|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 4, 2021 21:18:12 GMT
Seeing as I've done most of the South East in the 360 game, I might as well try the leftover bit – Surrey and Sussex: 1 Staines 133610 Yes 2 Woking 138089 Yes 3 Guildford 132863 Yes 4 Esher 132149 Yes 5 Crawley and Godalming 128124 Yes (truly awful, but it makes everything else work) 6 Epsom 135520 Yes 7 Reigate 134045 Yes 8 Worthing 132521 Yes 9 Arundel 126846 Yes 10 Chichester 128427 Yes 11 Horsham 137877 Yes 12 Brighton West and Hove 138643 Yes 13 Brighton East and Lewes 129066 Yes 14 Eastbourne 129792 Yes 15 Crowborough 126730 Yes 16 Hastings 138424 Yes
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 4, 2021 21:37:20 GMT
So far, the 360 member House of Commons seat models seem to have produced very good seats. In some cases with less issues than the 650 seat models within a relatively small tolerance. Perhaps 360 is the way forward! There's very good, and then there's this: the 360 version of Cumbria. Within one ward of no district splits. Almost perfect, even. 1 West Cumbria 129367 Yes 2 East Cumbria 129568 Yes 3 South Cumbria 130782 Yes
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 4, 2021 21:41:05 GMT
So far, the 360 member House of Commons seat models seem to have produced very good seats. In some cases with less issues than the 650 seat models within a relatively small tolerance. Perhaps 360 is the way forward! Well, they could be the directly elected members, then the rest elected from a national list to ensure proportionality. Or better still, sack off the idea of lists and award the remaining 290 seats to the best-performing candidates (by either percentage or raw vote total) from all qualifying parties. Alternatively, keep the idea of a 360-seat House of Commons and do decentralisation within England properly, simultaneously and in a uniform way, without any directly elected executive "mayors".
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 4, 2021 23:25:42 GMT
Well, they could be the directly elected members, then the rest elected from a national list to ensure proportionality. Or better still, sack off the idea of lists and award the remaining 290 seats to the best-performing candidates (by either percentage or raw vote total) from all qualifying parties. Alternatively, keep the idea of a 360-seat House of Commons and do decentralisation within England properly, simultaneously and in a uniform way, without any directly elected executive "mayors". I want proportional representation and personally I prefer list systems. Not convinced about localism though certainly there needs to be a far more uniform and streamlined system
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 4, 2021 23:35:47 GMT
Or better still, sack off the idea of lists and award the remaining 290 seats to the best-performing candidates (by either percentage or raw vote total) from all qualifying parties. Alternatively, keep the idea of a 360-seat House of Commons and do decentralisation within England properly, simultaneously and in a uniform way, without any directly elected executive "mayors". I want proportional representation and personally I prefer list systems. Not convinced about localism though certainly there needs to be a far more uniform and streamlined system List PR is definitely better than that awful Irish tactical undernomination system, but I dislike any electoral system that creates incentives for coming third. All too often it turns into two main parties with genuine popular support (and not just elites) squabbling to earn the support of an out-of-touch third party whose support barely extends outside elites. The other side winning outright is better than some grubby compromise that gives away swathes of policy to a manifesto that very few people voted for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2021 23:56:22 GMT
So far, the 360 member House of Commons seat models seem to have produced very good seats. In some cases with less issues than the 650 seat models within a relatively small tolerance. Perhaps 360 is the way forward! There's very good, and then there's this: the 360 version of Cumbria. Within one ward of no district splits. Almost perfect, even. 1 West Cumbria 129367 Yes 2 East Cumbria 129568 Yes 3 South Cumbria 130782 Yes That is beautiful. My provisional Lancashire encroached into Cumbria but I'll happily amend it. I love that we've accidentally stumbled on a way to proportionally divide the country on the eve of watching the Boundary Commission do the complete opposite!
