babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Electoral Maps 5

409 replies [Last post]

Comments

Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002

Albireo wrote:
Being unfamiliar with this process, I am wondering: how final are the proposed new boundaries at this stage? Is there a process of review and revision? Are we likely to see any major changes, or minor tweaks?

This is always an important question. The public hearings will be this fall. They will, ideally, result in minor tweaks. If they result in major changes, where is the second round of hearings to get reaction to the major changes? There isn't one.

But what if major changes are indeed needed? Try to convince the Commission.

Could the changes be for the worse? Then come to the hearings and say what you like, as well as what you don't like.

Albireo wrote:
Is there any opportunity for Conservatives (or anyone else) to tilt the process in their favour, after this point in the process?

The MPs get one final chance to tilt the process, after the hearings and the Commission's report. The only folks who get a second round are the MPs. Most of their objections are not successful, unless they come up with sensible tweaks. 


theleftyinvestor
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

edmundoconnor wrote:

I worked on her last campaign, and met her again in Vancouver (and again again at the leadership convention). She is absolutely fantastic: articulate and very, very intelligent. I know I'm gushing, but she's dynamite. Block was and is a dunce compared to her.

I think (hope?) Nettie considers giving it another kick at the can in 2015 in Saskatoon Centre-University, especially since the stars would finally be aligning for her. She's a professor at one of the affiliated colleges of the U of S, which will only add to the left-leaning tendencies in the area. That, plus the not-too distant memory of her loss to Trost. Her contesting against Trost (and winning) would be very sweet. However, I suspect Trost will deny the NDP the pleasure and either skedaddle to Saskatoon-Grasswood, or out of town entirely to K-R-H (where he would have to fight it out with Vellacott, and possibly Block. Wouldn't I like to be a fly on the wall for *that* nomination meeting).

I think she would definnitely have great appeal to a university crowd. She's engaging, well-spoken and very sharp. She comes across as youthful even though she's a year older than my folks. I crossed paths with her nephew at UBC during the 2008 election so he's a Facebook friend. I suggested the new boundaries would bode well for Nettie, and he didn't sound 100% sure she'd be running again but agreed. 

 

Brachina wrote:
I believe there is a review before it gets approved and it can be changed, but if the Tories manage to kill the Urban seats all hell will break loose, everyone with a brain in thier head knows Sask needs proper Urban seats.

 

Well only the more reason for those in favour to make themselves known at the hearings. Or even better, have them push for even further de-rurbanization, so that even if the commission won't go that far, they'll avoid caving in to the pro-rurban lobby.


nicky
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2005

Some scattered comments on the ongoing redistribution process:

1. 308.com has transposed actual votes for Newfoundand and Labrador and five seats in Northern New Brunswick. Avalon would be the only switch, from Lib to Con.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/

2. The process so far has been quite favourable to the Cons, especially in BC. I have tried to get a fix on the new map by making crude comparisons with poll maps rather than minutely transposing votes. My best guesstimates:

N&L: C +1 from L (Avalon)

Quebec: C -1 to N (Levis) L + 1 new (GE Cartier), B -1 (Ahuntsic) +1 (Gaspesie), N - Lachine-NDG. + three new seats + Levis. Net C -1 N +3 L+1

Man: N + Winn N from Lib

Sask: N +2 from C (Sask C - University and Regina (Lewvan)

BC: C +3 from NDP (Delta, Southern Interior, New Westminster- Coquitlam) Although there are a number of close losses I don't see the NDP picking up any of the new seats on its 2011 vote. BC therefore goes from C 21 N12 L 2 G 1 to C 30 N 9 L 2 G1.

Net C + 14 L -1 N +3

3. Ontario gets 15 new seats. I wd not be suprised if the Cons wd have won a dozen of them We shd see the new boundaries any day now.

4. Altough these numbers may seem bleak, the true measure of a redistribution is how the seats will divide in a close election. British and Australian commentators always dwell on what swing would be reqired on the new map as compared to the old. The question therfore is not simply how many seats the parties wd have won if everone voted the same but how many if the parties were at level pegging?

In this regard the BC map may not be so bad. The Cons wd have won numerous seats on the new map by small margins. A smallish swing to the NDP cd deliver a windfall.


nicky
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2005

I left out 5 new Conservative seats in Alberta. 

