add: A fuller check and much use of the calculator tends to confirm that if APV were used instead of GPV, RI and MT would lose their second seats to the benefit of NY 27 and OH 16 but all the other states would receive the same number of seats as they actually did, although not always allocated in the same order. If anyone wants to start a campaign for APV instead of GPV in US apportionment, you can sign me up - small-population states like RI and MT do quite well enough out of equal representation in the Senate without benefiting from a bias in House representation as well. I have now re-read the first 2 pages of this thread (probably more carefully and thoroughly than I did originally (because it's a lot of detailed gugglesquelch (instead of just normal colloquial contrafibularity))). When I wrote my original statementI was referring to the fact that Saint-Laguë divisors produce a bias towards small states, compared with D'Hondt divisors (i.e. not compared with H-H divisors (a.k.a. geometric mean)). Your further clarification about the distinction between S-L divisors (arithmetic mean) and H-H divisors (geometric mean) was clear enough, which meant that the conversation had come to a natural end and therefore meant that no further response was necessary. I regret it if you are offended by the fact that I did not make any further responses beyond that one, but I probably didn't think it was necessary. I can't rule out the possibility that i might have misread something in the middle of all the stuff you wrote, but I can't be sure which it was without having a transcript of all my brainwaves from 9 months ago. Thanks for this. It's left me still slightly confused because I don't think I'd mentioned d'Hondt but I've no wish to protract this debate so I'm willing to leave it there if you are. Regarding 'burghal', I'm familiar with it from books but I don't think I've ever heard it pronounced. I'm guessing it sounds like 'burgle' but I'm open to being told otherwise. Regarding N Lanarks, you raise an interesting point and I'll revert once I've looked onto it. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 26, 2023 14:56:53 GMT
I have now re-read the first 2 pages of this thread (probably more carefully and thoroughly than I did originally (because it's a lot of detailed gugglesquelch (instead of just normal colloquial contrafibularity))). When I wrote my original statementI was referring to the fact that Saint-Laguë divisors produce a bias towards small states, compared with D'Hondt divisors (i.e. not compared with H-H divisors (a.k.a. geometric mean)). Your further clarification about the distinction between S-L divisors (arithmetic mean) and H-H divisors (geometric mean) was clear enough, which meant that the conversation had come to a natural end and therefore meant that no further response was necessary. I regret it if you are offended by the fact that I did not make any further responses beyond that one, but I probably didn't think it was necessary. I can't rule out the possibility that i might have misread something in the middle of all the stuff you wrote, but I can't be sure which it was without having a transcript of all my brainwaves from 9 months ago. Thanks for this. It's left me still slightly confused because I don't think I'd mentioned d'Hondt but I've no wish to protract this debate so I'm willing to leave it there if you are. You didn't mention D'Hondt, but D'Hondt is what I was comparing Sainte-Lague with in my original comment. You later clarified by comparing S-L with H-H. Anyway, not of this would be an issue if we simply re-invaded the USA and turned it into a slave colony. We should not let them become a democracy again until they (a) learn how to say "aluminium" properly, and (b) promise never to vote for Trump again. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 27, 2023 14:15:47 GMT
The Use of Population in the Redistribution of 1885 - Fit the Fourth
...
Perhaps even more significant, however, although less obvious from a glance at a map, was the decision that the ratio of population to each MP should nowhere be less than 15000 or greater than 90000.
This six-fold variation may seem unreasonable and excessive by modern standards, but in its historical context it was a huge step forward in terms of equalizing representation. Under the arrangements applying prior to 1885, the ratio (as found at the 1881 census) varied from 301655 (N Lanarkshire) to 2426 (Portarlington), meaning the inhabitants of the latter seat were 124 times more generously represented than those of N Lanarks.
...
