Election Sub Forum Info

[Roger Mexico]

22 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

We had a sub forum for the last election, is that still about?

The individual Constituency topics just became part of the Local News Forum after the special sub-forum was removed.  Here's the ACM one for instance:

https://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/60947-arbory-castletown-malew/

The others should be easily found by searching for the Constituency name as part of a title.

[Roger Mexico]

It's time for one of my long boring posts full of numbers, that nobody reads.

One thing that has cropped up in various topics and constituency threads is the way in which constituencies are made up geographically - where the voters come from in the various communities within the boundaries.  I've put information in various comments over the weeks, but I thought I put it all in one place.

Helpfully Electoral Registration publish the number of people registered to vote every quarter for each constituency and local authority and with a bit of ingenuity you can use this to calculate the make up of each constituency by the LA's in it.  From the top:

Arbory, Castletown and Malew

Arbory 26%

Castletown  41%

Malew  31%

Rushen  2%

Arbory includes both Colby and Ballabeg (the Rushen bit is the area around Ballakilpheric which is linked more to Colby than the rest of Parish of Rushen).  Malew is mostly Ballasalla, but there's also St Marks plus various smaller communities such as Derbyhaven.  It's not quite an even three-way split, but Castletown isn't big enough to dominate.  This means that candidates have to work to 

Ayre and Michael

Andreas  22%

Ballaugh  17%

Bride  6%

Jurby  10%

Lezayre  20%

Michael  25%

The split between the Ayre Parishes (Andreas, Bride, Lezayre) and the Michael ones is 49% - 51%, so it's pretty equal.  But no area anywhere near dominates and most of these Parishes split further into other smaller communities.  It's the classic rural constituency and if anyone has to win, they need to work it all - at least in theory.  With eight candidates though it's quite possible that anything could happen if the votes spread evenly.

Douglas Central, Douglas East and Douglas South

Obviously these are all 100% Douglas.  However:

Douglas North 

Douglas 99%

Onchan   1%

The boundary was drawn so that the businesses along Tromode wouldn't have to pay Douglas rates, but the housing estate at the bottom of Johnny Watterson's Lane was then built over the boundary.  Sensibly they're all put in the same constituency.

Garff

Laxey  25%

Lonan  24%

Maughold  15%

Onchan  36%

Everyone thinks Garff is all about Laxey, but it only makes up a quarter of the voters -  more are actually in Onchan.  That itself is split with about 15% spread over the old Onchan Parish and the remaining 85% more concentrated in the Howstrake area of Onchan.  So the easiest place to get votes in Garff isn't in Garff.

(Remaining constituencies to follow)

Edited September 13, 2021 by Roger Mexico

[quilp]

Thanks for the effort, RM. 

[Roger Mexico]

Part 2 follows:

Glenfaba and Peel

German  13%

Patrick 19%

Peel  68%

(plus 11 people in Marown at the top of the Eairy who the Boundary Commission put into G&P despite the fact that some of their neighbours live in Marown and vote in Middle and others live in Malew and vote in ACM).

Unlike Castletown, Peel really does dominate its constituency with over two-thirds of the votes.  Of course the two rural Parishes themselves consist of quit a few separate communities themselves.

Middle

Braddan  51%

Marown  37%

Santon  12%

I suspect many people think that Middle is all about Glen Vine, but actually the majority of voters live in Braddan, though that of course is made up of various different communities including Douglas over-spill at the Cooil, Cronkbourne, the Strang and along the Old Castletown Road and well as the obvious Union Mills.  Mount Murray is split between Braddan and Santon where Newtown is the only community of any size.  Santon Parish actually is the second smallest in terms of population (after Bride), though maybe not in wealth.

Onchan

Obviously 100% Onchan, but the constituency only contains 73% of the voters in Onchan District.

Ramsey

Even simpler 100% Ramsey, all of Ramsey.  This was the only constituency untouched by the Boundary Commission.

Rushen

Port Erin  50%

Port St Mary  27%

Rushen  24%

Port Erin dominates, especially when you consider that areas people think are in Port Erin, such as Four Roads and the new housing estate near Rushen School, are actually in Port St Mary and Rushen respectively.  But again there's enough voters outside Port Erin that candidates can't just rely on the main village.

 

So the voters aren't always where outsiders think they are and this applies even in the towns.  Douglas South isn't all about Pulrose and Anagh Coar - it's mostly the private housing of Ballaughton.

[747-400]

Read elsewhere that ”plumping” gives two votes to your preferred, single candidate. 

Is that really correct?

