|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jun 22, 2016 21:39:43 GMT
Thank you Islington, I am obsessed about no split wards
And no, I already tried Glasgow no split wards and it was impossible
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jun 22, 2016 21:42:07 GMT
Thank you Islington, I am obsessed about no split wards And no, I already tried Glasgow no split wards and it was impossible No offence but are you really 13? I was interested in elections at that age but not quite to the extent of split wards. |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jun 22, 2016 21:58:50 GMT
Yes I was born 12/12/02 (it's great, isn't it) so I am 13 and about 2/3.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 24, 2016 8:27:09 GMT
Well, as I just said on another thread, I'm not sure whether anyone is listening - and in point of fact, I'm not sure of quite a lot of things such as when the next GE will be, whether these boundaries will ever be used, and what the future holds for our Union - but let me plough on regardless.   SC-A (Highland, Moray, Argyll & Bute, W Duns): 374143 = 5.00 = 5I've kept the reciprocal ward-split arrangement that the BCS devised in the zombie review to get the northernmost mainland seat below the 13000 sq km limit. I think this is justified by the unique characteristics of this area and it serves the dual function of (i) reducing the area of the Northern Highland seat (as I suggest calling it), and (ii) giving the Inverness seat a direct link to Skye. It's important to be clear that this swap is about exchanging territory, not people; in numerical terms, the swaps almost cancel out and the result (on the zombie electorates) was a net shift of only 36 electors from Inverness to Northern Highland (for estimating purposes I've simply carried this figure forward this time - of course this is an unrealistic assumption, but it would have to be in error by a matter of thousands for the arrangement not to work). ARGYLL - 74624. WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE - 72650. To get the numbers up I had to take a large bite out of Helensburgh. Unfortunately this will be the first of several Scottish town to suffer in this way. All I can say is that a boundary that carves off a large chunk of a town is clearly a bad thing, but if it leaves most of the town, including its central area, in the same seat, that's not so bad (to my mind) as driving a boundary right through the middle (although I've had to do that once or twice as well). In this case, substantial parts of Helensburgh are in this seat but the main part of the town is clearly in the Argyll seat. INVERNESS - 75814 (est). Or 'Inverness and Skye', but please, not a lengthy catalogue of places as with the current seat. MORAY AND NAIRN - 78477. The second-highest electorate in the entire UK. NORTHERN HIGHLANDS - 72578 (est). |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 24, 2016 8:53:58 GMT
Continuing with Scotland ...  SC-B (Aberdeenshire, Angus, Dundee): 382204 = 5.11 = 5BANFF AND BUCHAN - 77582. My thanks to AJT for this one. DUNDEE - 77612. Two wards of the city need to be excluded from this seat; it seems logical to take the two most inland. FORFAR - 76693 GORDON AND DEESIDE - 73365. Thanks again, AJT. KINCARDINE AND ARBROATH - 76952. I'm happy with this seat, which (unlike some plans) keeps the town of Arbroath together.  SC-C (Aberdeen): 150235 = 2.01 =2I'm sorry, I haven't checked upthread to see who devised this very satisfactory arrangement but I'm happy to adopt it with thanks. ABERDEEN NORTH - 78274 ABERDEEN SOUTH - 71961  SC-D (Fife, Perth & Kinross): 375442 = 5.02 = 5This is a classic example of why it's important to be flexible about groupings. I initially thought of linking Fife and Clacks with 4 seats, and purely on the numbers it looks very sensible. But once you start actually trying to draw seats, it just doesn't work at all. So I was very happy to change tack and embrace Ntyuk's alternative approach; and although other arrangements are possible, and have been suggested, in the E Fife / Glenrothes / Kinross area, I don't think any of them improves on Ntyuk's original suggestion. (Sorry, East Neuk.) DUNFERMLINE - 78254. A great improvement on what was proposed by the BCS in the zombie (cutting this important town in half, with a ward split thrown in for good measure). GLENROTHES - 74747 KIRKCALDY - 73323 PERTH - 72831. Admittedly the city itself is right at the edge of the seat. ST ANDREWS AND KINROSS - 76287 That will do for now. I'd like to point out that we've now covered about a third of Scotland and the only ward splits have been in the unique circumstances of the Highland area. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 24, 2016 14:15:30 GMT
Thank you Islington, I am obsessed about no split wards And no, I already tried Glasgow no split wards and it was impossible ASV - "Impossible"? Well, you say that; but I posted the beginnings of a plan back on 9 May (it's on p9). Obviously I had to cross the city boundary multiple times, but I got all of Glasgow into contiguous seats within the legal size range. I didn't pursue it further because it had implications for boundaries I was happy with elsewhere in Scotland, but - in view of your achievement of the apparently impossible in the urban W Mids - I was thinking that maybe you might come up with an option I'd missed. |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jun 24, 2016 21:23:36 GMT
Believe me islington, I tried.
