Boundary Commission Test

[afleitch]

This is fun; I was given these examples from a friend who worked with the Boundary Commission for Scotland. They are hypothetical, though some are based on real examples. He was asked, in a quick test to provide the best answers to each.

You have a local authority containing an electorate of around 200,000. It is entitled to 3 seats. It is largely rural but with a central town straddling a river with an electorate of 70,000. 35,000 live to the east of the river and 35,000 on the west of the river. A further 60,000 live in villages and communities circling the town. Some of these communities have links to the town, others to the rural part of the authority. How do you divide the authority?

1. Create a constituency composing nearly all of the central town, another composed of the communities around the town that forms a semi circular ‘ring’ around the town constituency and a third constituency taking in the rural areas of the authority.

2. Create a rural constituency, and taking the town and communities around the town together, divide the area along the river, splitting the town and the hinterlands creating an ‘east’ and ‘west’ constituency.

An urban constituency, at the last review had an electorate of 61,000. Since that review, large scale housing clearance has seen the electorate drop to 40,000. The seat is, statistically speaking, destined to be abolished, though there is a strong local campaign to keep it. Furthermore, within the next year new housing will be constructed that should, within five years see the electorate rise by 15,000. What do you recommend?

1. Abolish the constituency. If the population increases by the time of the next review, it can probably be recreated.

2. Keep the constituency. It may be below quota based on old figures, but it will experience a population rise that will justify its continuance.

The Boundary Commission is reviewing two unitary authorities created a decade ago. The two local authorities were once one county, abolished in the 70’s and since reformed as two authorities. The Commission wishes to treat them separately and as such each will be entitled to 3 seats, a total of 6 seats. However the population in each seat will be higher than the national average and higher than the electorate in seats within neighbouring authorities. If the two councils were reviewed together, they would be entitled to 7 seats, closer to the national and neighbourly quota with one seat crossing the boundary. What do you recommend?

1. Keep them divided; there is nothing wrong with some seats being above the quota. The Commission must be consistent and local authority boundaries must be respected.

2. Treat them as one. The boundary between them is artificial, divisive and restrictive. The Commission must be realistic and flexible.

An island has an electorate of 100000 and rising, It is linked to the mainland by a bridge but is fiercely independently minded. The Commission believes the electorate to be too large. Some have campaigned for the seat to be split into two small constituencies. Others have suggested that communities in the part of the island linked by the bridge, should be combined with part of the mainland. What would you recommend?

1. Keep the island as one constituency. It may be large but the community seem to support the status quo. You cannot justify creating two smaller constituencies.

2. Combine part of the island with the mainland. The bridge is a sufficient link and most of those in the area affected commute regularly to the mainland. Demography, rather than geography deems this to be the best proposal.

3. Divide the island in two. It may go from being under to over represented, but with a rising population the split makes sense and is better suited to local needs than a ‘bridge link’ constituency.

[minionofmidas]

This is fun; I was given these examples from a friend who worked with the Boundary Commission for Scotland. They are hypothetical, though some are based on real examples. He was asked, in a quick test to provide the best answers to each.

You have a local authority containing an electorate of around 200,000. It is entitled to 3 seats. It is largely rural but with a central town straddling a river with an electorate of 70,000. 35,000 live to the east of the river and 35,000 on the west of the river. A further 60,000 live in villages and communities circling the town. Some of these communities have links to the town, others to the rural part of the authority. How do you divide the authority?

1. Create a constituency composing nearly all of the central town, another composed of the communities around the town that forms a semi circular ‘ring’ around the town constituency and a third constituency taking in the rural areas of the authority.

2. Create a rural constituency, and taking the town and communities around the town together, divide the area along the river, splitting the town and the hinterlands creating an ‘east’ and ‘west’ constituency.

What about one urban constituency, and two rural/suburban ones?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How about keep the constituency, but enlarge it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It sort of depends on whether the boundary is indeed artificial, divisive and restrictive, or simply new-ish. -_- It also depends on how far off the quota the seats are - the normal course would be to keep'em separate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I prefer option three, if a good dividing line can be found. The people of Wight seem to prefer option one, although if the island keeps growing as quickly as it does, I doubt they'll get it much longer.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is fun; I was given these examples from a friend who worked with the Boundary Commission for Scotland. They are hypothetical, though some are based on real examples. He was asked, in a quick test to provide the best answers to each.

You have a local authority containing an electorate of around 200,000. It is entitled to 3 seats. It is largely rural but with a central town straddling a river with an electorate of 70,000. 35,000 live to the east of the river and 35,000 on the west of the river. A further 60,000 live in villages and communities circling the town. Some of these communities have links to the town, others to the rural part of the authority. How do you divide the authority?

1. Create a constituency composing nearly all of the central town, another composed of the communities around the town that forms a semi circular ‘ring’ around the town constituency and a third constituency taking in the rural areas of the authority.

2. Create a rural constituency, and taking the town and communities around the town together, divide the area along the river, splitting the town and the hinterlands creating an ‘east’ and ‘west’ constituency.

3. Create an urban constituency and two rural/suburban ones, with the river and the urban one stuck between the two.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the constituency can temporarily borrow 10,000 voters or so till the next redrawing of the boundaries, keep it, otherwise abolish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there is a community that would be considered whole save for being sundered by the division, used that as the core of a seventh seat straddling the border, otherwise follow the bounds and give but three to each.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A combination of 2 and 3, making the constituencies slightly undersized so as to allow for the expected growth.