Thought you still only give one vote, but strategically are denyingnother candidates a vote. 

[Roger Mexico]

7 minutes ago, 747-400 said:

Read elsewhere that ”plumping” gives two votes to your preferred, single candidate. 

Is that really correct?

Thought you still only give one vote, but strategically are denyingnother candidates a vote. 

You are correct and what you have read elsewhere is wrong.  In fact if someone put two Xs in one box they might be risking their vote counting as spoilt.

It's a constant dilemma this, if you have a favoured candidate, do you use your second vote and risk that vote cancelling the other out.  Or do you not use it and risk a candidate you dislike getting in because you didn't vote for their nearest rival who you would have found acceptable.  I reckon about a quarter of voters plump, though is there is a lot of choice the figure is lower.

[wrighty]

27 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

You are correct and what you have read elsewhere is wrong.  In fact if someone put two Xs in one box they might be risking their vote counting as spoilt.

It's a constant dilemma this, if you have a favoured candidate, do you use your second vote and risk that vote cancelling the other out.  Or do you not use it and risk a candidate you dislike getting in because you didn't vote for their nearest rival who you would have found acceptable.  I reckon about a quarter of voters plump, though is there is a lot of choice the figure is lower.

It’s things like this that make me prefer a single transferable vote system. 

[Roger Mexico]

1 minute ago, wrighty said:

It’s things like this that make me prefer a single transferable vote system. 

Me too - it effectively forces everyone to plump, but with the back-up that your vote isn't  automatically wasted if you vote for someone unpopular.  Indeed if you vote for someone too popular part of it goes to lower ranked choices. 

STV was fairly popular when it was used on the Island and turnout was high from memory, but it was abolished, almost by accident, basically because some MHKs were too thick to understand how it worked.

[wrighty]

1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said:

Me too - it effectively forces everyone to plump, but with the back-up that your vote isn't  automatically wasted if you vote for someone unpopular.  Indeed if you vote for someone too popular part of it goes to lower ranked choices. 

STV was fairly popular when it was used on the Island and turnout was high from memory, but it was abolished, almost by accident, basically because some MHKs were too thick to understand how it worked.

However, countering my own argument… Ed Milliband

[McCallig]

8 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

 

STV was fairly popular when it was used on the Island and turnout was high from memory, but it was abolished, almost by accident, basically because some MHKs were too thick to understand how it worked.

STV was a sensible, logical system which could be explained fairly easily for a single seat constituency. Unfortunately it was introduced in the IOM at a time when the House of Keys was made up from a variety of 1,2 and 3 seat constituencies (e.g. Rushen had 3 seats, Castletown had 1). The explanation of vote transfers in a 3 seat constituency was tortuous and particularly difficult to convey to voters who had been used to the powerful option of 3 votes and the permutations they offered to help a candidate (use 1 vote for man) or hinder (use 3 votes against him)    *(or her)

In its wisdom Tynwald decided at the time not to alter constituency boundaries, but to abolish STV. Subsequently of course the distribution of seats has been made much more equitable and we now have 12 x 2-seat constituencies.

It's time to reconsider STV.

[Declan]

9 hours ago, 747-400 said:

Read elsewhere that ”plumping” gives two votes to your preferred, single candidate. 

Is that really correct?

Thought you still only give one vote, but strategically are denyingnother candidates a vote. 

Only if your preferred candidate and second choice are in second and third place. eg Rushen result last time was - 

Juan Watterson 2087

Laurence Skelly 1212

 

Mark Kemp 1104

Skampy 1033

Leo Cussons 331

So say you’re favourite candidate was Kemp and your second favourite was Skelly. Plumping would give Kemp a vote and deny Skelly one. 

But giving your second choice to Watterson, or the other two makes no difference. 
 

However, if Watterson is your first choice and Kemp your second plumping for Watterson would help Skelly. 

Edited September 22, 2021 by Declan

[snowman]

Are the counters struggling with basic maths 

 

There's not alot of votes cast. This is so slow. Also whilst I'm here ....I think there should be a cut in the number of seats to save costs 

 

 

[The Voice of Reason]

On 9/21/2021 at 10:34 PM, Roger Mexico said:

It's a constant dilemma this, if you have a favoured candidate, do you use your second vote and risk that vote cancelling the other out.  Or do you not use it and risk a candidate you dislike getting in because you didn't vote for their nearest rival who you would have found acceptable.  

 

I think this is all part of what is commonly called democracy 

[Amadeus]

Any thoughts on what to do with this sub forum now? 

[quilp]

We could have a vote on it?