Jump to navigation
Waterdown–Glanbrook is going to be an absolute pain to campaign in. Ugliest boundary winner, I'd say.
After Haliburton--Uxbridge, the second ugliest is the proposed LANARK—FRONTENAC—HASTINGS which would stretch a three-hour drive from Carleton Place to Bancroft, combining Lanark with part of Hastings for the first time since Confederation, uniting 52% of Lanark - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington with 29% of Prince Edward—Hastings and the 12,385 in Mississippi Mills.
Third prize goes to the Commission’s proposed district of KAWARTHA LAKES—PORT HOPE—COBOURG. This surprising proposal would put Lindsay in the same district as Port Hope and Cobourg. These communities have never been in the same electoral district since Confederation, and have little community of interest. This would combine 40% of the present Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock with 36% of the present Northumberland—Quinte West and 13% of the present Durham district. It’s interesting that this would, in effect, be one of Ontario’s new ridings (with no incumbent), yet it looks as if few really want it as proposed.
[quote=Robo]Why is Clarington, a municipality of 84,000, split in three when it could easily be split in two? It would take a major redrawing to keep all of Clarington in one riding -- the easternmost part of Clarington seems like it will be in a riding with Port Hope and Cobourg. But it is easy to keep westernmost Clarington in one riding instead of two.
If "Oshawa Centre" (maybe "Oshawa South") was comprised of all of Oshawa south of Rossland (or maybe everything in Oshawa south of Taunton Rd and west of Harmony Rd), the the parts of Clarington split between two ridings could be united into "Oshawa-Bowmanville". For both of these ridings, the logic of community interest would be superior.[/quote]
No doubt some Clarington residents will object to Courtice being split in half, and will suggest that the 68,298 residents proposed to be split between two Oshawa-centred districts should be kept together in a CLARINGTON-OSHAWA configuration, rather than Clarington’s Wards 1, 2 and 3 all being split.
[quote=toaster]I think Carol Hughes resides in Kapuskasing, but I could be wrong. Wonder if she'll move to Algoma-Manitoulin-Killarney, even though it becomes a much more anglophone riding.[/quote]
Carol was, when elected, a resident of Elliot Lake for 26 years. No doubt she will stay in Algoma—Manitoulin—Killarney.
Though speaking of York Region, one thing that absolutely doesn't ring true with me is the riding with the presently proposed name "Oak Ridges"--sure, it technically straddles the Oak Ridges Moraine; however, the actual community which gave the Moraine its name is within Aurora-Richmond Hill, and its presence has defined previous ridings with the "Oak Ridges" name. To shift the name westward is geographically illiterate--a name like "King-Maple" (or something more euphonious) would be more fitting...[/quote]
Someone has suggested "King--Maple--Wonderland."
[quote=Stockholm]I don't think that would work, west of Yonge there is just a thin sliver between Yonge and university before you hit Trinity-Spadina, it would not balance. Here is a better idea, move the northern boundary of TC north to Bloor St. From Yonge to Patliament, then at Parlianment have the boundary go south to Carlton so that the ritzy part of Cabbagetown east of Parliament can be united with Rosedale and Davisville. n the name of "community of interest" why not put all the rich areas into one riding![/quote]
Right now the proposed TC has a population of 99,860 according to the 2011 census. Mount Pleasant has a population of 99,695.
Adding up all census tracts in the area between Queen's Park/University/York St. and the Don River south of Bloor (excluding the Toronto Islands) I get a population of 121,399. That is too much for one riding.
In the area between University, Sherbourne, College/Carlton and Bloor there is a population of 30,527 - some of which goes to TC and some to Mount Pleasant. 121,399 - 99,860 = 21,539. Actually since the northern boundary east of Parliament is actually Rosedale Valley not Bloor (it juts south of Bloor after Parliament) I think it's fair to estimate that 21,000 live between Bloor and Wellesley, Queen's Park Crescent and Sherbourne (there can't be more than 500 in that Rosedale-to-Cabbagetown transition zone).
Removing say, 3500 from "prime Cabbagetown" still leaves a population of 118,000 in TC if the northern boundary is at Bloor. That would leave Mount Pleasant too underpopulated.
Putting 11,000 in "Bay-Cloverhill" into Mount Pleasant would still leave it a bit underpopulated - though territory could be taken out of Eglinton-Lawrence at the NW corner of Yonge and Eglinton, say from Yonge to Avenue Rd., Eglinton to Briar Hill.
Alternatively T-S could be shifted a bit eastward (maybe to Bay St.?) and still be well within reasonable population bounds.
OK, here is another idea, if the point is to avoid splitting the "gay village" into two ridings, you don't really need to go all the way up to Bloor, why not have the boundary between TC and MP move up just from Wellesley to Isabella between Sherbourne and Yonge - that would not shift all that many people and you could easily compensate MP by giving it a bit of St. Paul that is east of Avenue and east of diagonal Chaplin Cresent OR have MP take from TC everything east of Parliament and north of Carlton.
"Queer liberal" has also raised his concern (although at a population of 120,000 it is impossible to put everything south of Bloor between Queen's Park/University and the Don in one riding):
[quote=queerliberal]Dear Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario,
I am writing to express my concerns as a resident of the current riding of Toronto Centre and a member of the LGBT community. As you may know, the current Toronto Centre riding contains the largest concentration of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered) citizens than any other riding in Canada. The centre of this community is the Church & Wellesley neighbourhood in the heart of the current riding. What's become popularly known as 'The Village' stretches from Church & Wellesley north up to approximately Bloor Street, and extends south to approximately Carlton Street. Heading west, one could say Bay Street or University Avenue is the unofficial westerly border of the 'Village', while Sherbourne is likely the unofficial easterly border of the community. Of course, many LGBT people live in Toronto outside of these boundaries, including myself. I'm an owner of a condo on Shuter Street near Church Street. But without a doubt, the heart and centre of Toronto's LGBT is the Church & Wellesley intersection. I think if you did any sort of research into this issue, you'd find most Torontonians would agree with this. That's why I was dismayed to see your new riding boundary proposals for Ontario, which include creating the new riding of Mount Pleasant, carved out of mostly the northern half of the current riding of Toronto Centre. The new riding of Toronto Centre instead runs south of Bloor, east of Sherbourne, and south of Wellesley Street to Queen's Park. Mount Pleasant runs mostly north of this same new line. In putting part of the southerly border between these two new ridings right down Wellesley Street, you have in fact proposed to cut Toronto's LGBT community, aka 'The Village' right in half. By any reasonable standard, this line seems arbitrary. It would unnecessarily divide up Toronto's LGBT village into two, diluting the voting power of the community into two ridings. I fail to see what the renters in apartment buildings or coops or condo owners who live near Church and Dundonald or Gloucester or Isabella or Jarvis have in common with the millionaires who live in mansions in Rosedale or other rich neighbourhoods north of St. Clair East. In fact, with this new configuration, voters in the small sliver bordered by Wellesley/Sherbourne/Bloor East/Queen's Park Crescent will be forever overwhelmed by the tens of thousands of wealthier, heterosexual voters who will make up the vast majority of this new riding of Mount Pleasant. Furthermore, the voting power of the LGBT community now contained within the new riding of Toronto Centre will also be diluted by the majority to the south. However, I would at least agree that the income and other demographics of the new Toronto Centre riding are more in sync. In fact, I would argue that the small sliver of the gay village you are now proposing to include in Mount Pleasant has much more in common with the new proposed Toronto Centre riding. I believe it is a mistake to put the border of these two new ridings down Wellesley Street and effectively divide one of Toronto's most vibrant and important communities in half. I would suggest that a better dividing line would be right down Bloor Street, leaving those communities of similar income and interest together in the new Toronto Centre riding to the south. I worry the proposed border down Wellesley Street looks like a deliberate attempt to water down Toronto's downtown gay vote. I strongly urge your Commission to reconsider this border and place it north instead to run directly down Bloor Street between the two new ridings.[/quote]
Yes, it doesn't have to go up to Bloor.
