Electoral Boundaries

[Non-Believer]

34 minutes ago, CrazyDave said:

You mean like at the boundary of different constituencies all over the island?

It’s not an issue unless people chose to make it one.  It’s exactly what already happens in Douglas/Onchan/Middle etc. 

It's some people's perception. They will make it an issue if the are accustomed to having "close" representation and that then becomes "remote".

[CrazyDave]

I just listened to the MR feature on this, with Juan McGuinness from RTC commenting that democracy is “all about representing your local community”

I agree with him at commissioners and local level, but at national and MHK level I don’t think he could be wider of the mark.  I would argue that that is exactly the thought process that has got us in the mess we are where people vote for people purely based on how community minded they appear to be.  This then leads to as Mr Gawne explained a further layering of local government where people feel obliged to deal with potholes and dog mess when we need national politicians making tough decisions that might upset their local community but be for the benefit of the island.

So as a radical idea how about a system where people can’t stand in a constituency where they live or one bordering in.  All candidates on a level playing field and voted in to represent the best interests of the island rather than their mates from the golf club?

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by CrazyDave

[Declan]

Rhumsaa has complained that Ramsey often loses out because Douglas has so many more MHKs. But here's a proposal to double the number of MHKs representing Ramsey (or part of it) and he moans.

[WTF]

9 minutes ago, Declan said:

Rhumsaa has complained that Ramsey often loses out because Douglas has so many more MHKs. But here's a proposal to double the number of MHKs representing Ramsey (or part of it) and he moans.

but ramseys MHK gains would be someone elses losses making those constituencies worse off , at the end of the day it barely matters , if you had 24 ramsey MHKs  ramsey would probably be even shitter..

[woolley]

On 11/10/2023 at 11:29 AM, Moghrey Mie said:

Another reason why they MHKs should tackle the anomaly of the rating system on the island. It has all gone quiet since Chris Thomas had the aerial photos taken.

The main anomaly being the profligacy of Douglas (and a couple of others) with ratepayers money. Amuses me that anyone thinks that the population is desirous of replacing local commissioners with 4 additional clones of Douglas City Council.

[woolley]

On 11/10/2023 at 12:23 PM, Roger Mexico said:

I think you've misunderstood.  The proposal isn't to move these voters from Ramsey Town, just from Ramsey Constituency.  They would still pay Ramsey rates and vote in Ramsey Town Commissioners elections, just vote for the Keys in Garff or Ayre & Michael.  They'd be in the same situation as those at the other end of Garff Constituency who live in Onchan and pay Onchan rates and vote for the Onchan Commissioners, but who no longer have the pleasure of voting for Rob Callister.

And if the Ramsey boundary extension goes ahead there will be other people in the same situation anyway - in Ramsey Town but in a different constituency.

Surely those comments you replied to were tongue in cheek? Nobody is mad enough to believe that their rates are going to go down according to Tynwald constituency boundary changes.

[Lightening McQueen]

Fiddling while Rome burns!

[Roger Mexico]

On 11/10/2023 at 3:06 PM, Declan said:

I wonder if you could do - 

Ramsey West & Ayre

Ramsey East & Maughold

Garff & North Onchan

Peel North & Michael

Peel South & Glen Faba

We don't know.  The trouble is that we don't have the figures.  To look at alternatives to what the Electoral Commission has proposed we'd need population figures for each small area on the Island that could possible be moved (which means all areas in practice because of knock-on effects).  The EC were complaining that they couldn't get the figures out of the Cabinet Office at one stage and were supposed to publish them on the website, though they never did.  We've only got the figures for the proposals they have made, not for any alternatives[1].

It has to be said that even what is proposed doesn't make much sense.  The basic problem they have is that they are trying to even constituency size up so as to be as near as possible the average based on the 2021 Census which gives an average of 83,745/12 = 6,979, call it 7000.  The numbers they give per current constituency are:

Both Ramsey and Glenfaba & Peel need to 'lose' around 1200 people to get down to average.  The trouble with the EC proposals is that they suggest moving 414 people from north Ramsey (to Ayre & Michael) or 680 from south Ramsey to Garff.  But you need to do both to reduce the numbers, one doesn't make much difference.

The idea for G&P is even dafter, with only 284 people being moved to Middle from two different Parishes, so lots of fuss, but the problem is left more or less the same.

Now I can see other alternatives, including trying to solve the Onchan problem from last time.  But without up to date population figures you can't see if they would work or not.
 

[1]  I'm not sure if even these are derived from the Census or are based on number of properties multiplied by average household size.

