Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144 
|
Post by Foggy on Jun 16, 2017 20:52:38 GMT
There's no reason those systems (especially STV) couldn't necessarily involve boundary reviews, although they'd be somewhat different exercises from what we're used to at the moment. In the Republic of Ireland there are regular views for the Dail constituencies which all use STV. Germany has them as well for its single member constituencies. Lithuania had one for its 2016 election. Yes, I know that about Germany, but MMP systems weren't being discussed. Under that method, great disparities in the number of electors per single-member seat are easier to justify. Australia still has a statutory requirement for mainland constituencies to have similar populations (Tasmanian seats are slightly smaller for constitutional reasons) and very frequent reviews, because compulsory preferential voting is not an excuse for different-sized electorates. I'm really not sure what Harry was getting at with that particular brainfart about AV. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 18, 2017 7:02:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 18, 2017 21:23:05 GMT
go go DUP! (Sic), but seriously this is the one good thing to come out of this 😄. No party should try and gerrymander the constituency boundaries ever again, I won't forget what was attempted. (deep sigh) You do know that the boundaries are drawn up by the Boundary Commission, not political parties? |
|
Sharon
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 2,566 
|
Post by Sharon on Jun 18, 2017 21:38:57 GMT
go go DUP! (Sic), but seriously this is the one good thing to come out of this 😄. No party should try and gerrymander the constituency boundaries ever again, I won't forget what was attempted. (deep sigh) You do know that the boundaries are drawn up by the Boundary Commission, not political parties? That's fair point.... however, it will be would have been MPs who voted on the proposals. I personally think that all boundaries, be they parliamentary or local authority ones, should be based on the census, not on those on the electoral register. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Jun 18, 2017 21:39:02 GMT
go go DUP! (Sic), but seriously this is the one good thing to come out of this 😄. No party should try and gerrymander the constituency boundaries ever again, I won't forget what was attempted. (deep sigh) You do know that the boundaries are drawn up by the Boundary Commission, not political parties? Indeed. The reduction from 650 to 600 is wrong in itself. But it is not gerrymandering, a word which seems to be used just as a term of abuse by those who have no idea what it means. I have seen no evidence that 600 benefits the Tories any more than 650. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 18, 2017 22:15:09 GMT
(deep sigh) You do know that the boundaries are drawn up by the Boundary Commission, not political parties? That's fair point.... however, it will be would have been MPs who voted on the proposals. I personally think that all boundaries, be they parliamentary or local authority ones, should be based on the census, not on those on the electoral register. But since the Register is current, and the Census is now six years out of date ... ? |
|
albion
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,270
|
Post by albion on Jun 18, 2017 22:18:24 GMT
I personally think that all boundaries, be they parliamentary or local authority ones, should be based on the census, not on those on the electoral register. Interesting issue which closely mirrors the debate in the US. The Supreme Court upheld your preference as recently as 2016 in Evenwell v Abbott. |
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Jun 18, 2017 22:21:19 GMT
Any party which attempts to block the evening out of voters per constituency will open themselves to criticism that they put party interest before democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 18, 2017 22:51:34 GMT
(deep sigh) You do know that the boundaries are drawn up by the Boundary Commission, not political parties? Gerrymander: manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favour one party or class. I'd say making the commission draw absurd seats across county boundaries, making them use the electoral register while passing laws that make it harder for more left leaning students to register and having a reduction to 600 was done deliberately to benefit the Tories. Note the definition is 'manipulate', the Tories do not have to necessarily draw the lines themselves for it to be a potential gerrymander County and borough boundaries have been crossed for a very long time now. The laws allegedly trying to restrict the number of people voting don't seem to have worked. If anything they have had the opposite effect. In a classical defintion of "gerrymander" you do really have to manipulate the boundaries yourself for your own advantage. And then there is the law of unintended consequences..... I know what you mean @benjl but I don't think it is quite correct. |
|
Sharon
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 2,566
|
Post by Sharon on Jun 18, 2017 23:31:26 GMT
That's fair point.... however, it will be would have been MPs who voted on the proposals. I personally think that all boundaries, be they parliamentary or local authority ones, should be based on the census, not on those on the electoral register. But since the Register is current, and the Census is now six years out of date ... ? So do a census more regularly, but I do take your point. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 18, 2017 23:44:46 GMT