West midlands is easier because you have 22 seats
Glasgow has 6
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 25, 2016 0:10:01 GMT
Thank you Islington, I am obsessed about no split wards And no, I already tried Glasgow no split wards and it was impossible I didn't pursue it further because it had implications for boundaries I was happy with elsewhere in Scotland, but - in view of your achievement of the apparently impossible in the urban W Mids - I was thinking that maybe you might come up with an option I'd missed. Yeah, I had a version with no splits that involved hideous boundaries in Renfrewshire and Ayrshire at one end and Lanarkshire at the other. Last time I made an attempt at Scotland, I was still crossing the Glasgow border willy-nilly though (as I seem to have done in a lot of cities across all regions), and had two seats slightly over quota that would require minor ward splits. That plan still needs further work, methinks. The key difference between Glasgow and Metro Birmingham is, rather than the number of seats in each review sub-area, that Scottish local elections use the disaster of a system that is STV. |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jun 25, 2016 0:12:57 GMT
STV is fantastic, it's just that the wards are giant, maybe if all Scottish wards were divided into 3 or 4 then it would be great.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 25, 2016 1:41:19 GMT
Austrian commercial television is indeed fantastic, but the electoral system STV is terrible. Splitting the current Scottish wards as you describe would leave you with AV or rubbish dual-member STV (unless you were just talking about being able to split wards into smaller units for the purposes of drawing parliamentary seats... in which case I agree for cities, but in rural areas I'd rather use civil parishes as the base unit). It'd be better to move to AMS for Scottish local elections, or, as ntyuk1707 advocates, a return to FPTP. |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jun 25, 2016 2:30:50 GMT
Foggy, no what i mean is that you keep current wards however they are divided into 3-5 sub-wards, which would only be used for drawing constituency boundaries.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,318
|
Post by maxque on Jun 25, 2016 4:58:43 GMT
Foggy, no what i mean is that you keep current wards however they are divided into 3-5 sub-wards, which would only be used for drawing constituency boundaries. Like the wards and the LEAs in Northern Ireland? |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jun 25, 2016 8:13:47 GMT
Foggy, no what i mean is that you keep current wards however they are divided into 3-5 sub-wards, which would only be used for drawing constituency boundaries. Like the wards and the LEAs in Northern Ireland? Precisely |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 25, 2016 11:49:26 GMT
Continuing to make my way through Scotland ...  SC-E (Clacks, Falkirk): 152407 = 2.04 = 2My thanks to Ntyuk for these boundaries. CLACKMANNAN AND GRANGEMOUTH - 76094. The are good road links between the two halves of the seat either side of the river Forth, although they do involve transiting just outside it. The seat is slightly reminiscent of (but much less bizarre than) the old Clackmannan & E Stirlingshire (of blessed memory), which once covered some of the same area. FALKIRK - 76313 SC-F (Stirling, E Duns): 145831 = 1.95 = 2Now, here I owe a big apology to Ntyuk and AJT who gave me excellent - and I'm sure, correct - local advice to the effect that it was in order to remove Milngavie ward from E Duns to get it down to size for a seat. I wanted to take this advice, I really did. But in the end, it looks so terrible on the map that I just couldn't bring myself to do it, and I hope I may be forgiven. I've gone for an alternative that looks much better on the map, but it puts a terrible boundary through the town of Kirkintilloch. All I can say in extenuation is that Kirkintilloch is used to it, since the existing seat boundary (although different) is also driven right through the town in an equally brutal way. And at least my boundary (unlike the current one) (i) follows a nice clean line (the Forth & Clyde Canal), and (ii) keeps the oldest part of the town all in one seat (Stirling) (even though the bulk of the modern town is in the E Duns seat on the other side of the canal). EAST DUNBARTONSHIRE - 73123 STIRLING - 72708 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2016 12:15:22 GMT
islington Is there any chance you could be persuaded to use "Inverness-shire" as a constituency have?
