750 seat House of Commons

[uthacalthing]

I have no objection to 750, but I see no additional merit to it over any other integer between 400-800

Any proposal invites the question "why FPTP"? We have rehearsed this at length and I favour FPTP. Any proposal invites the question of reform of the upper chamber. We have rehearsed this at length and I favour something complex and long winded. Not simply anything complex and long winded. I have a specific proposal. 

I remind the forum of the xenon/uthacalthing fractional electoral system. You draw up boundaries based on history geography and  local government with only a passing nod to making them similar sized. Anything perhaps from 0.1 quota  to 2.0 quota.  But the MPs once elected cast votes in the HoC in relation to the size of thier electorate, ie between 0.1 and 2.0 votes each.  

[J.G.Harston]

Jan 9, 2024 19:46:24 GMT uthacalthing said:

I have no objection to 750, but I see no additional merit to it over any other integer between 400-800

Any proposal invites the question "why FPTP"? We have rehearsed this at length and I favour FPTP. Any proposal invites the question of reform of the upper chamber. We have rehearsed this at length and I favour something complex and long winded. Not simply anything complex and long winded. I have a specific proposal. 

I remind the forum of the xenon /uthacalthing fractional electoral system. You draw up boundaries based on history geography and  local government with only a passing nod to making them similar sized. Anything perhaps from 0.1 quota  to 2.0 quota.  But the MPs once elected cast votes in the HoC in relation to the size of thier electorate, ie between 0.1 and 2.0 votes each.  

I propose 750 constituences, each of which will elect 5 electors each, those 3750 people will elect 250 people from amongst themselves, who will each propose ten people each from the general population, from that 2500 people 500 shall be chosen, and they shall then pick 50 from amongst themselves to form the government.

[xenon]

Jan 9, 2024 19:46:24 GMT uthacalthing said:

I have no objection to 750, but I see no additional merit to it over any other integer between 400-800

Any proposal invites the question "why FPTP"? We have rehearsed this at length and I favour FPTP. Any proposal invites the question of reform of the upper chamber. We have rehearsed this at length and I favour something complex and long winded. Not simply anything complex and long winded. I have a specific proposal. 

I remind the forum of the xenon/uthacalthing fractional electoral system. You draw up boundaries based on history geography and  local government with only a passing nod to making them similar sized. Anything perhaps from 0.1 quota  to 2.0 quota.  But the MPs once elected cast votes in the HoC in relation to the size of thier electorate, ie between 0.1 and 2.0 votes each.  

This old chestnut! I suppose in a way it's a natural extension of what the Boundary Commissions used to do until the 1970s – county boundaries were considered sacrosanct, including even daft nonsense like the East Dunbartonshire exclave. The consensus now is that as large a variation in electorate as would be required if we'd kept that system is unacceptable, so counties and district boundaries must be breached to even things up.

Maybe it wouldn't have taken too much to swing it the other way into thinking that protecting counties came first (i.e. if the boundaries hadn't been ripped up post 1974), and that electorates should be equalised by other means – and fractional votes might just be that method. Thatcher would have loved it I'm sure – it's as if each MP represents the "shares" of their constituents in the "boardroom" of Parliament! Silliness aside, Germany do perform a more simplified version of this in their upper house with each state government getting 3 to 6 (I think) votes based on population – maybe this is exactly what your complex and long winded Lords reform needs!

[kvasir]

I was just wondering if this project wad going to get finished? It looks pretty close.

[Pete Whitehead]

I've felt compelled to do some background research on some parts of Bedfordshire with which I'm relatively unfamiliar as I'm aware those profiles are overdue. It won't take me long to post the remainder of the maps for this project though - they're all done and just need uploading..

[Pete Whitehead]

A few comments about the plans in the West Midlands.
I've ahd to cross some county boundaries here. Warwickshire really doesn't work with 7 seats and Coventry/Solihull would have been awkward too so I've treated them together (all historical Warwickshire anyway). Not entirely happy with the seats there but better than it might have been.
I've also had to cross the boundary between Herefordshire and Worcestershire, which can sort of be justified on the basis that Hereford & Worcester was a thing - again not espcially happy about it.

In Shropshire, the two UAs could have been treated separately with Telford & The Wrekin having two seats and Shroshire four. The former worked fine but it left things as awkward in Shropshire so I treated the whole county as one.

All the current Black Country seats are in quota on this system. I've made one boundary change only in the Dudley area and otherwise gone in for a bit of name changes.

Birmingham could doubtless be improved with a bit of ward splitting, but I'm fairly happy with what I've done there while avoiding doing that.

[Foggy]

I'd call the NE Shropshire seat 'Drayton' – we all know where the *real* Wellington is!

[WJ]

Shropshire is pretty good. You've attached Highley to Bridgnorth which is a bit problematic as it is cut off from the rest of the constituency by the Severn- there are no bridges between Bridgnorth and Bewdley, other than by the heritage railway.

I don't know what the numbers are like but you'd almost be better off swapping Much Wenlock for Highley, given the formers strong links with both Broseley and Bridgnorth.