Make Charles St. the north/south boundary (it's the most "major" thoroughfare between Bloor and Wellesley) between TC and MP along its whole run - from Queen's Park Crescent until Jarvis. The Bloor-Yorkville BIA considers Charles its southern boundary and that way the Windsor Arms hotel and the Manulife building and 1 St. Thomas are united with Yorkville proper.
The Bay-Cloverhill neighborhood is sort of a transition zone anyway, a bit U of T, a bit "gay village", a bit Yorkville.
Good to hear...ironically I think that putting all of the Church-Wellesley neighbourhood in Toronto Centre as he advocates probably actually makes it even more likely that TC will go NDP and also removes an area from Mount Pleasant that would help keep that seat Liberal and prevent it from ever going Conservative!! However, I won't look a gift horse in the mouth!
Yes he's not putting the partisan interest of the LPC first in this request. They lose 2 Liberal bastions and "prestige" seats of TC and St. Paul's under this proposed map and get one very Liberal seat in Mount Pleasant, certainly another "prestige" riding.
Their chances of winning back Don Valley West are hurt too as the new (stupidly named) "Toronto North" loses Flemingdon and will be even more Tory "suburban rich"-dominated than was the case under the previous map.
Some of this dilemma might have been avoided had a "St. Lawrence-Harbourfront-Liberty" seat been created. (Sort of a Toronto version of the provincial Vancouver-False Creek.)
I was thinking they might have done that...except the population of the south-of-Queen zone in TC and T-S came a bit short: 80,000. And if you drew the line along Dundas too many "communities of interest" (i.e. Chinatown) would have been cut up.
And overall, I welcome the end of the gerrymandered TC-Rosedale riding.
I don't know if Toronto's gay village is more Liberal or NDP, but either way it makes sence to have it conventrated in TC, where combined thier voices on gay issues will be louder.
Has all the transpositions you'll ever need.
Thanks to https://twitter.com/punditsguide for this amazing find!
Thanks Teddy for a gret resource.
I have had a quick look at the Ontario transpositions. On the new map the NDP wd have gained Toronto Centre, St Pauls (!!!) and Brampton Gore. They wd lave lost Welland. +2 = 24 seats
The Liberals wd gained Scarborouh East, Don Valley east and Mt Pleasant. They wd have lost TC, St Pauls and Markha . Net even = 11 seats.
Unfortunately the Cons wd have gained every new seat elsewhere and gone from 73 to 86.
As I suspected, the Montreal riding of st. Leonard shifts to the NDP on the new map and it isn't even close!
Hard say what seats parties would have gained and lost though had the new electoral map existed last May. For instance looking at MPs like Olivia Chow and Bob Rae they have their own supporters who vote for them and not necessarily their parties. I'd say there were a lot of people last May who voted for Chow who would have voted for Rae had they been in TC. Though obviously the new boundaries here are good for the NDP. Rae didn't do that great, considering his profile, in TC last time so with the right candidate he can be beat, if he even runs again.
I think there is literally ZERO chance that Bob Rae will run again next election. He had a lucrative career as a lawyer/person who serves on royal commissions and he gave it all up to get back into politics for one rerason and one reason only - to become leader of the Liberal party. That has no now been taken off the table. A small consolation prize might have been to be Minister of Foreign Affairs in an Ignatieff government - but that is also not going to happen. The only way there is even the remotest chance of Rae running again in 2015 (when he will be 67) would be in the very unlikely event that the Liberals make some massive comeback and are the hands down favourite to win the next election. Not gonna happen. I think the question is more whether Rae will even stay until 2015 or quit and force a byelection!
[quote=Lord Palmerston]As amusing as the thought of Bob Rae "fleeing" TC he isn't really doing that as he would be living well within the boundaries of Mt. Pleasant (this of course assumes he runs again which I think is unlikely).[/quote]
I would assume Carolyn Bennett will run in Mount Pleasant. It includes about half of the present St. Paul's. Certainly it includes fewer Toronto Centre voters than St. Paul's voters.
She said via twitter she'd run in St. Paul's, I'd say if she runs again that's where the party would want her to run. If Liberals atleast hold their 2011 support then Mount Pleasant will be a fairly easy win for them, St. Paul's on the other hand not so much. With Bennett's profile she'd likely have a better shot of holding it on then a new Liberal candidate.
I could see him leaving early as well. With Rae out of the way it should be an easy NDP, depending on the candidates. George Smitherman could try and replace him which could make it an interesting riding to watch.
I think George Smitherman is now totally disgraced and would be just about the weakest candidate the Liberals could possibly run in Toronto Centre. He was such a weak candidate for mayor that he was crushed by Rob Ford and on top of that his name has been associated with just about every Ontario Liberal fiasco of recent years: e-health, Ornge, green energy, the $190 million lost on the power plant in Mississauga etc...literally every single bad unpopular decision or scandal of the McGuinty government has Smitherman's finger prints all over it...I suspect that the Liberals have already toild him he is "persona non grata"
Wow that transposition site is really neat!
I'm actually heartened to see that Vancouver Granville is a lot closer than I'd have thought. The 2008-Liberal ridings (Centre, Quadra, South) contribute more Liberal than NDP, and the 2008-NDP ridings contribute more NDP than Liberal. To me that suggests there is some swing vote up for grabs. Even if only half the Greens move to Liberal or NDP, it would put them respectively over the top.
2011 Redistributed Results:Conservative by 1654 votes, 3.66%
Conservative 14830 32.85NDP 13176 29.19Liberal 12574 27.86Green Party 4173 9.24
2011 Redistributed Results:Conservative by 1654 votes, 3.66%
Conservative 14830 32.85NDP 13176 29.19Liberal 12574 27.86Green Party 4173 9.24
Burnaby North-Seymour predictably goes Conservative, but with only a 9.7% lead. Prevailing polling trends could still change that.
Port Moody-Coquitlam is a squeaker - Conservative by 361 votes. The NDP is going to fight hard for this one.
Jinny Sims' current Newton-North Delta is a really interesting case. She won the riding by 903 votes at 33.42%. If you look at the segments of her riding that get redistributed, none of those pieces of her riding actually have the NDP on top. Nonetheless out of all the riding's descendants, West Surrey-Whalley is the one that would go NDP. But what of Jasbir Sandhu in old Surrey North? His riding's other descendant North Surrey-Guildford also goes Conservative. So those two might be fighting it out for a nomination.
Vancouver South is pretty much sliced up proportionally. The Cons win by about the same margin.
Nanaimo-Alberni is interesting. It inherits some NDP votes from VI North, which shrinks the Con-NDP margin from 5304 to 1270 votes. The riding becomes more competitive. VI North becomes less competitive.
BC Southern Interior also divvies up unevenly. A blue chunk goes into Central Okanagan-Coquihalla. An orange chunk goes into blue Kootenay-Columbia. An orange chunk goes into South Okanagan-West Kootenay and loses to blue, but that 2809 vote margin is not insurmountable. Atamanenko has a fight on his hands wherever he goes.
Toronto Centre becomes NDP by a squeaker. Vancouver Centre stays Liberal and the margin goes from 2935 to 1957 votes... find a good candidate and it's competitive.
If we're bandying around possible names for TC in 2015, Cathy Crowe for the NDP? Crowe would have a heck of a lot better chance in the new Toronto Centre riding than in the old. She'd be as great a pick for the federal party as for the provincial party. As for the Liberals, it's difficult to think of someone. Smitherman has name recognition but way too much negative baggage, Glen Murray has his eyes set on at least a major ministry, and Sarah Thomson is probably wanting another crack at T–S. Gerard Kennedy would fit right in, but it's way out of his neck of the woods. I suspect we'll get some minor Liberal flack whose only defining trait is unstinting service to the party.
They tried to get him to run in Toronto Dnforth but you're probably right about his chances now.
Another thing that intrigues me is that contrary to some assumptions, redistribution didn't really hinder Trinity-Spadina's NDP safety--indeed, the provisional 2008 margin over the Liberals actually *increased*...
OH JOY. According to that transposition site, the new Waterdown-Glanbrook will be even more invincibly Conservative than current ADFW(something I would never have thought possible).
Sometimes I despair. Why vote at all (never mind, I always do).
[/quote] She said via twitter she'd run in St. Paul's, I'd say if she runs again that's where the party would want her to run. If Liberals atleast hold their 2011 support then Mount Pleasant will be a fairly easy win for them, St. Paul's on the other hand not so much. With Bennett's profile she'd likely have a better shot of holding it on then a new Liberal candidate.[/quote]
I'm the one who asked her :P and yes, this is what she said.
That website is not perfect. There is no way to properly redistribute votes that were not cast in a particular area; IE advance votes. Check Labrador for what I mean.
Based upon the pollmaps website, its interesting how the Cons seem to be such a 'wonderful' beneficiary, across Canada, of the proposed new electoral boundaries:
[b]2011 Actual Results:[/b]
Cons have 24 seat majority
[b]2011 Redistributed Boundaries:[/b]
Con: 191 (+25)
NDP: 111 (+8)
Lib: 32 (-2)
BQ: 3 (-1)
Redistributed Con: 191
Redistributed Opposition: 147
Cons now have 44 seat majority (+20)
[quote=theleftyinvestor]I'm actually heartened to see that Vancouver Granville is a lot closer than I'd have thought.[/quote]
Yeah, that's a bit of a weird riding (it's basically Langara/Fairview provincially, no?). It may make more sense to split the west side north/south rather than east/west, putting Point Grey/Fairview in one and Langara/Quilchena in another.
Crud, I missed the August 30th deadline for indicating intent to make a submission to the BC electoral boundaries commission hearings. So I guess I don't get a say in the new BC riding boundaries.
The proposed BC riding boundaries are a total mess. That BC can go from 34-41 seats, and yet have the NDP go from 12-10 seats based on the transposed 2011 vote, while the conservatives go from 21-29, it can't not be gerrymandering.
The absolute worst is the abomination that is Burnaby-Seymour. It looks like a blatant attempt to put the Burnaby portion of the Kinder-Morgan piepline expansion (it has generated considerable opposition in north Burnaby) in a Conservative riding.
Also personally not happy that our area of Burnaby is moved out of Peter Julian's riding into the new Burnaby South--Seymour. Murphy's law, we'll get stuck with Kennedy Stewart as the NDP candidate, of whom I'm not a fan, if he covers his butt by running in the more winnable Burnaby South--Deer Lake instead of the less winnable Burnaby-Seymour.
Not happy with any of this proposed redistribution here in BC on any accounts.
So I guess I have to cross my fingers and hope that enough opposition to this horribly awful situation made the deadline for notifying the commission of intent to make a submission.
The thing to keep in mind is that in the 2011 election the Tories actually carried BC by a very wide margin. They took 45% of the province-wide popular vote compared to the NDP with 32% and the Liberals and Greens wayyyy back. The NDP was actually very lucky to win 12 seats out of 36 despite being 13 points behind in the popular vote...The new map NOTIONALLY makes a couple of very marginal NDP seats look like they would have gone CPC by very narrow margins - but the downside for the Tories is that new map also makes a lot of the Tory seats more marginal. Right now most polls show the NDP with a 6 or 7 point lead over the Tories in BC - that would represent a 20 point swing compared to the last election. Maybe that would be a bit too good to be true - but imagine of the BC was even just very close - say 38-38 rather than 45-32, the NDP would start picking up seats like crazy - they would quickly win back the notional losses in South Okanagan-West Kootenay and in Coquitlam-Port Coquitlam and then the following seats would all fall into the NDP's lap: Nanaimo-Alberni, North Vancouver Island, Vancouver Granville, Vancouver Centre, Surrey Centre, Kootentay-Columbia for a total of 18 - and there would also be a good shot at North Burnaby-Seymour, Kamlopps etc..., North-Surrey Guildford and possibly others - so I don't mind this map. I'm confident that if the BC popular vote in 2015 is almost a tie between the CPC and NDP - the NDP is likely to win about 20 out of 41 seats.
Ok, I went ahead and made a written submission to the Bc Electoral Boundaries Commission anyways, despite it being a couple of days past the August 30 deadline for notification of submissions. Cross my fingers they arn't so anal as to decide not to consider the content of my submission based on the arbitrary August 30th deadline, when they probably havn't considered any submissions as of yet.
Here's what I submitted to the commission, minus the personal contact info which I had to submit but which I don't want connected to my babbler profile.
[quote]Hello Electoral Boundaries Commission,
I would like to make the following written submission to the BC Electoral Boundaries Commission.
I am writing to speak against the proposed riding of Burnaby North--Seymour, and to propose a solution to this problem.
As you know, this riding places that portion of Burnaby north of Lougheed Highway into a cross Burrard Inlet riding with that portion of North Vancouver east of Lynn Creek. These two areas, geographically seperated by Burrard Inlet, represent distinct communities of interest with distinct voting histories, and it will be difficult for a single MP from one party to effectively represent all the residents in this riding.
A plurality of voters in the North Burnaby portion of the proposed riding have traditionally voted for the NDP; while a plurality of voters in the North Vancouver portion of the proposed riding have voted for the Conservative, Liberal, and Reform/Canadian Alliance parties over the course of the last number of elections.
The North Burnaby portion of the proposed riding is currently facing the proposal by Kinder Morgan to more than double the capacity of its Trans-Mountain pipeline to Burnaby, in order to carry tar sands bitumen from the Alberta tar sands to Kinder Morgan's oil tanker terminal in Burnaby, where it will be shipped by large oil tankers to other countrie to be refined into petroleum products. This proposal has generated considerable opposition from Burnaby residents, both in the North Burnaby portion of the proposed riding, where the pipeline runs, and in other parts of Burnaby. Burnaby City Council has come out strongly against the proposed Kinder-Morgan pipeline expansion.
There has not been the same level of opposition to the Kinder-Morgan pipeline expansion in the North Vancouver portion of the riding, both because the pipeline does not run through this portion of the riding, and because of the small-c conservative values that are more prevalent in this area.
At the same time, residents of the North Vancouver portion of the proposed riding have a stronger commitment to fiscal and social conservatism, values they share to a greater extent with other residents of North Vancouver west of Lynn Creek, than with the more fiscally and socially liberal voters in North Burnaby.
From a geographical perspective, the Burnaby and North Vancouver portions of the proposed riding are separated by Burrard inlet. To get from the Burnaby to the North Vancouver portions of the proposed riding and vice-versa requires crossing the Ironworkers Memorial Bridge, a route upon which traffic often backs up. This will impede access to the riding office for those residents who find themselves on the opposite side of Burrard Inlet from the office. The only way to avoid this problem is to open two riding offices, one on either side of Burrard Inlet. This invariably costs extra money, and is not desirable when riding boundaries can be drawn such as to avoid a riding that crosses Burrard Inlet.
North of Burrard inlet, the changes would look as follows:
1) North Vancouver--SeymourThis riding would include all of the Seymour portion of the proposed North Burnaby--Seymour riding, along with all of North Vancouvetr City and most of the rest of North Vancouver District.
2) North Vancouver--West Vancouver--Sunshine CoastThis riding would include the Sunshine Coast, West Vancouver, a small portion of North Vancouver District, plus Lions Bay and Bowen Island. Would not include Squamish or areas north.
South of Burrard Inlet the changes would look as follows:
1) Burnaby--DouglasPart or all of existing Burnaby--Douglas riding south of Moscrop St., Deer Lake Pkw, and Canada Way would be removed from the riding, and moved into a new South Burnaby riding.
2) Burnaby SouthThis riding would include the South Burnaby portion of the current Burnaby--New Westminster riding, plus that portion of Burnaby--Douglas which would be moved into the riding.
3) New Westminster--CoquitlamThe western portion of New Westminster would be moved into New Westminster--Coquitlam, and a portion of Coquitlam would be moved out of the existing New Westminster--Coquitlam.
I recognize that these proposed changes would create a ripple effect that would necessitate other changes in other ridings. I have not figured out how these will play out. No doubt there will be other concerns that will be raised by other submissions to the commission that will be determining factors. I sincerely hope the commission can figure out a way to accommodate some version of these changes.
I also recognize that there was an August 30th deadline for submissions to the commission. I sincerely apologize for missing this deadline by a couple of days, and I sincerely hope that as this is a written submission and not a request to speak at any of the public hearings, that the commission will give serious consideration to the proposals I have made.