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Feb 5, 2021 7:33:01 GMT
I want proportional representation and personally I prefer list systems. Not convinced about localism though certainly there needs to be a far more uniform and streamlined system List PR is definitely better than that awful Irish tactical undernomination system, but I dislike any electoral system that creates incentives for coming third. All too often it turns into two main parties with genuine popular support (and not just elites) squabbling to earn the support of an out-of-touch third party whose support barely extends outside elites. The other side winning outright is better than some grubby compromise that gives away swathes of policy to a manifesto that very few people voted for. I agree. I don't like preference systems. A blend of FOTP for constituency and top up list doesn't give that incentive but it does in most countries give a wider range of parties - and looking at the main two right now it would be hard to argue that provides a reasonable choice.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,019
|
Post by ilerda on Feb 5, 2021 11:36:45 GMT
Doncaster was playing up and will probably have to take on around 40,000 from another district, and Kirklees is somehow still an nightmare, but here's a plan for the easier bits of South and West Yorkshire. 1 Sheffield West 132351 Yes 2 Sheffield North 127346 Yes 3 Sheffield South 137558 Yes 4 Barnsley and Stocksbridge 133331 Yes 5 Wentworth and Dearne 128266 Yes 6 Rotherham 129532 Yes 7 Wakefield 130656 Yes 8 Pontefract 126307 Yes I actually think Sheffield divides quite well like this, and it's nice to keep all of Barnsley (town not borough) in one seat.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,019
|
Post by ilerda on Feb 5, 2021 14:40:45 GMT
Not my best work, but at least it works. The area around York was particularly tricky. At one point I had a Vale of York seat that included wards from 5 different local authorities and stretched from Richmond to Market Weighton. I'm also annoyed I had to put a Holderness ward in with Hull, but it was the only way to keep any sense of coherence with Selby's seat. And the Bradford South is a sad reflection of the fact that neither Kirklees or Calderdale had a nice round number. Unfortunately I had to scrap the neat Pontefract seat from earlier as it left Doncaster with nowhere to go for it's extra half a seat. 1 Derwent 130739 Yes 2 York 128320 Yes 3 Hull West and Haltemprice 130593 Yes 4 Bridlington 131391 Yes 5 Hull East 125854 Yes 6 Scarborough and Malton 127325 Yes 7 Ripon and Richmond 137091 Yes 8 Harrogate and Skipton 130918 Yes 9 Scunthorpe and Goole 128599 Yes 10 Grimsby and Cleethorpes 134338 Yes 11 Doncaster 134503 Yes 12 Doncaster North and Hemsworth 135654 Yes 13 Castleford and Rothwell 138761 Yes 14 Wakefield 130656 Yes 15 Leeds South 137022 Yes 16 Leeds West and Wharfedale 131347 Yes 17 Leeds Central 126911 Yes 18 Leeds North East 135109 Yes 19 Bradford West and Keighley 126517 Yes 20 Bradford North and Shipley 133916 Yes 21 Bradford South and Spen 137508 Yes 22 Dewsbury 135699 Yes 23 Halifax 132275 Yes 24 Huddersfield 137070 Yes 25 Barnsley and Stocksbridge 133331 Yes 26 Wentworth and Dearne 128266 Yes 27 Rotherham 129532 Yes 28 Sheffield South 137558 Yes 29 Sheffield North 127346 Yes 30 Sheffield West 132351 Yes
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 6, 2021 11:17:17 GMT
Let's start the South West in the 360 game. First up Gloucestershire and Bristol: 1 Tewkesbury 126308 Yes 2 Cheltenham 128124 Yes 3 Cirencester 126049 Yes 4 Gloucester 128780 Yes 5 Kingswood 135635 Yes 6 Bristol North West 128976 Yes 7 Bristol North East 131282 Yes 8 Bristol South 126889 Yes
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 6, 2021 11:27:05 GMT
And Wiltshire isn't exactly a challenge: 1 Swindon 131718 Yes 2 Chippenham 135070 Yes 3 Devizes 138250 Yes 4 Salisbury 128476 Yes
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 6, 2021 11:45:46 GMT
And finally for this morning, Somerset and Dorset: 1 North Somerset 130870 Yes 2 Bath and Frome 134648 Yes 3 Wells 131443 Yes 4 Bridgwater and Weston-super-Mare 132110 Yes (probably too pitchforky just to call this one Burnham) 5 Taunton 126173 Yes 6 Yeovil and North Dorset 129184 Yes 7 South Dorset 138677 Yes 8 East Dorset 130531 Yes (again, tempting the pitchforks by not mentioning Christchurch) 9 Poole 131513 Yes 10 Bournemouth 133622 Yes
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 6, 2021 11:46:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 6, 2021 12:23:24 GMT
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,309
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 6, 2021 13:04:18 GMT
Let's start the South West in the 360 game. First up Gloucestershire and Bristol: 1 Tewkesbury 126308 Yes 2 Cheltenham 128124 Yes 3 Cirencester 126049 Yes 4 Gloucester 128780 Yes 5 Kingswood 135635 Yes 6 Bristol North West 128976 Yes 7 Bristol North East 131282 Yes 8 Bristol South 126889 Yes That's pretty much the old Gloucestershire West re-created. And I think that seat would actually have to be named "Gloucester and Stroud" - might cause pitchforks in any event
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 6, 2021 15:03:38 GMT
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Feb 11, 2021 8:19:54 GMT
Well, they could be the directly elected members, then the rest elected from a national list to ensure proportionality. Or better still, sack off the idea of lists and award the remaining 290 seats to the best-performing candidates (by either percentage or raw vote total) from all qualifying parties. Alternatively, keep the idea of a 360-seat House of Commons and do decentralisation within England properly, simultaneously and in a uniform way, without any directly elected executive "mayors".