[Pete Whitehead]

Northamptonshire is sub-optimal - not helped by the large ward sizes there, but I think 8 seats just doesn't work well there

[Pete Whitehead]

Yorkshire & Humberside is always tricky due to the size of wards - particularly in Leeds and Sheffield, but also in the East Riding. In this case the East Riding turned out fine (without even having to cross the boundary with Hull) and the North Lincolnshire boroughs can be treated separately (had they not been, I would have linked them with Lincolnshire rather than the East Riding).
Leeds and Sheffield required ward splits however which are rather ill-defined here - had this been a real-life exercise I would have taken some trouble to get polling distict data









Horsforth split between the Otley and Pudsey seats, Ardsley & Robin Hood split between Morley and Leeds South




Manor Castle split between Sheffield Central and Heeley, Darnall split between Brightside and South East

[Foggy]

What is seat #2 in West Yorkshire actually meant to be called? There's only one Cleethorpes (thank goodness)!

[YL]

Mar 18, 2024 17:23:30 GMT Foggy said:

What is seat #2 in West Yorkshire actually meant to be called? There's only one Cleethorpes (thank goodness)!

I would be very surprised if the answer were not "Hemsworth".

[kvasir]

Splitting Horsforth would go down very very badly, definitely pitchfork territory. I'm curious what other options were considered that would be more palatable for the locals?

[Pete Whitehead]

Mar 22, 2024 9:43:50 GMT kvasir said:

Splitting Horsforth would go down very very badly, definitely pitchfork territory. I'm curious what other options were considered that would be more palatable for the locals?

I note the ward and parish boundaries are not the same so it might be possible to avoid pitchforks. I can't find electorate figures for polling districts, but essentially most of Horsforthwould be in Pudsey and you'd need to move just under 4k voters to Otley. The part of the ward which is in Rawdon parish could happily go into the Otley seat but probably wouldn't be enough so maybe the Northern fringes of Horsforth itself, around Leeds Trinity.
An alternative which could be better would be to move Armley into the Pudsey seat and Adel & Wharfedale into Leeds NW which makes the latter a bit more cohesive (electorate 66561) then all of Horsforth in the Otley seat (Otley/Guiseley & Rawdon/Horsforth = 55098) Pudsey would have the same boundaries then as the new proposed constituency of Pudsey & Leeds West or whatever its called but would be 374 over quota. So if you shifted Calverley into the Otley seat that should cover it. Probably a better plan overall

[kvasir]

Mar 22, 2024 10:45:25 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Mar 22, 2024 9:43:50 GMT kvasir said:

Splitting Horsforth would go down very very badly, definitely pitchfork territory. I'm curious what other options were considered that would be more palatable for the locals?

I note the ward and parish boundaries are not the same so it might be possible to avoid pitchforks. I can't find electorate figures for polling districts, but essentially most of Horsforthwould be in Pudsey and you'd need to move just under 4k voters to Otley. The part of the ward which is in Rawdon parish could happily go into the Otley seat but probably wouldn't be enough so maybe the Northern fringes of Horsforth itself, around Leeds Trinity.
An alternative which could be better would be to move Armley into the Pudsey seat and Adel & Wharfedale into Leeds NW which makes the latter a bit more cohesive (electorate 66561) then all of Horsforth in the Otley seat (Otley/Guiseley & Rawdon/Horsforth = 55098) Pudsey would have the same boundaries then as the new proposed constituency of Pudsey & Leeds West or whatever its called but would be 374 over quota. So if you shifted Calverley into the Otley seat that should cover it. Probably a better plan overall

I agree that there is Hosforth and then there is Hosforth, so, as is so often the case, the details would matter.

I do think 750 seats with 10% tolerance does produce a better map. Shame it probably wouldn't ever happen but a very interesting exercise.

[Pete Whitehead]

Sorry about Washington, but something had to give

[Pete Whitehead]

One or two split wards in Scotland but not too many. Western Isles is included in the West Highlands seat - it looks like Orkney & Shetland continues to be a protected seat. I can't remember my thinking at the time





Leven goes into the Kirkcaldy seat to bring NE Fife into quota
Although not necessary for the numbers, I'd split the Monifieth & Sidlaw ward between Dundees East and West





Peebles & Lanark should just be called Peebles, based on the minor detail that it doesn't include Lanark..
Alternatively swap Clydesdale North and Clydesdale South which looks like it makes more sense on the ground.  Rename the Lanark seat Wishaw & Larkhall or something

It looks like I've split Hillhead between Glasgows Central and Maryhill

[johnloony]

Mar 24, 2024 8:12:23 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

One or two split wards in Scotland but not too many. Western Isles is included in the West Highlands seat - it looks like Orkney & Shetland continues to be a protected seat. I can't remember my thinking at the time

Methinks a Western Highlands constituency as big as that wouldn’t include the Western Isles if it’s only got an electorate of 43k (?)

[Pete Whitehead]

Mar 24, 2024 12:26:50 GMT johnloony said:

Mar 24, 2024 8:12:23 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

One or two split wards in Scotland but not too many. Western Isles is included in the West Highlands seat - it looks like Orkney & Shetland continues to be a protected seat. I can't remember my thinking at the time

Methinks a Western Highlands constituency as big as that wouldn’t include the Western Isles if it’s only got an electorate of 43k (?)

It hasn't got an electorate of 43k. It has an electorate of 43k pluse the c 20k of the Western Isles, thus bringing it within the electoral quota