That makes it Net:

C +19

N  +3

L  -3

with more bad news likely to come soon from Ontario


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

Nicky, the BQ would actually be down 1 overall in Quebec - they don't actually "gain" Gaspesie - they already hold half of that seat and it is merged with an NDP seat, so in fact its that the NDP loses a seat - but there no BQ gain. Also, don't forget that the Liberal riding of St. Leonard-St. Michel loses some very Liberal territory and adds a very large very NDP area that used to be in Hochelaga...its quite possible that this riding now flips from Liberal to NDP

I can't say for sure, but i think that the northern Saskatchewan seat that went Tory very narrowly last time might just flip to the NDP now since a heavily Tory community got moved out of the riding.


nicky
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2005

I  think you are right abt Gaspesie Stockholm. I agree St Leonard wd now be close but the Liberals wd still have an edge. The Quebec numbers wd therefore be:

NDP: +4 = 63

Lib +1 = 8

Con -1 = 4

BQ -1 = 3

For the whole country (sans Ontario)

Con : +19

NDP: + 4

Lib: -1

BQ: -1

Blunt Objects has counted up the Desnethe votes and concludes that the Con majority wd be cut from about 800 to about 250 votes:

The rest of the province also goes through some changes, though nothing spectacular that will make any of them change hands. The one exception may be Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River, which has a portion of the riding chopped off and given to Prince Albert. I looked at the polls for this area and its heavily Conservative, and could mean as many as 650 Conservative votes lost, compared to maybe a little over 100 NDP votes. This riding was very close in 2011, with the NDP losing it by just under 800 votes. So it was always going to be a competitive riding, however the boundary changes have made it just a little bit more so.

 

http://blunt-objects.blogspot.ca/2012/08/new-sask-ridings-give-ndp-leg-up.html


toaster
Offline
Joined: Sep 5 2011

What is the last possible date Ontario can publish its maps?


Robo
Offline
Joined: Jun 1 2003
The Commission's web site states that the end of the timetable for presenting any province's initial report is September 2012.

toaster
Offline
Joined: Sep 5 2011

Thank you. 


Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002

Robo wrote:
The Commission's web site states that the end of the timetable for presenting any province's initial report is September 2012.

The clock is ticking. The commission holds public hearings starting at least 30 days after the publication of its proposal in a newspaper. The hearings need to be completed by the end of November. In 2002 the Ontario Commission had 19 sitting days and 19 deliberation (and travel) days between sittings, over about seven and a half weeks. They want to start in very early October. They want to publish in the newspaper in very early September.


Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
I wonder how many seats the NDP would win in this new map using Forums numbers instead of the 2011 election numbers.

nicky
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2005

Here is an assessment of the effect of the new Quebec oundaries;

 

I decided to eyeball the new proposed Federal ridings for Quebec. I compared this to poll-by-poll results from the 2011 election to get a rough transposition. Here are my estimates.



Levis goes NDP, but CPC gains Lac-Saint-Louis from the Liberals
Liberals lose Lac-Saint-Louis but gain George-Etienne-Cartier, a new riding
Bloc holds on to all of their ridings
CPC: 5
LIB: 7
BQ: 4
NDP: 62

 

http://riding-by-riding.blogspot.ca/


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

I disagree with some of his assessments. I don't see the CPC going from 3rd to 1st place in Lac St. Louis as a result of relativly modest changes to that riding - none of which sudden;y draw in any mafor Tory stronghold. I'm also pretty sure that the NDP would notionally win ther new Maurice-Richard seat meaning the BQ loses one and also that NDP would win the new St. Leonard seat that takes in a very large chunk of Hochelaga.

By my calculation, the new QC map would go NDP 64, Libs 7, CPC 4, BQ 3


David Young
Offline
Joined: Dec 9 2007

Stockholm wrote:

I disagree with some of his assessments. I don't see the CPC going from 3rd to 1st place in Lac St. Louis as a result of relativly modest changes to that riding - none of which sudden;y draw in any mafor Tory stronghold. I'm also pretty sure that the NDP would notionally win ther new Maurice-Richard seat meaning the BQ loses one and also that NDP would win the new St. Leonard seat that takes in a very large chunk of Hochelaga.

By my calculation, the new QC map would go NDP 64, Libs 7, CPC 4, BQ 3

This doesn't take into account the fact that the Bloc may be a spent force federally by the 2015 election, with the illimination of the voter subsidy.