That's a good letter Left Turn and I hope they do take it into consideration, though if it's any consolation I'm sure there's going to be a lot of opposition to "Burnaby North-Seymour."
It looks like BC is a mess. Perhaps since it looks there's almost a perfect 2-1 ratio between the number of provincial and federal ridings, they should perhaps use that as a model - with minor adjustments of course given that the provincial distribution was based on 2006 rather than 2011 census figures.
One problem though - according to the 2011 census Burnaby has a population of 223,000. So it needs probably more than 2 ridings. Yet it seems unnecessary that there's only 1 full Burnaby riding (Burnaby South) - surely they could have 2 full ridings and maybe keep the Burnaby East-New Westminster more or less in place.
Unfortunately BC Stats hasn't issued population figures for provincial ridings for 2011.
Labrador is fixed.
[quote=Left Turn]The absolute worst is the abomination that is Burnaby-Seymour.[/quote]
From the Burnaby Newsleader:
[quote][b]Burnaby North-Seymour riding a done deal?[/b]
Stewart Ladyman, one of three commission members, is quoted in Huffington Post Canada as saying, “The North Burnaby-North Vancouver issue has been on the table for a number of commissions, and [u]there is just no way this time around but to cross the river[/u].”
The question asked was, 'Do you see any way of not having a riding combining North Van and Burnaby.' And my answer was ... we have looked at a number of alternatives and I see no way but to have a riding that crosses the inlet," he said.
"So of course that's taken that we're not going to change it. But we're willing to let people come [to public hearings] and if somebody can come with a proposal that meets the criteria, then I think the commissioners are willing to change."
The commission determined that there's too many people on the North Shore for two ridings but not enough for three, Ladyman said.
"That has a whole rippling effect as you cross into Burnaby and it gets into Surrey.[/quote]
So I guess that's the key then. Provide the commission with maps of alternative riding boundaries so that the North Shore meets the quotient and doesn't need to cross Burrard Inlet into Burnaby.
I agree here. When someone wins most seats, they will win more than their share of most of the new ridings.
[quote=Stockholm]I'm confident that if the BC popular vote in 2015 is almost a tie between the CPC and NDP - the NDP is likely to win about 20 out of 41 seats.[/quote]
Some good points. BC, however has this weird historical political aberration, once a provincial NDP government is elected. In that vein, BC will have an NDP government next May, 2013.
1. August, 1972 - December, 1975 - BC NDP government
July, 1974 federal election BC results: 2 seats and 23% of the vote
(from 7 seats and 32.6% in 1968)
2. October, 1991 - May, 2001 - BC NDP government
October, 1993 federal election BC results: 2 seats and 15.5% of the vote
(from 19 seats and 37% in 1988)
June, 1997 federal election BC results: 3 seats and 18.2% of the vote
November, 2000 federal election BC results: 2 seats and 11.3% of the vote
I blame it on a hostile MSM. Hopefully this time around that streak will be broken.
[quote=Centrist][quote=Stockholm]I'm confident that if the BC popular vote in 2015 is almost a tie between the CPC and NDP - the NDP is likely to win about 20 out of 41 seats.[/quote]
I blame it on a hostile MSM. Hopefully this time around that streak will be broken.[/quote]
Similar to Ontario in a way. Only once in the last 50 years, or something like that, has the majority of their federal seats been won by the same party in power provincially, which was in the 2004 federal election.
If a party isn't popular provincially I think it makes it hard for the federal party in that province to do well. Look at the Liberals for instance, having unpopular Liberal parties ruling BC, Quebec, and Ontario, even if they're not affiliated, likely played a large role in the federal party's collapse in support. The same could probably be said for the NDP in the 1990s, Bob Rae's government was probably the worse thing to ever happen to the federal NDP.
Then again, Ontario went Liberal in 2003 with McGuinty and the Liberals still won a plaurality of votes and seats in Ontario in 2004 and 2006
When I posted this on FB, I got blasted by one person from Eastern Ontario for "Toronto-centrism." But here it is:
[quote=Xtra]For Robert Fabian, one of the leaders of the Church-Wellesley Neighbourhood Association, the proposed division of the community among two MPs would make it more difficult for the group to have access to an elected official. “My experience is that it takes a fair amount of time to establish a relationship with an elected official. It doesn’t happen overnight. I just see a doubling of that challenge,” he says.
