turn of the tides... two years on

[watchman8]

Agreed. So is there a chance they will dismantle the GRC scheme?

By pap current batch of leaders, they will not dare take such a big step. They will reduce number and size of GRCs, and see the outcome in 2016 first.

 

[zhihau]

If Chiam says to another party: "I am too old, why don't you take over from here? But take in one of my candidates", it would be a different story altogether.

bro,

this question is too complex for me right now, the reality of this turning tide is flooding me with loads of emotion

ok, ok... much better after the coffee... yes, if Chiam approaches another party to take charge, it would be either his wife or his daughter. after Chee, don't think Chiam gives his trust easily anymore.

 

[Fook Seng]

No matter how long it took the opposition to win the first GRC, once the psychological barrier of a GRC win is broken, the next GRC will come very fast. So the same for a 4CF. Once a 4CF is won by an opposition member, another psychological barrier will be broken and the next such win will come easier and faster. For those bros who think that any MCF will just screw up the opposition, I will have to say, it depends on whether such a psychological barrier can be broken.

As it turns out, the psychological barrier for an opposition member to capture a seat in a MCF has just been broken.

 

[metalmickey]

Agreed. So is there a chance they will dismantle the GRC scheme?

Like I said elsewhere: a GRC scheme is of no use to you if you win only 50% of the votes: it means you only get half the seats. Unless your gerrymandering is good, but gerrymandering is more difficult when your districts are big.

 

[zhihau]

As it turns out, the psychological barrier for an opposition member to capture a seat in a MCF has just been broken.

擒贼先擒王, target AMK GRC first :p:p:p

 

[Sideswipe]

Like I said elsewhere: a GRC scheme is of no use to you if you win only 50% of the votes: it means you only get half the seats. Unless your gerrymandering is good, but gerrymandering is more difficult when your districts are big.

it's useful to gerrmander with big districts. i.e. the PAP can pack Aljunied and Hougang together into one GRC. the PAP can keep packing opposition voters into this area of Aljunied to reduce their influences in other districts. if a GRC is likely to fall, the PAP can crack it into other safer GRCs. to crack it into multiple single seats is not advisable. gerrmandering across narrow districts is most dangerous.

 

[zhihau]

gerrmandering across narrow districts is most dangerous.

ok, ok... MIW want to park JC SMC under which GRC? EC or MP

 

[jw5]

ok, ok... MIW want to park JC SMC under which GRC? EC or MP

Interesting choice, considering that both are likely to have retiring "anchor" ministars.
Of course, it could also be argued that their retirement would be better for the pappies........................

 

[metalmickey]

it's useful to gerrmander with big districts. i.e. the PAP can pack Aljunied and Hougang together into one GRC. the PAP can keep packing opposition voters into this area of Aljunied to reduce their influences in other districts. if a GRC is likely to fall, the PAP can crack it into other safer GRCs. to crack it into multiple single seats is not advisable. gerrmandering across narrow districts is most dangerous.

When you're down to close to 50%, bundling all your SMCs into GRCs will not help much, because, unless your forecasting is so zhun, every time you make a mistake, one GRC is lost.

Singapore is fundamentally difficult to gerrymander. All the HDB blocks are the same. You shift one boundary here, shift another one there, what difference is that going to make? This by election has been a humbling experience for me because I was so wrong.

I think I should rephrase what I just said. When you have 49% of the popular vote, it is possible to gerrymander it such that you get more than 50% of the seats if the districts are small. If the districts are large, then the average wins out.

 

[zhihau]

Interesting choice, considering that both are likely to have retiring "anchor" ministars.
Of course, it could also be argued that their retirement would be better for the pappies........................

bro,
only reason why me cited these two GRCs is because JC SMC is in the middle of both :p:p:p

 

[metalmickey]

BTW folks earlier on I said that PAP is going to lose their 2/3 majority within 10 years. How many people are going to dispute that now?

 

[jw5]

bro,
only reason why me cited these two GRCs is because JC SMC is in the middle of both :p:p:p

Instead of including JC in either of those 2 GRCs, they could end up carving up those 2 GRCs into a few SMCs so as not to lose 5 seats at one go.

 

[Sideswipe]

When you're down to close to 50%, bundling all your SMCs into GRCs will not help much, because, unless your forecasting is so zhun, every time you make a mistake, one GRC is lost.

Singapore is fundamentally difficult to gerrymander. All the HDB blocks are the same. You shift one boundary here, shift another one there, what difference is that going to make? This by election has been a humbling experience for me because I was so wrong.

I think I should rephrase what I just said. When you have 49% of the popular vote, it is possible to gerrymander it such that you get more than 50% of the seats if the districts are small. If the districts are large, then the average wins out.

i get your point. GRC is logically very risky. but you have to risk big in order to win big. the GRC system is flexible. good to play with. 4-6 seats per GRC. the pap can invent 2-3 seats GRC. GRC is not limited by size of electorate ? you can pack and crack the districts more effectively in GRC than SMC. the wasted votes effect is very effective in GRC. SMC is limited by size. gerrmandering across narrow districts is most dangerous.

large or small districts make not much differences. gerrmandering is political science as well as an art form. the pap know how to gerrmander to its advantage. the pap would prefer to gerrmander with a combination of GRC and SMC rather than just SMC.

