Does the UK have gerrymandering like the US does?

[Hippo_Tron]

I was thinking about the UK election system and how districts for MP's are drawn. In the US, state legislatures get to draw the districts for the House of Representatives allowing them to do so in a way that will be favor those running for the House from a particular party (gerrymandering). This is largely why the Democrats stood almost no chance of winning control of the House last election, because of gerrymandering. Luckilly for us, the House of Representatives has much less power than the House of Commons in the UK, in that it doesn't elect our executive branch of government and also we have the Senate that has to pass bills as well. In Britain, winning a majority in the House of Commons determines everything. So how are the districts for MPs drawn, and are they done so fairly or are they done in a way that clearly favors one party over another?

[WMliberal]

1. i'm not exactly sure, but it's similar

in the 19th century, there was a huge crisis over it. With the industrial revolution, cities were growing exponentially and rural areas were growing proportionally less populated. This left many "rotten boroughs." The lines had not been touched since the Middle ages, so several towns that were large then had since faded into obscurity, but retained their representation in Parliament. Many had 30 or less voters for two MPs compared with cities like Manchester having about 11000 voters in their districts. Through several reform acts, following years of protests and struggle by the Liberals (with a capital L, not the same thing as liberals today), things were made similar to how they are now.
Representation changes regularly now, but I'm not sure exactly how it works.

[T_i_B]

6. Ah yes

The Great Reform Bill of 1832 was probably the greatest piece of legislation ever to make its way through Westminster. :-)

We in Britain came to universal sufferage slowly, though 3 reform bills of which the 1832 act was only the first, but that is probably a good thing as we have not had a revolution since the days of Cromwell.

[AlexHamilton]

2. Gerrymandering

Is one of the things we need to stop in the near future. It's crazy that we allow our Congress to decide who votes for them. I think Iowa is one of the few states that doesn't allow gerrymandering. Maybe we can use them as a model.


Alex Hamilton
Read my latest article: The Media is Finally Outraged
Impeachment by the People

[WMliberal]

3. congress doesn't decide who votes for them

it's the state legislatures.

[AlexHamilton]

5. Yeah, you're right

I misspoke on that fact. Even so, the lines are blurred when people like Tom DeLay use their muscle and money to bully the state legislature into line. Thanks for the clarification though.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Web site for the Boundary Commission for England

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pbc/default.asp (there are similar bodeies for the other nations)

which reports to the government, but doesn't have noticable political interference. They're in the middle of a reorganisation now - when they've finished the whole country, their recommendations will take effect (probably not before the next general election). Their guidelines are to use county boundaries wherever possible, and boundaries between town councils. There's also local consultation - my town moved from one constituency to another a few years ago (due to population growth patterns - the old constituency had become the largest by voters in the country), and now it's going to be moved in with another town - but we did get a chance to give our opinions, and I can't see political motives behind what they do.

[Taxloss]

9. The Electoral Commission keeps an eye, too.

Which is nice.

[sweetheart]

7. There is a different problem

non-partisan grid districting is "best practice" in democracy these
days and some day the US will catch on, or become a failed state.

The UK problem lies more with its extended "states". This has to do
with Wales, england, scotland, northern ireland and overseas territories, who all have different democratic representation, some
less so, than others.

Example: Scotland elects a parliament, AND sends members to the
westminster parliament (think of it like state and federal). The
nation of scotland is represented in both. However, the people of
england are not represented by a regional assembly, so the "federal"
parliament doubles as a state parliament for england. Depending on
the overseas place, the rights are watered down more, sorta like
US territories... As well, northern ireland is effectively still
today governed as a conquored province in side ireland. In essence,
your voting voice is larger if you are in scotland, smaller if you
are in england, and even smaller if in NI. This may not be
gerrymandering, but it is a sort of legacy disempowerment of some
peoples based on history... and i think, with a beginner's mind,
it does appear distinctly unfair as a whole... and that all peoples
in britain, should have a regional and federal assembly with similar
breakdowns in powers. Instead, it seems that scotland gets extra
freebies... the nepali warriors "ghurkas" who performed lifetime
service in the british military, have only recently won citizenship
rights.... a long long long fight.

If the purpose of eliminating gerrymandering is to enfranchise
every voter equally, then britain has something else in its legacy
that works against that equality. That said, slowly but surely,
i expect this to evolve for the better... but there is still much
work to do.

[Taxloss]

10. The good old West Lothian question. A thorny one.

The easiest response is that English MPs heavily outweigh Scottish MPs in Parliament, so the effect is minimised. And Scotland was horribly neglected by by Thatcher (seeing few of the benefits of North Sea Oil, for starters), so perhaps it's a case of "what goes around, comes around" if it's getting favours now.

Anyway, the argument can also be stretched in the other direction to the point of absurdity. London's government isn't powerful enough, and the capital can sometimes get a raw deal as a result, considering it's the engine of Britain's economy and home to more than 15% of the population.

[tjwmason]

8. It's impartial

The Boundary Commission (which sets the boundaries) is non-partisan; as populations chage they consider different parts of the country, anybody can state their views (all political parties, any interested locals), and they will try to find a reasonable path taking population into account.

It seems to me that we have many more non-partisan bodies, whereas in the U.S. the best is normally bi-partisan. Even politicians seem to be able to act in a non-partisan manner, the Lord Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet, and yet he appoints Judges (technically the Queen does) without reference to politics.