Given Mulcair's continued levels of support, I can see close to 70 seats being possible NDP wins, with Beauce, and the most die-hard west-end Montreal Liberal seats holding out.  Add to that the quality of candidates that will be coming forward (Julius Grey?).

I think that 70 NDP seats are not out of the question.

 


Brachina
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
Not to mention some of our MPs might actually campaign in thier ridings this time ;p Kidding aside as pressure to stop Harper builds during the election I can see seats gains.

edmundoconnor
Offline
Joined: Jul 7 2009

Proposed SK boundary changes prompt response from U of S law professor.

Newman parrots the exact same talking point as Kelly Block (which is never a good start) viz: Saskatoon will only have three seats in Parliament instead of four, leading to worse representation. If three seats means more and better representation for the people of Saskatoon and Saskatchewan than the current four representatives do right now, I'm all for it. He seems to be confusing quality with quantity. If any of Saskatoon's four MPs have adequately represented their Saskatoon constituents, they are sure keeping it a secret from the rest of us.

I notice he does not bother to consider that the current boundaries could be (and are) gerrymandered perfectly to suit one party.

If 'rurban' seats are such a fantastic idea, why aren't they implemented in other provinces? The SK Tory MPs and their supporters can hammer on all they like about SK being in a 'unique' situation, but they're simply trying to protect their jobs in the face of a review which threatens them. Kelly Block, Maurice Vellacott, and Brad Trost, to take three examples, would likely get hammered if they ran in  purely urban seats, and are not relishing the idea of all of them having to compete for one rural seat.

I think this is a preview of what the commission will face come the hearings. I hope they don't take too much notice of people running after their meal tickets.


theleftyinvestor
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

Well obviously some voters in the cities chose the CPC, and those voters are apparently as represented as they can be by people who don't even show up for debates.

But the rest are not represented at all, and if I was a non-Con voter in a city with all-Con MPs, I would certainly trade down the number of ridings that include my city for a chance to be represented by either my MP or my neighbour's.

Mulcair told me himself of a sad fact about the last round of redistribution: Constituents who leaned NDP supported the rurban boundaries last time, and so they went along with taking the rurban seats. But they grossly underestimated the effect that a PC-Alliance merger would have on the NDP's ability to ever win any of those seats. So I would hope this time the response will be more balanced.


adma
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2006

theleftyinvestor wrote:
But they grossly underestimated the effect that a PC-Alliance merger would have on the NDP's ability to ever win any of those seats. So I would hope this time the response will be more balanced.

Well, not only that: they grossly underestimated the utter cratering of NDP support in rural areas as well, i.e. that which turned Yorkton-Melville from Lorne Nystrom's stronghold to an absolute Conservative zone.  They were still operating under the fumes of past real-and-potential voting patterns.

Though who's to say that still isn't "recoverable", i.e. a redistribution calculated to provide a couple of safe seats, and the NDP winds up winning several others ("hey, voters: where were you when Jack was leader")


theleftyinvestor
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

adma wrote:

theleftyinvestor wrote:
But they grossly underestimated the effect that a PC-Alliance merger would have on the NDP's ability to ever win any of those seats. So I would hope this time the response will be more balanced.

Well, not only that: they grossly underestimated the utter cratering of NDP support in rural areas as well, i.e. that which turned Yorkton-Melville from Lorne Nystrom's stronghold to an absolute Conservative zone.  They were still operating under the fumes of past real-and-potential voting patterns.

Though who's to say that still isn't "recoverable", i.e. a redistribution calculated to provide a couple of safe seats, and the NDP winds up winning several others ("hey, voters: where were you when Jack was leader")

The last redistribution process was during 2002-3 - at that point the Cons were merged or about to do so, Reform had been renamed Alliance, and NDP had already fallen to third place in Yorkton-Melville against a 63% Alliance vote. So they already had that evidence in hand. Nystrom was in Regina-Qu'Apelle by then, and at 41.3% to the Alliance's 40.7% it was hardly a stronghold. Interestingly there was no PC candidate and the Alliance/Conservative vote went down in 2004, but a three-way split sent Andrew Scheer to office. Only in 2008 did Scheer start getting majorities.


