|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 19, 2020 20:15:58 GMT
When I tried 58 seats for the West Midlands (regional allocation under 650 seats) with a 5% variance, It calculates the quota at 68,781 (which is correct), but still gives me an allowed range of 71,031 to 78,507. Does this mean that I'll have to manually input the allowed range if I use a non-standard number of seats? If so, there needs to be some kind of warning that you'll have to manually change the range if you change the number of seats. I got quite a way into my plan before I realised that it had done that.
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on Feb 19, 2020 20:39:44 GMT
When I tried 58 seats for the West Midlands (regional allocation under 650 seats) with a 5% variance, It calculates the quota at 68,781 (which is correct), but still gives me an allowed range of 71,031 to 78,507. Does this mean that I'll have to manually input the allowed range if I use a non-standard number of seats? If so, there needs to be some kind of warning that you'll have to manually change the range if you change the number of seats. I got quite a way into my plan before I realised that it had done that. i ran into this. Its actually rather simple to deal with. Simply change the deviation range and put in a space or click on another input. Its not that much of a hassle once you learn how to combat it.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 19, 2020 20:44:14 GMT
When I tried 58 seats for the West Midlands (regional allocation under 650 seats) with a 5% variance, It calculates the quota at 68,781 (which is correct), but still gives me an allowed range of 71,031 to 78,507. Does this mean that I'll have to manually input the allowed range if I use a non-standard number of seats? If so, there needs to be some kind of warning that you'll have to manually change the range if you change the number of seats. I got quite a way into my plan before I realised that it had done that. i ran into this. Its actually rather simple to deal with. Simply change the deviation range and put in a space or click on another input. Its not that much of a hassle once you learn how to combat it. Thanks for the workaround. It's still very much something that will lead to user confusion, though.
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Feb 19, 2020 21:17:51 GMT
My browsers or connection still seem to think the site is down, for some reason. Glad to see the rest of you appear to have got it working though. Enjoy! Try updating any bookmarks or favourites to point to boundaryassistant.org/index.htmlIf that doesn't work and you are still seeing the holding page try pressing Ctrl+F5 (Windows) or Cmd+R (Mac).
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Feb 19, 2020 21:30:16 GMT
i ran into this. Its actually rather simple to deal with. Simply change the deviation range and put in a space or click on another input. Its not that much of a hassle once you learn how to combat it. Thanks for the workaround. It's still very much something that will lead to user confusion, though. After changing the number of seats and changing the Variation type selection from Fixed to Percent the Minimum and Maximum electorates should change automatically.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,478
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 19, 2020 22:06:24 GMT
I never said I *liked* it particularly. It does make a sort of sense though IMO <tin hat on> Still prefer my Tyne Tunnel proposal! Two scientists lost in the swirling maze of past and future ages, Doug and Tony tumble helplessly through history... Oh, TYNE Tunnel.
|
|
mondialito
Labour
Everything is horribly, brutally possible.
Posts: 4,957
|
Post by mondialito on Feb 19, 2020 23:11:44 GMT
London under AMS - 46 Constituencies, Quota 111,280, 10% Variance.
|
|
|
Post by tiberius on Feb 20, 2020 9:54:38 GMT
should we have a dedicated regional legislature thread at this point?
|
|
|
Post by Robert Waller on Feb 20, 2020 10:31:21 GMT
My browsers or connection still seem to think the site is down, for some reason. Glad to see the rest of you appear to have got it working though. Enjoy! Try updating any bookmarks or favourites to point to boundaryassistant.org/index.htmlIf that doesn't work and you are still seeing the holding page try pressing Ctrl+F5 (Windows) or Cmd+R (Mac). Thanks, I can see this now. However, what I used this site for was the Census statistics for each ward. Can anyone tell me whether these may still be so easily available anywhere, please?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 20, 2020 10:38:31 GMT
kevinlarkin I don't want to appear greedy, but is there any plan to replicate the sections you had previously on census figures and on local elections results? I know this is peripheral to the purpose of the site but I always found the census maps particularly to be an invaluable quick reference guide, even though the ward boundaries have changed in a lot of areas since 2011
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Feb 20, 2020 10:47:58 GMT
Try updating any bookmarks or favourites to point to boundaryassistant.org/index.htmlIf that doesn't work and you are still seeing the holding page try pressing Ctrl+F5 (Windows) or Cmd+R (Mac). Thanks, I can see this now. However, what I used this site for was the Census statistics for each ward. Can anyone tell me whether these may still be so easily available anywhere, please? datashine.org.uk has all of the data but it's more designed for comparing wards than looking at all the figures from one ward in particular.