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 25, 2016 12:20:52 GMT
islington Is there any chance you could be persuaded to use "Inverness-shire" as a constituency have? I might consider it but are you sure it isn't the triple 's' that is at the heart of its appeal? I have seen it spelt 'Invernessshire'. Yes, seriously, if we can settle the spelling it's a possible name for the seat. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2016 12:24:11 GMT
islington Is there any chance you could be persuaded to use "Inverness-shire" as a constituency have? I might consider it but are you sure it isn't the triple 's' that is at the heart of its appeal? I have seen it spelt 'Invernessshire'. Yes, seriously, if we can settle the spelling it's a possible name for the seat. You're a good man  |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 25, 2016 13:01:37 GMT
Glasgow.  SC-G (Glasgow): 446353 = 5.97 = 6Wards in Glasgow are huge so splitting can be avoided only by crossing the boundary. Even then, I've found it impossible to find a sensible pattern so I've settled for an approach that respects the city boundary and limits the splits to two. GLASGOW CENTRAL - 76018 (est). The map shows the seat as including the whole of ward 8 (Southside Central). In fact, I've assumed that 15% of this ward (its northwestern corner) will be split off. GLASGOW EAST - 71948. This consists of only three wards (the fewest in the whole UK). I find it remarkable that this is possible. GLASGOW NORTH - 73494 (est). Shown as including the whole of ward 11 (Hillhead); in fact, the western end of this ward (assumed to account for 25% of it) will be split off. GLASGOW SOUTH - 77327 GLASGOW SOUTH WEST - 73138 (est). Also includes (say) 15% of ward 8. I'd need maps and electorates of Glasgow PDs to be specific about this, but I'd envisage roughly the Laurieston community area and perhaps extending east as far as the A728 dual carriageway. GLASGOW WEST - 74428 (est). Also includes (say) 25% of ward 11 (perhaps extending as far east as Byres Road). Regarding the ward splits, the two constituencies added together are respectively 147922 (N + W) and 149156 (C + SW). These are both near the middle of the range for two seats, meaning there is a lot of margin for error either side of my core assumptions (i.e. 15% of ward 8 in the SW seat, and 25% of ward 11 in W). This should allow reasonable scope to find a sensible boundary. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 25, 2016 14:13:14 GMT
Just a little more on the numbers for the Glasgow ward splits:
Most of ward 11 (Hillhead) goes into Glasgow N. But of its total electorate of 20562, we must hive off at least 1744 (to get Glasgow W above the minimum) and no more than 7604 (or else Glasgow N becomes too small).
Likewise, most of ward 8 (Southside Central) goes into Glasgow C; but of its total of 20707, we need at least 999 (to get Glasgow SW to the minimum) and no more than 8093 (or Glasgow C is too small).
In other words, there is plenty of flexibility in both splits to allow a decent boundary to be found.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jun 25, 2016 14:51:00 GMT
And so to the Ayr/Renfrew area -  SC-H (the Ayrshire / Renfrewshire area): 525854 = 7.03 = 7Piper Dave came up with a nice plan for this area but it included a small number of ward splits. I sought to get rid of the splits whilst preserving the basics of his plan; but in the end, I'm afraid that only one of his seven seats survived the carnage. So my apologies to Piper Dave; but on the plus side, I did get rid of the splits. CENTRAL AYRSHIRE - 74907. Elsewhere, I've used 'Mid' for names of this type, but I didn't want a seat called 'Mid Ayr'. This seat (note that it includes Arran) looks fine on the map; the main problem is that it divides the town of Irvine. I tried hard, but in vain, to find an alternative that would avoid this. There is some small comfort in that: (i) the original town (before its post-War expansion) is wholly in this seat, so it is more recent developments to the east that are hived off; and (ii) the dividing line is a clear one along the A71 and A78 dual carriageways. NORTH AYRSHIRE AND GREENOCK - 77471. This includes most of Inverclyde, thus (unlike some plans) keeping the whole of Greenock/Gourock together. But there's another nasty division of a town, this time almost through the middle: Port Glasgow is the innocent victim on this occasion. Sorry. SOUTH AYRSHIRE - 72079. The sole survivor of Piper Dave's seats. This includes the entire town of Ayr, which the BCS went out of its way to divide through the middle in the zombie. KILMARNOCK - 76971. On the plus side, I'm pleased that my plan (unlike some others) keeps this important town undivided. The seat also includes the severed eastern parts of Irvine. PAISLEY - 72009. This includes the four wards wholly in the town of Paisley. These must account for about 90% of the town, with the rest in a ward that also includes the southern part of Renfrew town. The obvious solution is to include Paisley's 4.5 wards in a seat with the 1.5 wards of Renfrew; but unfortunately this combination is short of the minimum, and adding an extra ward takes it over the top. Therefore, if we want to avoid ward splits, Paisley and Renfrew need to go in separate seats; with the four Paisley wards joined by Barrhead and Houston on either side. RENFREW AND JOHNSTONE - 75343. A vaguely U-shaped seat wrapped around Paisley. The Renfrew wards are separated from the rest of the seat by the river Cart, and to bridge this it's necessary to pass outside the seat (but only just). On its western side the seat includes half of Port Glasgow. EAST RENFREWSHIRE AND LOUDOUN - 77074. Maybe not the most natural arrangement in the world but the M77 and A77 provide road links. I really disliked this seat when I first thought of it, but on further consideration I've decided that I've seen a lot worse. I've now done about two-thirds of Scotland and I've resorted to ward splits only in Glasgow and Highland, areas that are (for entirely different reasons) highly atypical of the rest of Scotland and the wider UK. |
|