[CrazyDave]

13 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

We don't know.  The trouble is that we don't have the figures.  To look at alternatives to what the Electoral Commission has proposed we'd need population figures for each small area on the Island that could possible be moved (which means all areas in practice because of knock-on effects).  The EC were complaining that they couldn't get the figures out of the Cabinet Office at one stage and were supposed to publish them on the website, though they never did.  We've only got the figures for the proposals they have made, not for any alternatives[1].

It has to be said that even what is proposed doesn't make much sense.  The basic problem they have is that they are trying to even constituency size up so as to be as near as possible the average based on the 2021 Census which gives an average of 83,745/12 = 6,979, call it 7000.  The numbers they give per current constituency are:

Both Ramsey and Glenfaba & Peel need to 'lose' around 1200 people to get down to average.  The trouble with the EC proposals is that they suggest moving 414 people from north Ramsey (to Ayre & Michael) or 680 from south Ramsey to Garff.  But you need to do both to reduce the numbers, one doesn't make much difference.

The idea for G&P is even dafter, with only 284 people being moved to Middle from two different Parishes, so lots of fuss, but the problem is left more or less the same.

Now I can see other alternatives, including trying to solve the Onchan problem from last time.  But without up to date population figures you can't see if they would work or not.
 

[1]  I'm not sure if even these are derived from the Census or are based on number of properties multiplied by average household size.

I didn’t read all that, but there is a group on Facebook called “dull men’s club” they would love that sort of stuff on there.

[Declan]

32 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Both Ramsey and Glenfaba & Peel need to 'lose' around 1200 people to get down to average.  The trouble with the EC proposals is that they suggest moving 414 people from north Ramsey (to Ayre & Michael) or 680 from south Ramsey to Garff.  But you need to do both to reduce the numbers, one doesn't make much difference.

The idea for G&P is even dafter, with only 284 people being moved to Middle from two different Parishes, so lots of fuss, but the problem is left more or less the same.

Now I can see other alternatives, including trying to solve the Onchan problem from last time.  But without up to date population figures you can't see if they would work or not.
 

[1]  I'm not sure if even these are derived from the Census or are based on number of properties multiplied by average household size.

I don't think they've set themselves the target of getting Peel and Ramsey down to the average - just to within 15% of the average. So they only need to reduce the by 3% and 4%. Crazy, really because they'll need to do simillar next time around.

[Kopek]

AH but if we moved 1200 voters each from Ramsey and Peel into  Aires & Michael, we might get rid of Cannan!!!

Worth doing 2112?

Are there any examples where Douglas has benefited at the expense of Ramsey or anywhere???

Has any MHK voted against a proposal because it did not  benefit their own constituency???

[Kopek]

I think in 'effect' we already have an All Island Govt???

[Fred the shred]

There are people I know who stopped voting when lower Onchan was included in Garff a lot of people were very unhappy about it and still are.   Messing around with boundaries is fruitless when the turnouts , especially for Commisioners elections, are so poor.     If you are going statistically by the population numbers and not taking the average number of constituents that actually vote  into account it is a nonsense.    All it has done in Onchan is to upset people and deprive our Board of Comissioners of rates that Garff now enjoy whilst Onchan still have to service the Park ,Library, public Toilets etc.   

[Roger Mexico]

6 hours ago, woolley said:

Surely those comments you replied to were tongue in cheek? Nobody is mad enough to believe that their rates are going to go down according to Tynwald constituency boundary changes.

 

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

I don't think they've set themselves the target of getting Peel and Ramsey down to the average - just to within 15% of the average. So they only need to reduce the by 3% and 4%. Crazy, really because they'll need to do simillar next time around.

No only that, but the difference will already be back over 15% by the time of the next election.  I suppose it's a very 'Manx' solution - do the absolute minimum to just about stick to the letter of things while ignoring the spirit and the reason why you're doing it in the first place.  And still manage to annoy a lot of people, including those who were hoping for change in Onchan.

Not allowing for future changes will also mean that you create another problem with Arbory Castletown and Malew due to the growth of Dandaraland in Ballasalla as ACM is already well over 100%.  

I suspect a more comprehensive solution would involve sticking a lot of south Ramsey into Garff (historically most was in Maughold after all); putting the Onchan bits of Garff back into Onchan and to compensate moving a lot of Birch Hill etc into Douglas North.  Transfer all of German into Middle.

If you know the numbers you could probably finesse this a bit: stick the north of German (Cronk-y-Voddy etc) into ACM and put Onchan Parish and maybe North Malew into Middle.  Perhaps jiggle the Douglas boundaries a bit (East could be expanded).