Aristotleded24
Offline
Joined: May 24 2005

adma wrote:
theleftyinvestor wrote:
But they grossly underestimated the effect that a PC-Alliance merger would have on the NDP's ability to ever win any of those seats. So I would hope this time the response will be more balanced.

Well, not only that: they grossly underestimated the utter cratering of NDP support in rural areas as well, i.e. that which turned Yorkton-Melville from Lorne Nystrom's stronghold to an absolute Conservative zone.  They were still operating under the fumes of past real-and-potential voting patterns.

Though who's to say that still isn't "recoverable", i.e. a redistribution calculated to provide a couple of safe seats, and the NDP winds up winning several others ("hey, voters: where were you when Jack was leader")

As pleased as I am with the proposed boundaries and how they improve the chances of the NDP, I think it's unfortunate that we have to rely on redrawing the map in order to win seats, and it is a strange situation where the number of seats won by the parties can change depending on the boundaries even if people vote the same way. I'd prefer to turn around the cratering of support in the rural areas rather than writing them off completely.

By the way, Winnipeg also has 2 rurban seats: Kildonan-St Paul and Charleswood-St James-Assiniboia.


edmundoconnor
Offline
Joined: Jul 7 2009

I have a feeling (no more than that) that the commission is made of somewhat sterner stuff, and will recognize partisan pot-banging when they hear and see it. Is it too early to place bets on which Tory MPs will 'retire' (whether really choosing to, or preferring not to face what would be an ugly nomination fight) following the firming up of the redistribution map? Block would have a very hard time in Saskatoon West, with even the eastern suburbs not helping Trost enough in Saskatoon Centre–University to stop the seat falling to the NDP. Let's not even talk about Vellacott. I can't see any of them running in an urban riding.

I could be wrong, but the proposed redistribution makes Wascana a touch more in reach for the NDP. When Goodale decides to retire, that is.


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

Aristotleded24 wrote:

By the way, Winnipeg also has 2 rurban seats: Kildonan-St Paul and Charleswood-St James-Assiniboia.

It kinda looks that way on a map, but I suspect that the electorates in each of those seats are over 90% urban...its nothing like the "rurban" seats in Sask. that often were 50/50 urban/rural


theleftyinvestor
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

Aristotleded24 wrote:

As pleased as I am with the proposed boundaries and how they improve the chances of the NDP, I think it's unfortunate that we have to rely on redrawing the map in order to win seats, and it is a strange situation where the number of seats won by the parties can change depending on the boundaries even if people vote the same way. I'd prefer to turn around the cratering of support in the rural areas rather than writing them off completely.

By the way, Winnipeg also has 2 rurban seats: Kildonan-St Paul and Charleswood-St James-Assiniboia.

It's unfortunate, yes. However Saskatchewan is truly an exceptional case on our electoral map of how a sizeable voting bloc can be silenced. If you look at the province-by-province grid for 2011, look for each case where a party got 0 seats in the province and check the popular vote. Setting aside the territories who only had one seat each, Saskatchewan NDP is the most egregious at 0/14 for 32.3%. PEI is next at 0/4 for 15.4% (which actually does make sense), followed by Alberta Liberals at 0/28 for 9.3%. The fact that SK sticks out so sorely is a sign that the boundaries were not in the least representative. 


theleftyinvestor
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

Ontario boundaries are not officially announced yet, but they are appearing on the map viewer.

http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/map/pwt/pwt.html?lang=e...

Can't spend too much time on it at work, but I glanced at the effect on Downtown Toronto. 

Toronto Centre loses almost all of Rosedale, and gains the area bounded by the lake, College, Yonge, University from Trinity-Spadina. Suddenly that riding becomes very competitive.

Trinity-Spadina also loses The Annex to St. Paul's. Rosedale and Davisville become a new Mount Pleasant riding. Davenport hands a little extra sliver over to Trinity-Spadina. Parkdale-High Park and Danforth are intact, as is Beaches-East York. 

Rathika's Scarborough-Rouge River has been hacked up. East side joins bits of two more ridings to become Scarborough East. West half alone (rapid growth?) becomes Scarborough North.

Ottawa looks mostly untouched.


Aristotleded24
Offline
Joined: May 24 2005

theleftyinvestor wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

As pleased as I am with the proposed boundaries and how they improve the chances of the NDP, I think it's unfortunate that we have to rely on redrawing the map in order to win seats, and it is a strange situation where the number of seats won by the parties can change depending on the boundaries even if people vote the same way. I'd prefer to turn around the cratering of support in the rural areas rather than writing them off completely.

