Brainbin
Kingpin of the Cultural Cartel
- Location
- The British Empire
Let's have a look at Ireland, shall we?I assume the three counties of NE Connaught just aren't large enough to justify their own single member seats?
Ireland - 4,456,546 - 59 MIPs. This is the third-largest delegation (tied with Scotland) behind England (with or without Wales) and Canada.
Province of Connaught - 649,635 - 9 MIPs
County Galway - 192,146 - 3 MIPs
County Leitrim - 69,201 - 1 MIP
County Mayo - 202,627 - 3 MIPs
County Roscommon - 101,639 - 1 MIP
County Sligo - 84,022 - 1 MIP
Province of Munster - 1,076,188 - 14 MIPs
County Clare - 112,129 - 2 MIPs (adjusted upward from 1 MIP due to rounding error)
County Cork - 404,813 - 5 MIPs
County Kerry - 165,331 - 2 MIPs
County Limerick - 146,018 - 2 MIPs
County Tipperary (North Riding) - 68,527 - 1 MIP
County Tipperary (South Riding) - 91,227 - 1 MIP
County Waterford - 87,030 - 1 MIP
Province of Leinster - 1,150,485 - 15 MIPs
County Carlow - 37,723 - 0 MIPs (yes, another Rutland on our hands)
County Dublin - 447,266 - 6 MIPs
County Kildare - 63,649 - 1 MIP
County Kilkenny - 78,821 - 1 MIP
King's County - 60,129 - 1 MIP
County Longford - 46,581 - 0 MIPs (yes, yet another one)
County Louth - 65,741 - 1 MIP
County Meath - 67,463 - 1 MIP
Queen's County - 57,226 - 1 MIP
County Westmeath - 61,527 - 1 MIP
County Wexford - 103,860 - 1 MIP
County Wicklow - 60,679 - 1 MIP
Province of Ulster - 1,581,351 - 21 MIPs
County Antrim - 461,240 - 6 MIPs
County Armagh - 125,238 - 2 MIPs
County Cavan - 97,368 - 1 MIP
County Donegal - 173,625 - 2 MIPs
County Down - 289,335 - 4 MIPs
County Fermanagh - 65,243 - 1 MIP
County Londonderry - 144,329 - 2 MIPs
County Monaghan - 74,505 - 1 MIP
County Tyrone - 150,468 - 2 MIPs
So as you can see, most Irish counties can support only one or two MIPs, if that. The problem, of course, is that Ireland is (as everyone knows) deeply sectarian, and I suspect one thing that would actually manage to unite the Catholics and the Protestants is for the STV system to allow their brothers in minority (Catholics in Ulster, Protestants everywhere else) to be given a voice. That is virtually impossible with one-seat constituencies. Even two-seat constituencies would make things difficult. But three? That means only 25% + 1 of the votes are needed to get your candidate elected. That's enough in a healthy chunk of Ireland. And four or five? Well, you're off to the races.
For that reason I like combining counties, although there wouldn't be any constituencies which split counties (there being no need for them) - except (most likely) Counties Dublin and Antrim, since Belfast and Dublin are the only two cities in Ireland capable of supporting their own constituency all by themselves - but the rest of Dublin and Antrim can't quite turn the same trick.
Celtic solidarity, I should think. The Canadian emdashes (despite being Canadian myself) always did give me pause. Besides, Scotland will almost certainly be combining counties into constituencies as well.Alex Richards said:You could always go the Scottish route and just call it 'Leitrim, Roscommon and Sligo', or Leitrim — Roscommon — Sligo for the Canadian version.
I was going to suggest New Zealand following through on their woman voters to elect a female MIP - but to my surprise New Zealand didn't allow women to run for office until 1919 IOTL, and the first wasn't elected until 1933 - with Ireland (1918), the UK (1919), and Canada (1921) all beating her to the punch. In addition, according to my cursory research, Australia (which didn't seat its first female MP until 1943) did allow women to stand for election from 1903 - in other words, before the First Assembly of the Parliament of the Imperial Federation. That could be the Aussie contribution to civil rights in the Imperial franchise. But I do think racially, the Kiwi delegation will be lily-white, I'm afraid.It's a stretch especially given that Maori had disproportionatly few seats compared to others when electorates were drawn up, but maybe there could be a Maori seat created... Another option might be a Maori politician with a Pākeha name and ancestry slipping through the net. He might not be that sympathetic to the global indiginous cause though...
Thank you! The boundaries are taken from those of the 1889-1974 administrative counties. Despite lasting almost a century, they're not the historic county lines and so are little remembered today in the wake of the controversial (and far more radical) 1970s reforms. I can't help but be reminded of the Third French Republic...This looks great, I'm not familiar with the 1901 boundaries, I am surprised that County Durham has over a million people, I can only guess it includes that Sunderland/Gateshead/ Middlebourgh as part of it, which would explain my Northumbria is quite small
I don't mind, in the least. Very, very, far from it. Thank you so much for doing this legwork for me. Please don't hesitate to continue as the mood strikes you. Now I did have a follow-up question.Hope you don't mind, but I think I've got a 4:4 Derbyshire North/South split that's pretty workable:
Derbyshire North: Bakewell Urban, Baslow and Bubnell, Blackwall, Bolsover, Bonsall, Brampton and Walton, Buxton, Chesterfield Urban, Clay Cross, Dronfield, Fairfield, Glossop, Matlock, Matlock Bath and Scarthin Nick, Newbold and Dunston, New Mills, North Darley, South Darley, Whittington, Wirksworth, Bakwell Rural, Blackwell, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Chesterfield Rural, Clowne, Glossop Dale, Hayfield, Norton, Sudbury: Population: 292,822
Derbyshire South: Alfreton, Alvaston and Boulton, Ashbourne Urban, Belper Uban, Derby, Heage, Heanor, Ilkeston, Long Eaton, Ripley, Swadlincote, Ashbourne Rural, Belper Rural, Hartshorne and Seals, Repton, Shardlow, Basford (Notts administration): Population: 317,700
Are you in a position to be able to tell how closely Derbyshire North's lines hew to the boundaries of the 1832-68 constituency of North Derbyshire, or the 1868-85 constituencies of North Derbyshire and East Derbyshire? Likewise, how closely do the boundaries of Derbyshire South match those of South Derbyshire and the city of Derby during the same period?
Thank you!This is very interesting.
Thank you, and I'm inclined to agree. India just can't be kept a part of the Empire in any even remotely democratic scenario. At least, not without it becoming a truly Indian Empire.Indicus said:That strikes me as very plausible, far more than those ideas of malapportioning Indian seats or of the white ruling class just letting India have a majority of seats.
That's likely going to the subject of dozens of TL posts, so I really can't go into detail. I will say that I think any TL with a successful Imperial Federation will completely change the tenor of decolonization. And not just for the British colonies, either.Indicus said:But just a thought on that idea - how does decolonization go? Judging by how India’s own nationalist movement has more or less achieved its 1920s goals, that would probably embolden other nationalist movements. It strikes me that any India would have strong sympathies towards the independence movements, strong enough that sharing a head of state may be seen as tacit acceptance of the colonial order. So, even a less messy Indian independence is, in my view, bound to end up with friction between India and its former colonial masters, which may very well be enough for India to become a republic.