F.W.S. Craig's book of results from 1882 to 1885 says that the electorate of North Lanarkshire in 1868, 1874 and 1880 was 5,458, 7,217 and 10,324 respectively (before 1868 it was part of a general Lanarkshire constituency). Does that mean that North Lanarkshire had a population of 301k but an electorate of only 10k? I know that in the 19th century there was a more restricted franchise of only certain (not all) adult men being allowed to vote, but a ratio of only 1 voter per 29 people seems excessively low. Or have I misunderstood something again? No, I don't think you've misunderstood anything and you're right, an elector-to-population ration of 1:29 does seem remarkably low.
However, it appears to be correct. I've looked again at the 1881 census and it clearly gives the population of N Lanarks as 301655. I've checked that this figure is exclusive of the Parliamentary Burghs in the area.
I'm not sure of the overall UK electorate at this time but I imagine it will have been around 4 million, as against a total UK population in 1881 of a little below 34.9 million. So overall the ratio was about 1:9. Why, then, assuming these figures are correct, at least roughly, would N Lanarks have so few electors?
Offhand I can think of a few possible reasons.
First, in England the Second Reform (1867-68) substantially eased property requirements for voting in boroughs, but made much less change in counties. Therefore, after 1868, it was a lot easier to qualify to vote in boroughs than in counties. Assuming similar changes were made in Scotland, which I expect was the case but I'm not entirely certain, you'd expect fewer electors per head of population in a county seat like N Lanark compared with a burgh.
Secondly, the city of Glasgow was expanding rapidly and had overspilled its Parliamentary boundary, which in 1881 was still the same one as had been drawn back in 1832. New suburbs outside the city boundary will mostly have been in N Lanarks, and this is an important factor in the seat's unusually high population. From looking at the map, it seems likely that many of these Glasgow suburbs comprised densely-packed housing of low quality, so they would contribute a lot of people but not many that would satisfy the property test for voting in a county seat.
Thirdly, the seat was solid for the Liberals to the extent that the MP, Sir Edward Colebrooke, was returned unopposed in the three GEs (1868, 1874, 1880) for which the seat existed in this form. So maybe even of those that qualified many did not bother to put their names on the Parliamentary register because they assumed, correctly, that there would not be a poll. Nor, if no contest was expected, would the political parties have been very assiduous in ensuring that their supporters were registered to vote.
But obviously I'm just speculating.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Feb 27, 2023 15:23:32 GMT
F.W.S. Craig's book of results from 1882 to 1885 says that the electorate of North Lanarkshire in 1868, 1874 and 1880 was 5,458, 7,217 and 10,324 respectively (before 1868 it was part of a general Lanarkshire constituency). Does that mean that North Lanarkshire had a population of 301k but an electorate of only 10k? I know that in the 19th century there was a more restricted franchise of only certain (not all) adult men being allowed to vote, but a ratio of only 1 voter per 29 people seems excessively low. Or have I misunderstood something again? No, I don't think you've misunderstood anything and you're right, an elector-to-population ration of 1:29 does seem remarkably low.
However, it appears to be correct. I've looked again at the 1881 census and it clearly gives the population of N Lanarks as 301655. I've checked that this figure is exclusive of the Parliamentary Boroughs in the area.
I'm not sure of the overall UK electorate at this time but I imagine it will have been around 4 million, 2 million in England and Wales immediately after the 1867 Act, representing a doubling. Not sure about Scotland, but the 1832 Act had been far more dramatic there than in England and Wales (because far fewer people - basically no one, really - had been even theoretically entitled to vote there before.) [/div]
Secondly, the city of Glasgow was expanding rapidly and had overspilled its Parliamentary boundary, which in 1881 was still the same one as had been drawn back in 1832. New suburbs outside the city boundary will mostly have been in N Lanarks, and this is an important factor in the seat's unusually high population. From looking at the map, it seems likely that many of these Glasgow suburbs comprised densely-packed housing of low quality, so they would contribute a lot of people but not many that would satisfy the property test for voting in a county seat. [/quote]This sounds plausible to me. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 27, 2023 19:44:09 GMT
No, I don't think you've misunderstood anything and you're right, an elector-to-population ration of 1:29 does seem remarkably low.
However, it appears to be correct. I've looked again at the 1881 census and it clearly gives the population of N Lanarks as 301655. I've checked that this figure is exclusive of the Parliamentary Boroughs in the area.
I'm not sure of the overall UK electorate at this time but I imagine it will have been around 4 million, , representing a doubling. Not sure about Scotland, but the 1832 Act had been far more dramatic there than in England and Wales (because far fewer people - basically no one, really - had been even theoretically entitled to vote there before.) [/div]
Secondly, the city of Glasgow was expanding rapidly and had overspilled its Parliamentary boundary, which in 1881 was still the same one as had been drawn back in 1832. New suburbs outside the city boundary will mostly have been in N Lanarks, and this is an important factor in the seat's unusually high population. From looking at the map, it seems likely that many of these Glasgow suburbs comprised densely-packed housing of low quality, so they would contribute a lot of people but not many that would satisfy the property test for voting in a county seat. [/quote]This sounds plausible to me.[/quote][/div]
It must have been more than 2 million in E&W because at the 1868 GE, the first after the Second Reform, over 2 million votes were cast in E&W alone so when you take account of abstentions and electors in uncontested seats the total E&W electorate must have been at least 2.5 million, probably more, and that's before you add in Scotland and Ireland.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 27, 2023 19:47:20 GMT
2 million in England and Wales immediately after the 1867 Act, representing a doubling. Not sure about Scotland, but the 1832 Act had been far more dramatic there than in England and Wales (because far fewer people - basically no one, really - had been even theoretically entitled to vote there before.) [/div] Secondly, the city of Glasgow was expanding rapidly and had overspilled its Parliamentary boundary, which in 1881 was still the same one as had been drawn back in 1832. New suburbs outside the city boundary will mostly have been in N Lanarks, and this is an important factor in the seat's unusually high population. From looking at the map, it seems likely that many of these Glasgow suburbs comprised densely-packed housing of low quality, so they would contribute a lot of people but not many that would satisfy the property test for voting in a county seat. [/quote]This sounds plausible to me.[/quote][/div] It must have been more than 2 million in E&W because at the 1868 GE, the first after the Second Reform, over 2 million votes were cast in E&W alone so when you take account of abstentions and electors in uncontested seats the total E&W electorate must have been at least 2.5 million, probably more, and that's before you add in Scotland and Ireland.
[/quote] Does that take account of plural voting? |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 27, 2023 19:51:53 GMT
[/div] Secondly, the city of Glasgow was expanding rapidly and had overspilled its Parliamentary boundary, which in 1881 was still the same one as had been drawn back in 1832. New suburbs outside the city boundary will mostly have been in N Lanarks, and this is an important factor in the seat's unusually high population. From looking at the map, it seems likely that many of these Glasgow suburbs comprised densely-packed housing of low quality, so they would contribute a lot of people but not many that would satisfy the property test for voting in a county seat. [/quote]This sounds plausible to me.[/quote][/div] It must have been more than 2 million in E&W because at the 1868 GE, the first after the Second Reform, over 2 million votes were cast in E&W alone so when you take account of abstentions and electors in uncontested seats the total E&W electorate must have been at least 2.5 million, probably more, and that's before you add in Scotland and Ireland.
[/quote] Does that take account of plural voting? [/quote][/div]
No. I'm not sure how you would take account of that, since I don't think it was recorded anywhere.
How common was it, I wonder?
(Something strange seems to have gone awry with the 'quote' function.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 27, 2023 19:58:23 GMT
Does that take account of plural voting? No. I'm not sure how you would take account of that, since I don't think it was recorded anywhere. How common was it, I wonder? (Something strange seems to have gone awry with the 'quote' function.)
It would have been very common as most constituencies in 1868 elected two members or more |
|
myth11
Non-Aligned
too busy at work!
Posts: 2,839
|
Post by myth11 on Feb 27, 2023 20:32:38 GMT
[/div] Secondly, the city of Glasgow was expanding rapidly and had overspilled its Parliamentary boundary, which in 1881 was still the same one as had been drawn back in 1832. New suburbs outside the city boundary will mostly have been in N Lanarks, and this is an important factor in the seat's unusually high population. From looking at the map, it seems likely that many of these Glasgow suburbs comprised densely-packed housing of low quality, so they would contribute a lot of people but not many that would satisfy the property test for voting in a county seat. [/quote]This sounds plausible to me.[/quote][/div] It must have been more than 2 million in E&W because at the 1868 GE, the first after the Second Reform, over 2 million votes were cast in E&W alone so when you take account of abstentions and electors in uncontested seats the total E&W electorate must have been at least 2.5 million, probably more, and that's before you add in Scotland and Ireland.
[/quote] Does that take account of plural voting? A quote from George John Shaw Lefevre lib MP in 1892 as he had 5 votes. I have myself five votes for five different constituencies—not that I have sought the votes by purchasing property for that purpose; but they have come to me accidentally on account of holding property in different places. Two are occupation votes, two freehold votes, and one is for a University. But I know many who have a great many more votes than five. I think it was Sir Robert Fowler, a late Member of this House, who used to boast that he had no fewer than thirteen votes in different constituencies, and that he was able at one General Election to record them all. Then there is the well-known case of the Oxford tutor—a man who had eighteen different qualifications, and, at the Election of 1874, voted in respect of these different qualifications eighteen times. But this case pales before one I heard of recently. A clergyman of the Church of England, who has a hobby for acquiring qualifications in different constituencies, has been able to obtain fifty votes in different places, and I was informed that at a certain General Election he contrived to vote in no fewer than forty different places.[1] |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 27, 2023 22:23:25 GMT
No. I'm not sure how you would take account of that, since I don't think it was recorded anywhere. How common was it, I wonder? (Something strange seems to have gone awry with the 'quote' function.)
It would have been very common as most constituencies in 1868 elected two members or more Excellent point. You are quite right. This would account for the apparent discrepancy whereby the electorate of England & Wales after the Second Reform was said to be 2 million, but at the 1868 GE over 2 million votes were cast in E&W. My apologies, I should have thought of that.
This means that the UK electorate in 1880 was probably significantly less than the 4 million I estimated. Let's say 3 million, for the sake of argument. That would make the UK ratio of electors to population more like 1:12 so N Lanarkshire's 1:29 looks slightly less extreme.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 13, 2023 19:17:39 GMT
I was hitherto unaware of an area of London called Hatcham The old Liberal club was known as the Hatcham until its demise some time in the noughties. (picture of it in the link below).
I wonder when the name fell out of common usage. I have to say I've never come across it before.
It may be of interest to Pete Whitehead and finsobruce that a report in today's Telegraph provides yet further evidence of the existence of Hatcham. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/13/mother-legal-battle-school-share-sex-education-material/ “A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson. A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws. Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships. Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools." |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 13, 2023 19:27:04 GMT
The old Liberal club was known as the Hatcham until its demise some time in the noughties. (picture of it in the link below).
I wonder when the name fell out of common usage. I have to say I've never come across it before.
It may be of interest to Pete Whitehead and finsobruce that a report in today's Telegraph provides yet further evidence of the existence of Hatcham. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/13/mother-legal-battle-school-share-sex-education-material/ “A mother has lost a legal battle to force a school to share sex education materials used in her daughter’s lesson. A judge ruled that the commercial interests of the third-party sex education provider outweighed the public interest in forcing the school to release the lesson plan under freedom of information laws. Clare Page, 47, began her campaign after her 15-year-old daughter came home from school and said she had been taught that “heteronormativity” was a “bad thing” and that she should be “sex positive” towards relationships. Her daughter’s lesson at Hatcham College, a state school in New Cross, south-east London, had been taught by the School of Sexuality Education, a charity that is understood to have worked with more than 300 schools." The kingdom of Hatcham has risen again, although perhaps not in the context it might have expected. |
|