By the way, Winnipeg also has 2 rurban seats: Kildonan-St Paul and Charleswood-St James-Assiniboia.

It's unfortunate, yes. However Saskatchewan is truly an exceptional case on our electoral map of how a sizeable voting bloc can be silenced. If you look at the province-by-province grid for 2011, look for each case where a party got 0 seats in the province and check the popular vote. Setting aside the territories who only had one seat each, Saskatchewan NDP is the most egregious at 0/14 for 32.3%. PEI is next at 0/4 for 15.4% (which actually does make sense), followed by Alberta Liberals at 0/28 for 9.3%. The fact that SK sticks out so sorely is a sign that the boundaries were not in the least representative. 

The other thing is that the Conservatives won more than 50% of the vote in Saskatchewan, which in FPTP is enough to basically sweep an area. The reason the NDP representation looks as lopsided as it does is because the opposition is squarely behind the NDP, whereas in other cases it might be divided. In other words, the 50% Conservative support in Saskatchewan had as much to do with them nearly sweeping the province as that the NDP support was carved up and diluted.

Hoping one province eastward, I had a chance to look at Brandon-Souris. It's good that the boundaries are drawn a bit tighter around Brandon City as many Tory areas to the north were lost, but unfortunately some Tory polls were taken into the southeast portion, and one of the First Nations was moved out of that riding.


theleftyinvestor
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The other thing is that the Conservatives won more than 50% of the vote in Saskatchewan, which in FPTP is enough to basically sweep an area. The reason the NDP representation looks as lopsided as it does is because the opposition is squarely behind the NDP, whereas in other cases it might be divided. In other words, the 50% Conservative support in Saskatchewan had as much to do with them nearly sweeping the province as that the NDP support was carved up and diluted.

Even that being said, if you look at the provincial SK election where ridings were more finely divided (just over 4x as many ridings), the SK Party got 64.25% of the seats yet the NDP still managed to eke out 9/58 seats. And Linda Duncan got her one seat in AB against a massive Con majority. So the carving up still makes a big difference.


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

I am very skeptical about many of the interpretations of the new boundaries. First, there seems to be an assumption that people vote more for the party than the candidate which is not always the case. I suspect that as many as 10 to 20% of voters vote for the person. To say that the situation worsened for Lamoureux for example may not be accurate as perhaps more would have voted Liberal in the areas he is gaining if they had him to choose from rather than the options they had last time. That is just one example.

As well, the next election will have bigger differences in the dynamics.

The realignment of opposition parties was not as evident and that will change patterns that may boost the NDP over the Liberals in some places.

The issues are most certainly going to be different-- some mentioned the Wheat Board but there are other issues that could shake things up. The issues that people may vote on in the next election may not even have surfaced by now.

The fatigue people often have with an old government "time for a change" phenomenon is only just starting but by 2015 it will likely be in full swing.

Two of the party leaders at least will have changed and it is unclear who they will be in the case of two of the parties: Harper may stay or go and the Liberals are in  a leadership race. My suspicion is that Harper will go as I suspect the polls will deteriorate to the point where he will choose to leave as a success rather than go down to defeat. It is also unclear how Mulcair will do-- he could turn off some people that liked Layton -- or he could attract a whole new constituency that we cannot identify.

I think parties need to really concentrate on fundamental issues rather than making any assumptions about how seats could-have, would have, gone under new boundaries.

I should add that when the differences are major that we cold draw something from them but a close win from a close loss type of interpretation is not a credible interpretation given the entirely different context the next vote will have both in options and issues as well as public perceptions.

 


Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

Well if Bob Rae wants to run again, he can opt for Mount Pleasant.  Just about the most "Liberal" seat demographically.


theleftyinvestor
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Well if Bob Rae wants to run again, he can opt for Mount Pleasant.  Just about the most "Liberal" seat demographically.

True. That'd free up Toronto Centre for an NDP "power candidate". Not that they shouldn't run a power candidate against Rae too.

Realistically it's good that Church and Wellesley is no longer grouped with Rosedale.


toaster
Offline
Joined: Sep 5 2011
I don't understand why Timmins Cochrane James Bay should be the most populated Northern riding when it is so big in geographical size.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments