English devolution 'could save UK'

[soysauce]

But the parliament would still be dominated by England, and the only way to prevent the parliament from being dominated by England is to reduce the value of the English votes.

OR allocate seats in the lords equally between nations so that any nation can make putting through a bill a nation objects you quite difficult, that's what I was trying to explain to you.

But the parliament would still be dominated by England, and the only way to prevent the parliament from being dominated by England is to reduce the value of the English votes.

As Above

But that is undermining the English population and the value of their votes, since the House of Lords can't just be switched up like you suggest. A new body would have to be the upper house, and its members would have to be elected in some way which you haven't outlined/discussed yet.

A perfect system is impossible, Jack's system was good enough to be adopted by the USA.
You're right, I never mentioned a new system I'll mention it now, 200 lords/Senators, 50 per constituent nation of the UK, allocate them by party by percentage of Scottish/Welsh/A N Other seats...

Jack's solution doesn't prevent the parliament from being dominated by England, so it's not a solution. You still haven't presented a solution to English domination, without undermining English votes.

There's two houses of parliament, the Commons and the Lords, you of all people should know that.

I do, and I did mention it, didn't I? Don't be an ass now.

Not trying to be an ass, I genuinely thought you were confused, you thought that the House of Lords was still based on estates with hereditary members,

IF you allocated lords seats equally by country then for example Scotland could delay or in conjunction with an other country stop bills from passing, therefore combating the effect of English domination.

It wouldn't be the House of Lords anymore, since it wouldn't be about estates. It would more be of the Senate idea that Jack had.
Even with the Senate idea, you're just undermining the English population by giving the smaller ones more say in the upper house. A nation has over 80% of the union's population, and only gets 25% of the seats; that's unfair. The only way it would be fair is if, as EEL mentioned while he and Jack were discussing Jack's senate idea, the upper house never had that much power.

The house of lords hasn't been about estates for years,
I fully understand what I am doing,

[Siggon Kristov]

Jack's system was good enough to be adopted by the USA.

None of the states dominates the USA. No state has 15% of the population.

You're right, I never mentioned a new system I'll mention it now, 200 lords/Senators, 50 per constituent nation of the UK, allocate them by party by percentage of Scottish/Welsh/A N Other seats...

That sucks. That undermines the vote of the English, like the example I outlined:

A party could have 60% support from Nation A, while having about 10% support from each of the other nations. This is about 40% support overall.

If the seats were distributed proportionally, the party would end up with:
72 seats from Nation A
4 seats from Nation B
2 seats from Nation C
1 seat from Nation D
79 seats in total, out of the 200 (39.5%) - Fair

If the seats were distributed to give al nations equal seats, the party would end up with:
30 seats from Nation A
5 seats from Nation B
5 seats from Nation C
5 seats from Nation D
45 seats in total, out of the 200 (22.5%) - Unfair

40% of the people in the union support a party, and they get less than 23% of the seats?
A party could have as little as 30% support in each of the 3 small nations, and no support from the most populous nation, and end up with 22.5% of the seats, despite this being only 12% support overall in the union.

If the seats were distributed proportionally, the party would end up with:
0 seats from Nation A
12 seats from Nation B
7 seats from Nation C
5 seat from Nation D
24 seats in total, out of the 200 (12.0%) - Fair

If the seats were distributed to give al nations equal seats, the party would end up with:
0 seats from Nation A
15 seats from Nation B
15 seats from Nation C
15 seats from Nation D
45 seats in total, out of the 200 (22.5%) - Unfair

So you see... a party with 39.5% overall support would end up with the same amount of seats a a party with only 12% support. One has 3 times the support of the other, and still ends up with the same number of seats. For the UK, it would even be worse since England takes up over 80% of the UK's population, not only 60% like my example.

--

IF you allocated lords seats equally by country then for example Scotland could delay or in conjunction with an other country stop bills from passing, therefore combating the effect of English domination.