County and borough boundaries have been crossed for a very long time now. The laws allegedly trying to restrict the number of people voting don't seem to have worked. If anything they have had the opposite effect. In a classical defintion of "gerrymander" you do really have to manipulate the boundaries yourself for your own advantage. And then there is the law of unintended consequences..... I know what you mean @benjl but I don't think it is quite correct. I very respectfully disagree finsobruce. 1. I was referring to the English counties established by Heath in the local government act, these boundaries have not been breached before and doing so breaks historic and community ties purely to benefit the Tories (ironicly the party that claim to be for slow change/tradition) 2. It does not matter that students have registered despite attempts to stop them, the intent was there. Also you don't address the reduction in the number of MPs or the strict quota. 3. I don't know what you mean by 'classical definition' 1. Well since the counties established by Heath were a breach of the historic counties of England and Wales, I'm not sure that the historic and community argument works here. 2. It does as the argument was that it would reduce the electorate. it hasn't done so. It's not too long since people were arguing that election turnouts would continue to drop for the same reason. Also incorrect. 3. As operated by Governor Gerry - the ridiculous manipulation of boundaries for clear political advantage. Congressional districts in America clearly fit this definition even though we are in the twenty first century. FWIW I do agree that the 600 is an arbitrary figure. A better point about the quota is that there are several places where it isn't being implemented - either it is strict or it isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by La Fontaine on Jun 18, 2017 23:46:08 GMT
(deep sigh) You do know that the boundaries are drawn up by the Boundary Commission, not political parties? Gerrymander: manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favour one party or class. I'd say making the commission draw absurd seats across county boundaries, making them use the electoral register while passing laws that make it harder for more left leaning students to register and having a reduction to 600 was done deliberately to benefit the Tories. Note the definition is 'manipulate', the Tories do not have to necessarily draw the lines themselves for it to be a potential gerrymander You have not given any indication as to how 600 rather than 650 favours the Tories. And you do have to draw the boundaries yourself in order to gerrymander. How do the current proposals favour the Tories in this way? |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 19, 2017 15:59:05 GMT
But since the Register is current, and the Census is now six years out of date ... ? So do a census more regularly, but I do take your point. Hasn't the next Census been cancelled? I've no strong feeling on whether to use the Census or the Electoral Roll, but if you use the Census then you're really tied to a boundary review very shortly post-Census. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Jun 19, 2017 16:39:47 GMT
IMO Labour should offer a deal here: support a Bill amending the 2011 Act to require 650 seats and 10% tolerance and to use the register from the most recent General Election, and promise to support the resulting review. The idea that a review can pass only if the proposed boundaries are acceptable to the DUP is not one I'm comfortable with.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 19, 2017 17:10:01 GMT
So do a census more regularly, but I do take your point. Hasn't the next Census been cancelled? I certainly hope not for the sake of my intelectual descendants in 110 years' time. It is a hugely valuable resourse of where people live, ages, addresses, occupations - all people, not just adults as in the electoral roll, which just has names and addresses and not the other information the Census has. I see sense in using the immediatly preceding election as the base numbers - for any level review. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Jun 19, 2017 17:11:07 GMT
(deep sigh) You do know that the boundaries are drawn up by the Boundary Commission, not political parties? Indeed. The reduction from 650 to 600 is wrong in itself. But it is not gerrymandering, a word which seems to be used just as a term of abuse by those who have no idea what it means. I have seen no evidence that 600 benefits the Tories any more than 650. When the proposal was first made, it appeared to benefit the Tories. There was analysis that 30 Labour seats would be lost compared with 15 Tory seats. It certainly seemed to be in the mind of the Tory thinktank that came up with the idea. But even if it was true at the time these things change election by election. One possible reason that reduction favours the Tories is that larger seats would force urban Labour seats to include more suburban areas, thus favouring the Tories. But that's a theory and I'm not sure it's been investigated. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Jun 19, 2017 18:18:57 GMT
There's also the factoid that a reduction in seats means the currently oversized seats can broadly stay the same (at least where they occur in clusters), so a lot of the Tory Heartland would not see much sweeping change.
|
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Jun 19, 2017 21:31:31 GMT
I can't see the proposals passing, as long as there's a hung parliament. After, what's now looking likely to be, two zombie reviews, could we take this opportunity to move to a system where we don't need to change the boundaries - like regional PR or STV, where you'll just have to re-allocate the number of MPs per area. Or, you could argue, adopt AV (rejected by referendum in 2011) keep the current 650 seats without any need for a review, invest in electronic counting machines and don't start counting until 9.00am the following morning. Why do you need electronic counting machines? |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Jun 19, 2017 21:35:02 GMT
Regarding STV, I'd presume there would still be boundary reviews. This would either involve the redrawing of seats to get them back into quota (same as FPTP) or changing the number of MPs per constituency where necessary. Regional STV would not need regular boundary reviews, except to reallocate the number of MPs (assuming the number is based on the size of the electorate). If they ever did go to STV (highly unlikely at the time of writing) I'd expect them to keep the constituencies small as a sop to the larger parties. 3-5 members as in Ireland, maybe allow 1-2 member exceptions for the Scottish islands and IOW. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Jun 19, 2017 21:56:36 GMT
Or, you could argue, adopt AV (rejected by referendum in 2011) keep the current 650 seats without any need for a review, invest in electronic counting machines and don't start counting until 9.00am the following morning. Why do you need electronic counting machines? Because you have to count the ballots twice. At the 2016 PCC elections in Ceredigion, they started at 9.00am BST, completed the first count at 1.30pm BST and the count concluded at 3.30pm BST. Electronic counting ensures that the first count will conclude at 11.30am and the whole count by 1.30pm |
|
