AMS with Second Mandates

[jamesdoyle]

Jul 23, 2022 9:22:20 GMT @europeanlefty said:

Jul 23, 2022 9:16:56 GMT xenon said:

Yes, this can occur if a party is entitled to more seats than there are constituencies. In this case, you simply go down the list of constituencies ordered by vote share again, and as Labour require one more seat they pick up a second mandate in their strongest constituency of Liverpool Walton and Bootle.

No it can't because there would only be one candidate per party per seat (as in BaWü). Basically it's a flaw in the system 

Xenon explains this in their post above

[xenon]

Jul 23, 2022 9:22:20 GMT @europeanlefty said:

Jul 23, 2022 9:16:56 GMT xenon said:

Yes, this can occur if a party is entitled to more seats than there are constituencies. In this case, you simply go down the list of constituencies ordered by vote share again, and as Labour require one more seat they pick up a second mandate in their strongest constituency of Liverpool Walton and Bootle.

No it can't because there would only be one candidate per party per seat (as in BaWü). Basically it's a flaw in the system 

In Baden-Württemberg both the candidate and an appointed substitute are listed on the ballot paper, and in the event that a party is entitled to two seats in the same constituency, the substitute takes the second mandate. This occurred on several occasions with the CDU in the 1970s and 80s.

[swindonlad]

Jul 23, 2022 6:07:34 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Jul 22, 2022 10:43:45 GMT swindonlad said:

It may take me a day or 2, but I'm looking at the South West.

I am using the new proposals for constituencies as there's an even number, otherwise I'll need to lose 1.

There will be some odd looking pairings as trying not to cross county border pairings (except where there is a necessity)

Isn't the point of pairing the existing constituencies that it makes it possible to calculate the result of the last election? I know there are various notional results available on the proposed new boundaries but that is not quite the same. I would guess (or hope at least) that if such a system were adopted here that entirely new constituency boundaries would be drawn up for the direct mandates which would not be constrained by the existing boundaries used under a different system. For that matter it should not necessaril have to be exactly 325 seats as the additional member element could be say 40% rather than 50. It wouldn;t then be necessary to cross any regional boundaries and if we didn't impose too tight a quota it should also be possible to avoid too many county crossings as well.

I did consider doing on current constituencies, and lose Christchurch to the South East, to make it an even number, but would use new constituencies as as there's an even number, so could do the whole SW.

Was using the Electoral Calculus figures, at least they explain their methodology & it's reasonable. Any issues in this will be more than offset by electors voting differently under different electoral systems.

However, once part way through I have found out that Electoral Calculus only allows a certain number of accesses to their revised numbers. So, it's on hold.

[Wisconsin]

I like it, and much prefer it to the current system and lists. But I think a system that - on the face of it gives some constituencies three or four MPs, and others one - would be very difficult to sell.

I wonder if the system could be modified to ensure that each seat has exactly two MPs - maybe some sort of algorithm for allocating the top up seats could be found that achieves this outcome in the way that most minimises mismatches between local votes and representation?

And given the building blocks are made up of two smaller mini-constituencies - I wonder if each of the two MPs could be allocated a nominal more-manageable mini-constituency for the purposes of casework/surgeries.

(And kudos to Baden-Württemberg’s Landtag for producing such a useful leaflet!)

[therealriga]

Jul 23, 2022 11:16:50 GMT Wisconsin said:

I like it, and much prefer it to the current system and lists. But I think a system that - on the face of it gives some constituencies three or four MPs, and others one - would be very difficult to sell.

There's another issue which is that candidates, especially those from smaller parties, can finish 5th or even 6th in their constituency but get elected, whereas candidates from larger parties, who get much more votes in the same constituency and finish 2nd don't get elected. I really don't think it solves the "accountability" issue at all.

[Wisconsin]

Jul 23, 2022 11:27:54 GMT therealriga said:

Jul 23, 2022 11:16:50 GMT Wisconsin said:

I like it, and much prefer it to the current system and lists. But I think a system that - on the face of it gives some constituencies three or four MPs, and others one - would be very difficult to sell.

There's another issue which is that candidates, especially those from smaller parties, can finish 5th or even 6th in their constituency but get elected, whereas candidates from larger parties, who get much more votes in the same constituency and finish 2nd don't get elected. I really don't think it solves the "accountability" issue at all.

That feels slightly less problematic to me, somehow. I guess MPs for the smaller parties have to come from somewhere.

I wonder if these issues could be managed somehow by declaring all top-up MPs as formally being MPs for the region, and making it clear they have zero specific-constituency-level association/responsibilities

[xenon]

Jul 23, 2022 11:16:50 GMT Wisconsin said:

I like it, and much prefer it to the current system and lists. But I think a system that - on the face of it gives some constituencies three or four MPs, and others one - would be very difficult to sell.

I wonder if the system could be modified to ensure that each seat has exactly two MPs - maybe some sort of algorithm for allocating the top up seats could be found that achieves this outcome in the way that most minimises mismatches between local votes and representation?

And given the building blocks are made up of two smaller mini-constituencies - I wonder if each of the two MPs could be allocated a nominal more-manageable mini-constituency for the purposes of casework/surgeries.

(And kudos to Baden-Württemberg’s Landtag for producing such a useful leaflet!)

I had thought about reallocating seats from constituencies with three members to those with one, but you would end up getting MPs representing constituencies that they didn't run in and have no connections to, which I think is even more problematic.

I think a compromise could be made by having the top-up members represent a unit smaller than a region but larger than a constituency, probably ceremonial counties. This would even out issues with over and underrepresentation, whist still give MPs a more local connection to the areas in which they ran.

[xenon]

Next up is the North East, sans Middlesborough, Redcar and East Cleveland which are hived off to Yorkshire. This results in 13 constituencies and a corresponding 13 list seats. Two seats have one member each, another two have three members each, and the remaining nine have two members each. The Brexit Party and Lib Dems both cross the 5% threshold and pick up two seats apiece, with Labour the main victim of the increased proportionality. The results are:

Lab: 12 seats (-6 vs FPTP), comprising 9 first mandates and 3 second mandates
Con: 10 seats (+2 vs FPTP), comprising 4 first mandates and 6 second mandates
Brex: 2 seats (+2 vs FPTP), all second mandates
LD: 2 seats (+2 vs FPTP), all second mandates

[Wisconsin]

Jul 23, 2022 12:04:00 GMT xenon said:

but larger than a constituency, probably ceremonial counties.

Oh god no!

[nyx]

This exercise could possibly be done without constituency merging if one just went for 650 ordinary constituencies plus 200-250 supplementary ones, maybe?

[xenon]

Here's Yorkshire, with three Teesside constituencies traded for three in North Lincolnshire. There was a "wrong winner" situation here in 2019, with Labour winning the most seats but coming second behind the Tories on vote share, which is remedied here. This is the one of two regions where the Brexit Party cross the threshold and therefore pick up seats, including one in Barnsley (which was their strongest constituency in 2019). Another interesting point is that Hull East loses out on a Labour MP despite electing one in 2019 - incumbent MP Karl Turner was elected with the fewest votes for a winning candidate in England, and his party's votes are heavily diluted by the Tory stronghold of Beverley and Holderness, which recorded a far higher turnout. The results are:

Con: 25 (= vs FPTP), comprising 14 first mandates and 11 second mandates
Lab: 22 (-7 vs FPTP), comprising 13 first mandates and 9 second mandates
LD: 4 (+4 vs FPTP), all second mandates
Brex: 3 (+3 vs FPTP), all second mandates

[therealriga]

Jul 23, 2022 11:49:55 GMT Wisconsin said:

Jul 23, 2022 11:27:54 GMT therealriga said:

There's another issue which is that candidates, especially those from smaller parties, can finish 5th or even 6th in their constituency but get elected, whereas candidates from larger parties, who get much more votes in the same constituency and finish 2nd don't get elected. I really don't think it solves the "accountability" issue at all.

That feels slightly less problematic to me, somehow. I guess MPs for the smaller parties have to come from somewhere.

I wonder if these issues could be managed somehow by declaring all top-up MPs as formally being MPs for the region, and making it clear they have zero specific-constituency-level association/responsibilities

It feels like a huge problem to me. I'm a supporter of the XYZ party. However, I strongly dislike their candidate Joe Bloggs running in my home constituency. How exactly do I vote for the XYZ party without helping old Joe? It's impossible. Or maybe, to add to the fun, I vote for another party who get lots more votes, but Joe still gets in. Under open list PR, that's also an issue, but less of one since I can vote for his party colleagues instead of him (though my vote can still ultimately help him.) This, as I've said before, is why my preferred voting system is STV but I'm ok with AV or even FPTP. In all those voting systems my vote only helps elect those I've explicitly voted for.

[xenon]

Now for the East Midlands, which gains three seats in North Lincolnshire/South Humberside/Grimsbyshire, and in return loses High Peak, which should really be in the North West anyway. The Conservatives did won a majority of votes here in 2019 with a 55% share, although their seat share was inflated so much that they won over four out of every five seats. This majority status gives them four second mandates in seats that they already won a first mandate in, so in each of these constituencies the candidates's appointed substitute would take a seat as well as discussed earlier. The Greens would have picked up seat had the threshold not applied, with their strongest showing being in Leicester West and Gedling. The results were:

Con: 28 (-12 vs FPTP), comprising 24 first mandates and 4 second mandates
Lab: 16 (+8 vs FPTP), comprising 4 first mandates and 12 second mandates
LD: 4 (+4 vs FPTP), all second mandates

[xenon]

Moving next to the West Midlands, with the addition of the Forest of Dean to make for a nice round 60 seats. The Tories took three-quarters of the seats here in 2019, on roughly 54% of the vote, and therefore lose the most from the top-up system. The party retains a majority however, with five second mandates relying on substitute members to be filled. This is another region where the Greens would have picked up a singular seat if it wasn't for the threshold, although half of their strongest constituency is actually out of the region proper, as they gained just under 7% of the vote in the combined Forest of Dean and South Herefordshire seat. Three seats make do with one member apiece, another three have three apiece, and the remaining 24 have two apiece. The results are:

Con: 35 (-10 vs FPTP), comprising 24 first mandates and 11 second mandates
Lab: 21 (+6 vs FPTP), comprising 6 first mandates and 15 second mandates
LD: 4 (+4 vs FPTP), all second mandates

[xenon]

Now for Wales, with the 40 current constituencies pairing up nicely to free up 20 list seats. 🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️ has already had a go here, but on closer inspection it appears that they may have miscalculated some of the figures - according to the House of Commons Library results spreadsheet, which I'm using for this project, the Lib Dems and Brext Party both crossed the 5% threshold and as such are eligible for seats. Wikipedia also agrees, although their figures don't quite match mine. I've also gone for two slightly different pairings in what used to be Mid Glamorgan, with Bridgend merged with the Vale of Glamorgan, and Ogmore with Pontypridd. Labour's lead in seats over the Tories drops from 8 to just 2, with Plaid staying level and the smaller parties picking up two seats apiece. Three seats elected a singular MP each, another three elected a trio, and the remaining 14 elected a duet. The results were:

Lab: 17 (-5 vs FPTP), comprising 10 first mandates and 7 second mandates
Con: 15 (+1 vs FPTP), comprising 8 first mandates and 7 second mandates
PC: 4 (= vs FPTP), comprising 2 first mandates and 2 second mandates
LD: 2 (+2 vs FPTP), all second mandates
Brex: 2 (+2 vs FPTP), all second mandates

[xenon]

Moving on to the South West, which has 54 seats after the loss of Forest of Dean. All but one of the 27 constituency MPs have a Conservative plurality, with five of the seven seats that voted for Labour or the Lib Dems in 2019 turning blue thanks to a neighbouring seat tipping the balance in the Tories' favour. The Tories also pick up five top-up seats to reflect their majority of votes, including four second mandates. Labour are second and the Lib Dems just scrape into double figures on seats. The Greens are again below the threshold, but otherwise would have picked up two seats, one in Bristol West and North West, and another in Exeter and Central Devon. Three seats have a single MP each, another three have three each, and the rest (21 seats) have two each. The results were:

Con: 31 seats (-16 vs FPTP), comprising 26 first mandates and 5 second mandates
Lab: 13 seats (+7 vs FPTP), comprising 1 first mandate and 12 second mandates
LD: 10 seats (+9 vs FPTP), all second mandates

[xenon]

Here's the South East, the biggest region by population, and now home to 83 MPs after Epsom and Ewell is transferred to Greater London (a decision which I'm sure will go down well there). As Scotland has one more list seat than constituency, the situation is reversed here by keeping the Isle of Wight as a standalone constituency and reducing the number of top-up seats by one accordingly. The Conservatives are again dominant in terms of constituencies and are entitled to 11 top-up seats too, including 6 second mandates. Five seats go to the opposition parties, including the Lib Dems' first and so far only constituency seat in Oxford. The Green Party's vote share is the highest here of any region at just under 4%, however they still don't break the threshold and therefore won't be represented in parliament at all as they didn't win the combined Brighton seat either. Of course if this system was implemented then voting behaviour would likely be rather different, and the Greens probably would gain seats in a few regions, but there is no accurate way of predicting this so I think I'm best sticking to the actual figures. Three constituencies had one member each, two two had three each, and the remaining 38 had two each. The results were:

Con: 48 (-25 vs FPTP), comprising 37 first mandates and 11 second mandates
Lab: 19 (+11 vs FPTP), comprising 4 first mandates and 15 second mandates
LD: 16 (+15 vs FPTP), comprising 1 first mandate and 15 second mandates
Grn: 0 (-1 vs FPTP)

[xenon]

The next region is London, with 74 seats after Epsom and Ewell is added. Exactly half of these go to Labour, including a top-up seat in Richmond where they received just under 7% of the vote in 2019 - this is by some margin the lowest seat-winning share across the country. The Lib Dems are in double figures for a third region in a row, and several of the Tories' strongholds turn red due to the merging process (and partially due to me making a hash of the boundaries in Westminster). The Greens 'should' have won two seats without the threshold, one in Dulwich etc, and another in Hackney. Five seats had one member each, another five had three each, and the other 27 had two each. The results were:

Lab: 37 (-12 vs FPTP), comprising 27 first mandates and 10 second mandates
Con: 26 (+4 vs FPTP), comprising 9 first mandates and 17 second mandates
LD: 11 (+8 vs FPTP), comprising 1 first mandate and 10 second mandates

[Pete Whitehead]

Aug 6, 2022 14:30:29 GMT xenon said:

The next region is London, with 74 seats after Epsom and Ewell is added. Exactly half of these go to Labour, including a top-up seat in Richmond where they received just under 7% of the vote in 2019 - this is by some margin the lowest seat-winning share across the country. The Lib Dems are in double figures for a third region in a row, and several of the Tories' strongholds turn red due to the merging process (and partially due to me making a hash of the boundaries in Westminster). The Greens 'should' have won two seats without the threshold, one in Dulwich etc, and another in Hackney. Five seats had one member each, another five had three each, and the other 27 had two each. The results were:

Lab: 37 (-12 vs FPTP), comprising 27 first mandates and 10 second mandates
Con: 26 (+4 vs FPTP), comprising 9 first mandates and 17 second mandates
LD: 11 (+8 vs FPTP), comprising 1 first mandate and 10 second mandates

I've scanend therough your other maps and I think this is the only case where a constituency elected an MP from a party in RL but didn't win even a second mandate in this system (aprt from Brighton Pavilion, and that is only because of the regional threshold). It is certainly counterintuitve that the cities find themselves in this situation but I suppose a consequence of a low electorate in that seat and a low turnout and low winning share, in contrast with Holborn & St Pancras on all counts (plus I suppose the oddity of the area producing one of the better Lib Dem results, although they polled fewer votes than the Conservatives.)
The solution to the 'problem' would be to keep the two Westminster seats and the two Camden seats together. Have Finchley & Chipping Barnet, Hendon & Brent North, Brent Central & Hammersmith, Chelsea & Fulham & Kensington.
N ot all of those are ideal but inevitably there are lots of sub-optimal pairings in this scheme.
I also wonder about the possibilities of including Spelthorne within the Greater London plan rather than Epsom & Ewll, though it wouldn't make any difference to the central London seats

[Pete Whitehead]

I mean where the second mandates come from in a sense doesn't matter if one regards them purely as regional members rather than constituency member as I believe should be the case (and the Richmond situation illustrates that starkly, although I'm slightly confused why Labour wouldn't win second mandates in eg. Newham or Hackney before winning one there?)