It wouldn't be the House of Lords anymore, since it wouldn't be about estates. It would more be of the Senate idea that Jack had.
Even with the Senate idea, you're just undermining the English population by giving the smaller ones more say in the upper house. A nation has over 80% of the union's population, and only gets 25% of the seats; that's unfair. The only way it would be fair is if, as EEL mentioned while he and Jack were discussing Jack's senate idea, the upper house never had that much power.

The house of lords hasn't been about estates for years

The name should be changed. By the way, are the seats proportional to anything, or does each member of the house choose a faction to align himself/herself with?

[soysauce]

I know this is unrelated but I'd rather you didn't miss quote me or edit quotes, I never said

None of the states Dominates the USA, No state has 15% of the population

It may suck in your eyes bit it's what every federal state in the world has adopted, the votes of Californians (~15% of the US population) are undermined by the votes of smaller states.
I do understand the maths behind it, but the bigger picture can't be ignored.

As for the lords, they're chosen by the government and opposition in a way that is too complex for me to be bothered to post here, most are representing a political party.
There's also a few Bishops and assorted others with big hats although I'm not sure if they have any power.
We British seem to like tradition so I doubt we'll ever rename the lords.

[Siggon Kristov]

I know this is unrelated but I'd rather you didn't miss quote me or edit quotes, I never said

None of the states Dominates the USA, No state has 15% of the population

I didn't intend to misquote you. I forgot to split your quote before replying to the first part. I fixed it now.

It may suck in your eyes bit it's what every federal state in the world has adopted

False. It doesn't happen in Austria, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, India, or Switzerland. These unions give more seats to larger states. Some do it fully proportionally, while some do it in a way that produces results similar to the Penrose method that EEL introduced to the thread. The Penrose method would still give England a majority if used for the UK, because the UK's population is distributed terribly unevenly compared to Germany or Switzerland (unions which have little, but still some, variance between the numbers of seats allocated to each state).

the votes of Californians (~15% of the US population) are undermined by the votes of smaller states.

I already brought that up even with the electoral college argument that took place, which claims to distribute electoral votes proportionally.
Also, California isn't undermined that much; it has less than 12% of the US population, and has 2% of the Senate seats.
The UK is a whole different case. It has more than 80% of the population, and with your idea would have just 25% of the seats. 75% of the seats would be shared among 3 states which, when combined, have less than 20% of the population. This is a reverse proportional system; most federal systems in the world have much more constituent states, so the difference between the population percentage and the Senate seat percentage is minimal.

As for the lords, they're chosen by the government and opposition in a way that is too complex for me to be bothered to post here, most are representing a political party.

Don't the Lords assign themselves to parties of their choice? How else could Lords be members of parties that have no seats in the House of Commons? I know the House of Commons can give peerage, but I don't think all the Lords are just chosen.

There's also a few Bishops and assorted others with big hats although I'm not sure if they have any power.
We British seem to like tradition so I doubt we'll ever rename the lords.

Well, it won't really be the House of Lords any more, hence Jack's suggestion of the name "Senate" being used instead. By tradition, Lords are about estates. This has been broken over time, as you pointed out.

[Siggon Kristov]

Although its an upper chamber it doesn't really have much influence at all. Yes, it has blocked, and does block legislation, but very rarely and only if the bill is controversial. And, more importantly, it is possible for the House of Commons to override the House of Lords with the Parliament Act.

I raised this point to soysauce...

The only way it would be fair is if, as EEL mentioned while he and Jack were discussing Jack's senate idea, the upper house never had that much power.

I understand the maths, and I never proposed doing it that way,

But Jack did, and you claimed it was a solution that proved that the only solution isn't to reduce the value of English votes. You can look at it that way, or as not much of a solution at all since the English will still dominate the House of Commons.

[Siggon Kristov]

It may suck in your eyes bit it's what every federal state in the world has adopted

False. It doesn't happen in Austria, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, India, or Switzerland. These unions give more seats to larger states. Some do it fully proportionally, while some do it in a way that produces results similar to the Penrose method that EEL introduced to the thread. The Penrose method would still give England a majority if used for the UK, because the UK's population is distributed terribly unevenly compared to Germany or Switzerland (unions which have little, but still some, variance between the numbers of seats allocated to each state).

the votes of Californians (~15% of the US population) are undermined by the votes of smaller states.

I already brought that up even with the electoral college argument that took place, which claims to distribute electoral votes proportionally.
Also, California isn't undermined that much; it has less than 12% of the US population, and has 2% of the Senate seats.
The UK is a whole different case. It has more than 80% of the population, and with your idea would have just 25% of the seats. 75% of the seats would be shared among 3 states which, when combined, have less than 20% of the population. This is a reverse proportional system; most federal systems in the world have much more constituent states, so the difference between the population percentage and the Senate seat percentage is minimal.

I'm still waiting on soysauce's response.

[soysauce]

I've given the answers before mate,

[Siggon Kristov]

I've given the answers before mate,

I'd like honest answers, instead of lies or crap you make up...

It may suck in your eyes bit it's what every federal state in the world has adopted

False. It doesn't happen in Austria, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, India, or Switzerland. These unions give more seats to larger states. Some do it fully proportionally, while some do it in a way that produces results similar to the Penrose method that EEL introduced to the thread. The Penrose method would still give England a majority if used for the UK, because the UK's population is distributed terribly unevenly compared to Germany or Switzerland (unions which have little, but still some, variance between the numbers of seats allocated to each state).

While claiming that undermining the English vote isn't the only solution to prevent England from dominating the parliament, you have provided no solutions of your own.

[soysauce]

I'd like honest answers, instead of lies or crap you make up...

In my defense I wouldn't call it lies or crap,

While claiming that undermining the English vote isn't the only solution to prevent England from dominating the parliament, you have provided no solutions of your own.

OK, What about a senate with

little, but still some, variance between the numbers of seats allocated to each state

What if England had 7 seats, Scotland 5, Wales 3, Northern Ireland 3, there's a solution, granted it's not perfect since I spent all of 5 minutes developing it but it'd work.

[Siggon Kristov]

I'd like honest answers, instead of lies or crap you make up...

In my defense I wouldn't call it lies or crap,

But it was. You said:

It may suck in your eyes bit it's what every federal state in the world has adopted

^ You were lying; you can look at it that way, or you can look at it as you just talking utter crap.
Now, I'll repeat:

It doesn't happen in Austria, Canada, Ethiopia, Germany, India, or Switzerland. These unions give more seats to larger states. Some do it fully proportionally, while some do it in a way that produces results similar to the Penrose method that EEL introduced to the thread. The Penrose method would still give England a majority if used for the UK, because the UK's population is distributed terribly unevenly compared to Germany or Switzerland (unions which have little, but still some, variance between the numbers of seats allocated to each state).

Now, you hastily proposed another solution which still sucks:

While claiming that undermining the English vote isn't the only solution to prevent England from dominating the parliament, you have provided no solutions of your own.

OK, What about a senate with

little, but still some, variance between the numbers of seats allocated to each state

What if England had 7 seats, Scotland 5, Wales 3, Northern Ireland 3, there's a solution, granted it's not perfect since I spent all of 5 minutes developing it but it'd work.

That still undermines the English vote. England would have over 80% of the population with just a little above 35% of the representation. If you want actual numbers:
- England would have only 1 representative per 7,500,000 citizens
- Scotland & Wales would have 1 representative per 1,000,000 citizens
- Wales would have 1 representative per 600,000 citizens

My reference, to the unions which have little variance between the number of seats allocated, was just to prove to you that not all federal systems distribute seats equally. Also, none of those states have 80%+ the population living in 1 state. The Penrose method would be a good way to distribute the seats, and it would cut down the variance between the numbers of seats allocated to each state, but the Penrose method still undermines votes, and even though this happens - England would still have a majority.