 

[genetics]

i get your point. GRC is logically very risky. but you have to risk big in order to win big. the GRC system is flexible. good to play with. 4-6 seats per GRC. the pap can invent 2-3 seats GRC. GRC is not limited by size of electorate ? you can pack and crack the districts more effectively in GRC than SMC. the wasted votes effect is very effective in GRC. SMC is limited by size. gerrmandering across narrow districts is most dangerous.

large or small districts make not much differences. gerrmandering is political science as well as an art form. the pap know how to gerrmander to its advantage. the pap would prefer to gerrmander with a combination of GRC and SMC rather than just SMC.

Yes, but for Punggol-East, to gerrymander is very difficult, out of 10 counting centre, 9 is won by WP. Yes, perhaps the PAP can pack into two GRC from Aljunied, Hg and PE as two GRC, and conveniently push joo chiat into aljunied, then there may be some hope for EC and MP, but that would mean PAP concede defeat in all these area too.

 

[Sideswipe]

Yes, but for Punggol-East, to gerrymander is very difficult, out of 10 counting centre, 9 is won by WP. Yes, perhaps the PAP can pack into two GRC from Aljunied, Hg and PE as two GRC, and conveniently push joo chiat into aljunied, then there may be some hope for EC and MP, but that would mean PAP concede defeat in all these area too.

it all depends on the next GE situation. maybe PAP will perceive EC as a gone case and MP as a safe ward. PAP will redraw the electoral boundaries accordingly.

my earlier point is large districts make more effective gerrymandering. it is harder and trickier to gerrymander with small districts.

an example.

party A holds an advantage of 2000 votes equal across all five districts. these five districts are marginal seats.

if these five districts are packed into one district. party A now holds an advantage of 10000 votes in this district. this district ( GRC ) become a safe seat.

in electoral gerrymandering. one must think of winning all the seats first. be prepared to take some risks too. if cannot win some of the seats. then start to think of ways to minimize the loss.

 

[metalmickey]

party A holds an advantage of 2000 votes equal across all five districts. these five districts are marginal seats.

if these five districts are packed into one district. party A now holds an advantage of 10000 votes in this district. this district ( GRC ) become a safe seat.

in electoral gerrymandering. one must think of winning all the seats first. be prepared to take some risks too. if cannot win some of the seats. then start to think of ways to minimize the loss.

I'll give you the other example that shows that when you have no advantage, gerrymandering is more difficult.

Across 5 districts, Party A has no advantage in total.

Their only hope is to draw the boundaries, so that for 1 of the districts, they will give it to the opposition. For the rest of the 4 districts, they will retain a small advantage. Therefore with very little absolute popular advantage, they get 80% of the seats.

Under this very different situation, although one that will arrive sooner than they expect, they will not want the GRC system. Because if they bunch all 5 together, they could lose all 5.

 

[zhihau]

Instead of including JC in either of those 2 GRCs, they could end up carving up those 2 GRCs into a few SMCs so as not to lose 5 seats at one go.

imagine EC GRC carved up into Bedok North, Bedok South, Changi, Siglap and Ubin SMCs... and MP GRC carved up into Amber, Katong, Mountbatten, Paya Lebar, Still Road South SMC... that's a mouthful :p:p:p

 

[Clone]

Sinkies have spoken.

The WP brand of Opposition politics is in vogue. Be a moderate, keep your estate tidy and allow the MSM and online 'noise' put you in a better light.

Let's see how far this tide can carry us.

 

[jswyodn]

BTW folks earlier on I said that PAP is going to lose their 2/3 majority within 10 years. How many people are going to dispute that now?

In 3 years and a few months, bro

 

[Sideswipe]

I'll give you the other example that shows that when you have no advantage, gerrymandering is more difficult.

Across 5 districts, Party A has no advantage in total.

Their only hope is to draw the boundaries, so that for 1 of the districts, they will give it to the opposition. For the rest of the 4 districts, they will retain a small advantage. Therefore with very little absolute popular advantage, they get 80% of the seats.

Under this very different situation, although one that will arrive sooner than they expect, they will not want the GRC system. Because if they bunch all 5 together, they could lose all 5.

for your example. if Party A clearly has no advantage in total. it's more likely that 1 district will be sacrificed to the opposition. 1-2 district will be 50/50 seat for Party A. it is extremely difficult and tricky to gerrymander and hold narrow margins across small districts. Party A might lose 1 to 3 seats.

if Party A draws out the 1 opposition district and packs the other 4 districts together. it's possible for Party A to hold a slim advantage in this 1 district ( GRC ). Party A surely win 4 seats in this scenario.

you have to gamble big to have a really big win. PAP knows the logic pros and cons of GRC.