I've long been an advocate of 'auto-lists' consisting of the highest-polling runners-up as an alternative to party lists, which I consider to be one of the most undemocratic psephological features ever devised.
Following the last Euro elections I resolved to never again vote in any election that used a party list system. A system that requires not only tactical voting but second-guessing thousands of other electors and risks electing candidates you don't like but failing to elect candidates you prefer is utterly beyond the pale for me.
If this country ever has another election based on party lists, they're going to need a bigger ballot paper to accommodate the massive cock and balls with which I plan to spoil it.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 11, 2021 8:28:27 GMT
Or better still, sack off the idea of lists and award the remaining 290 seats to the best-performing candidates (by either percentage or raw vote total) from all qualifying parties. Alternatively, keep the idea of a 360-seat House of Commons and do decentralisation within England properly, simultaneously and in a uniform way, without any directly elected executive "mayors".
I've long been an advocate of 'auto-lists' consisting of the highest-polling runners-up as an alternative to party lists, which I consider to be one of the most undemocratic psephological features ever devised.
Following the last Euro elections I resolved to never again vote in any election that used a party list system. A system that requires not only tactical voting but second-guessing thousands of other electors and risks electing candidates you don't like but failing to elect candidates you prefer is utterly beyond the pale for me.
If this country ever has another election based on party lists, they're going to need a bigger ballot paper to accommodate the massive cock and balls with which I plan to spoil it.
The sentence in bold could, of course, also be used to describe SV, which is set to be very much in use in England and Wales in May. I'm not as vehemently against closed lists as you are, but I'll always put forward a no-list 'best of the rest' system as a superior but still semi-proportional alternative for those who find them equally disdainful.
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Feb 11, 2021 8:39:34 GMT
I've long been an advocate of 'auto-lists' consisting of the highest-polling runners-up as an alternative to party lists, which I consider to be one of the most undemocratic psephological features ever devised.
Following the last Euro elections I resolved to never again vote in any election that used a party list system. A system that requires not only tactical voting but second-guessing thousands of other electors and risks electing candidates you don't like but failing to elect candidates you prefer is utterly beyond the pale for me.
If this country ever has another election based on party lists, they're going to need a bigger ballot paper to accommodate the massive cock and balls with which I plan to spoil it.
The sentence in bold could, of course, also be used to describe SV, which is set to be very much in use in England and Wales in May. I'm not as vehemently against closed lists as you are, but I'll always put forward a no-list 'best of the rest' system as a superior but still semi-proportional alternative for those who find them equally disdainful.
I think it's less of a problem with SV because you typically only have one candidate per party.
The real problem I have with party lists is basically this situation:
- You are a soft supporter of a party and plan to vote for them. They have a list of ten candidates on their list, where the candidate at the top is pretty much a shoe-in and the one at the bottom is essentially the most papery of paper candidates ever.
- The candidate in the second spot on the list is someone you absolutely fucking despise. The third candidate is one you like and admire and would like to see elected.
- The candidate you like cannot be elected unless the candidate you hate is also elected BUT the candidate you hate can win without the candidate you actually like getting in.
- To increase the chances of the candidate you like being elected you must cast a vote that increases the chance of the candidate you dislike being elected TO A GREATER DEGREE.
- Voting for the party risks a situation where the candidate you don't like is elected but the one you don't like is not.
Now I know that there are arguments along the lines of 'most people don't care about the individuals and just choose a party and can't even name their MP etc.' but willfully uninformed voters are no excuse for horrible systems and will likely always exist in number whatever system is used and, more importantly, they won't care about the system anyway by their very definition. Meanwhile the voters who are a bit more clued up are potentially subjected to an absolutely tortuous catch-22.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Long may it rain
Posts: 5,501
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 11, 2021 8:52:26 GMT
Hmm, it sounds like you're making the case for multi-member FPTP, STV or (gasp!) a dreaded open list system, rather than list-free AMS there.
Oh, and shoo-ins have nothing to do with footwear.
|
|