[jimrtex]

This is fun; I was given these examples from a friend who worked with the Boundary Commission for Scotland. They are hypothetical, though some are based on real examples. He was asked, in a quick test to provide the best answers to each.

You have a local authority containing an electorate of around 200,000. It is entitled to 3 seats. It is largely rural but with a central town straddling a river with an electorate of 70,000. 35,000 live to the east of the river and 35,000 on the west of the river. A further 60,000 live in villages and communities circling the town. Some of these communities have links to the town, others to the rural part of the authority. How do you divide the authority?

1. Create a constituency composing nearly all of the central town, another composed of the communities around the town that forms a semi circular ‘ring’ around the town constituency and a third constituency taking in the rural areas of the authority.

2. Create a rural constituency, and taking the town and communities around the town together, divide the area along the river, splitting the town and the hinterlands creating an ‘east’ and ‘west’ constituency.

3. A town constituency; and a west and east constituency.  If it is truly a local authority, then it absurd to claim that the surrounding towns or rural areas have no links to the town.   Besides, when you look at the ward boundaries, you find that they don't form a nice rural ring.  There are 12 wards in the LA, 4 in generally rural areas.  But because the rural area is narrower in some places and wider in the others, NW Rural ward actually includes substantial areas of the surrounding towns, while SE Rural ward is extremely remote, and there are even rural areas in SE Fringe ward.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Abolish the rotten borough.   The new housing, even it occurs will attract persons who don't have ties to the old community.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Treat them as one.  Constituencies 20% over the average are an abomination.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2.  You aren't electing a LA council, that will decide where to replace sewer lines or to build schools, you are electing representatives to a national government that will be deciding national and international policy.

[Јas]

You have a local authority containing an electorate of around 200,000. It is entitled to 3 seats. It is largely rural but with a central town straddling a river with an electorate of 70,000. 35,000 live to the east of the river and 35,000 on the west of the river. A further 60,000 live in villages and communities circling the town. Some of these communities have links to the town, others to the rural part of the authority. How do you divide the authority?

1. Create a constituency composing nearly all of the central town, another composed of the communities around the town that forms a semi circular ‘ring’ around the town constituency and a third constituency taking in the rural areas of the authority.

2. Create a rural constituency, and taking the town and communities around the town together, divide the area along the river, splitting the town and the hinterlands creating an ‘east’ and ‘west’ constituency.

Option 1.

An urban constituency, at the last review had an electorate of 61,000. Since that review, large scale housing clearance has seen the electorate drop to 40,000. The seat is, statistically speaking, destined to be abolished, though there is a strong local campaign to keep it. Furthermore, within the next year new housing will be constructed that should, within five years see the electorate rise by 15,000. What do you recommend?

1. Abolish the constituency. If the population increases by the time of the next review, it can probably be recreated.

2. Keep the constituency. It may be below quota based on old figures, but it will experience a population rise that will justify its continuance.

Option 2.

Though, if I was allowed abandon the given options, I would increase the geographic size of the constituency.

The Boundary Commission is reviewing two unitary authorities created a decade ago. The two local authorities were once one county, abolished in the 70’s and since reformed as two authorities. The Commission wishes to treat them separately and as such each will be entitled to 3 seats, a total of 6 seats. However the population in each seat will be higher than the national average and higher than the electorate in seats within neighbouring authorities. If the two councils were reviewed together, they would be entitled to 7 seats, closer to the national and neighbourly quota with one seat crossing the boundary. What do you recommend?

1. Keep them divided; there is nothing wrong with some seats being above the quota. The Commission must be consistent and local authority boundaries must be respected.

2. Treat them as one. The boundary between them is artificial, divisive and restrictive. The Commission must be realistic and flexible.

Option 2.

An island has an electorate of 100000 and rising, It is linked to the mainland by a bridge but is fiercely independently minded. The Commission believes the electorate to be too large. Some have campaigned for the seat to be split into two small constituencies. Others have suggested that communities in the part of the island linked by the bridge, should be combined with part of the mainland. What would you recommend?

1. Keep the island as one constituency. It may be large but the community seem to support the status quo. You cannot justify creating two smaller constituencies.

2. Combine part of the island with the mainland. The bridge is a sufficient link and most of those in the area affected commute regularly to the mainland. Demography, rather than geography deems this to be the best proposal.

3. Divide the island in two. It may go from being under to over represented, but with a rising population the split makes sense and is better suited to local needs than a ‘bridge link’ constituency.

Option 2

[Verily]

You have a local authority containing an electorate of around 200,000. It is entitled to 3 seats. It is largely rural but with a central town straddling a river with an electorate of 70,000. 35,000 live to the east of the river and 35,000 on the west of the river. A further 60,000 live in villages and communities circling the town. Some of these communities have links to the town, others to the rural part of the authority. How do you divide the authority?

1. Create a constituency composing nearly all of the central town, another composed of the communities around the town that forms a semi circular ‘ring’ around the town constituency and a third constituency taking in the rural areas of the authority.

2. Create a rural constituency, and taking the town and communities around the town together, divide the area along the river, splitting the town and the hinterlands creating an ‘east’ and ‘west’ constituency.

1.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2, and, if possible, expand the boundaries of the constituency somewhat to keep it near the correct size.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3.