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Feb 21, 2020 18:15:17 GMT
I do intend to recreate the Census Statistics maps, probably within the next few weeks. As far as the election results go I am going to take a look at the results crowd-sourced by Democracy Club to see if they are complete and reliable enough.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 21, 2020 22:30:54 GMT
I never said I *liked* it particularly. It does make a sort of sense though IMO <tin hat on> I can see that argument - I grew up in the Gateshead bit of it (actually mostly when it was in Tyne Bridge constituency) and my area had far more in common with Newcastle city centre than some of the estates on the periphery of Gateshead like Harlow Green or Windy Nook. Ethnically diverse, a younger than average population, good qualifications but not so good jobs - that could describe the West End of Newcastle just as well as Bridges or Saltwell in Gateshead. So I can see why the seat is logical. It just rubs me up the wrong way for reasons I can't place. It'd be like combining the centres of Stockton and Middlesbrough together, or adding the South Bank to Cities of London and Westminster. Potentially logical, but not reflective of traditional ties. Mixing proximities to Smogsville and Westminster, South Bank and South Bank would be a great seat.
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Feb 21, 2020 22:33:01 GMT
I can see that argument - I grew up in the Gateshead bit of it (actually mostly when it was in Tyne Bridge constituency) and my area had far more in common with Newcastle city centre than some of the estates on the periphery of Gateshead like Harlow Green or Windy Nook. Ethnically diverse, a younger than average population, good qualifications but not so good jobs - that could describe the West End of Newcastle just as well as Bridges or Saltwell in Gateshead. So I can see why the seat is logical. It just rubs me up the wrong way for reasons I can't place. It'd be like combining the centres of Stockton and Middlesbrough together, or adding the South Bank to Cities of London and Westminster. Potentially logical, but not reflective of traditional ties. The centres of Gateshead and Newcastle face each other across the bridge(s). The same cannot be said of the centres of Stockton and Middlesbrough. OTOH, combining the centres of Manchester and Salford might work (runs for cover ...) The city centre of Salford is Manchester.
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Feb 22, 2020 7:34:30 GMT
The centres of Gateshead and Newcastle face each other across the bridge(s). The same cannot be said of the centres of Stockton and Middlesbrough. OTOH, combining the centres of Manchester and Salford might work (runs for cover ...) The city centre of Salford is Manchester. alternatively, of course , the city centre of Manchester is Salford these days... one might even be able to argue the city centre of Newcastle is Gateshead, just as the city centre of London is obviously Westminster....now how many more of you can I annoy?
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 22, 2020 7:50:29 GMT
I think you've long since achieved saturation point on that score
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 22, 2020 13:39:35 GMT
I've noticed a bug. The assigned average is sometimes wrong. For instance, let's assign 88 seats to the South East of England and give ourselves an 8% deviation. Then let's create eight constituencies in Buckinghamshire (7.78), seven in Oxfordshire (6.69), and nine in Berkshire (8.52). In total, we've assigned 1,585,544 electors to 24 constituencies for an average of 66,064. But the Plan Builder tells us the assigned average is 68,937 (i.e. 1,585,544 divided by 23).
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Feb 23, 2020 14:12:06 GMT
I've noticed a bug. The assigned average is sometimes wrong. For instance, let's assign 88 seats to the South East of England and give ourselves an 8% deviation. Then let's create eight constituencies in Buckinghamshire (7.78), seven in Oxfordshire (6.69), and nine in Berkshire (8.52). In total, we've assigned 1,585,544 electors to 24 constituencies for an average of 66,064. But the Plan Builder tells us the assigned average is 68,937 (i.e. 1,585,544 divided by 23). I haven't been able to replicate this. My 24 seat plan for Oxon/Berks/Bucks shows an assigned average of 66,064 as expected. There may be some particular workflow that causes the number of assigned seats to be miscounted but I haven't been able to find it. And yes, I do know that I have made a right mess of Berksire.
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Feb 23, 2020 14:24:54 GMT
I have had to turn off the background mapping, at least temporarily. MapBox who provide the imagery allow up to 750,000 tile requests per month for free. I thought this would be comfortably enough for our purposes but the limit has been exceeded after just five days. At the current rate of usage it would cost several hundred dollars per month.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Feb 24, 2020 13:39:37 GMT
I've noticed a bug. The assigned average is sometimes wrong. For instance, let's assign 88 seats to the South East of England and give ourselves an 8% deviation. Then let's create eight constituencies in Buckinghamshire (7.78), seven in Oxfordshire (6.69), and nine in Berkshire (8.52). In total, we've assigned 1,585,544 electors to 24 constituencies for an average of 66,064. But the Plan Builder tells us the assigned average is 68,937 (i.e. 1,585,544 divided by 23). I haven't been able to replicate this. My 24 seat plan for Oxon/Berks/Bucks shows an assigned average of 66,064 as expected. There may be some particular workflow that causes the number of assigned seats to be miscounted but I haven't been able to find it. And yes, I do know that I have made a right mess of Berksire. I wasn't trying to, but I have replicated the problem. It seems to occur if you are re-assigning a ward or wards which have already been previously assigned. Therefore if I complete the current six seats in Bedfordshire and then start creating a seventh in that area, the average remains the same. If I then add a ward from outside the area (ie it has not previously been counted towards the total) only then does it change the averarge to reflect the increased number of seats
|
|