Fabian says he will encourage the CWNA to petition the Commission to adjust the boundary to maintain the entire Church-Wellesley neighbourhood in one riding, with the boundary being moved north to Charles or Bloor Streets, or south to College/Carlton Streets. “My own instincts would argue for having it part of the more downtown, urban Toronto Centre,” he says. “Moore Park and Rosedale are clearly upscale, above-average income ridings. To the extent that downtown neighbourhoods have encouraged diversity, it makes more sense to stay downtown. Rosedale does not encourage diversity.” The federal redistribution will have knock-on effects for the province, because under Ontario law, provincial ridings in Southern Ontario are defined to be the same as federal ridings unless Queen’s Park changes them.
Casey Oraa, vice-chair of the activist group Queer Ontario, says the organization may consider making a submission to the commission about the proposed changes. “It’s hard to predict the impact of the redistribution,” he says. “If you look at the Village itself, it’s going through changes and gentrification. The landscape of the Village is changing.”
For current MPP Glen Murray, using Wellesley as the riding boundary is “problematic.”
“One of the principles of redistribution is that you respect the boundaries of significant neighbourhoods,” he says. “The Church-Wellesley neighbourhood is a very strong neighbourhood. “You want political boundaries that allow you to work effectively as an MP and so that neighbourhoods can work effectively with government. The gay and lesbian community, Church-Wellesley is a historic area for the community in Toronto. You wouldn’t want to divide it.”
Murray says he’ll meet with city councillors Kristyn Wong-Tam and Pam McConnell, who represent the area, and with neighbourhood residents and business associations to consider making a joint submission to the commission about the new boundary.[/quote]
[quote=Centrist][quote=Stockholm]I'm confident that if the BC popular vote in 2015 is almost a tie between the CPC and NDP - the NDP is likely to win about 20 out of 41 seats.[/quote] Some good points. BC, however has this weird historical political aberration, once a provincial NDP government is elected. In that vein, BC will have an NDP government next May, 2013. 1. August, 1972 - December, 1975 - BC NDP government July, 1974 federal election BC results: 2 seats and 23% of the vote (from 7 seats and 32.6% in 1968) 2. October, 1991 - May, 2001 - BC NDP government October, 1993 federal election BC results: 2 seats and 15.5% of the vote (from 19 seats and 37% in 1988) June, 1997 federal election BC results: 3 seats and 18.2% of the vote November, 2000 federal election BC results: 2 seats and 11.3% of the vote I blame it on a hostile MSM. Hopefully this time around that streak will be broken.[/quote]
There's one you're missing: The 1972 federal election on October 30, 1972. It was only two months after the provincial election on August 30 that elected Barrett's NDP government. The federal NDP under David Lewis went up from 32.6 to 35% in the BC popular vote and picked up 4 more seats from 7 to 11. This is the only time that a federal election was so soon after BC elected the NDP that the electorate hadn't turned against them yet.
The question is, can Adrian Dix sustain for two years the kind of glow the NDP still had two months after Barrett's election? Dix has already hinted that his government will be looking to make incremental changes. At the convention he and Glen Clark talked about how BCNDP governments had a lot of good ideas and policies but sometimes it failed on the implementation side because there were simply too many changes being made at once for the public service to handle. So the idea is to make a smaller number of better-implemented changes. Dix is a smart man and I am sure he has thought about how a BCNDP government would affect the federal party. Perhaps he will try for a strategy of two incremental "no unnecessary sudden moves" years, to keep his critics pacified long enough to reach the federal election.
And for that matter, never mind the "Free Trade Election" todoo; it may have been a touch of residual Peterson-mania that explained Liberal strength in heartland Ontario in 1988...
The way I see it, you can categorize Canadian voters two ways:
#1. Partisan voters, who vote the same way federally and provincially, no matter what;
#2. Swing voters, who cast their ballots each time based on issues at that moment, the personality of the candidate (or Leader), etc.
I would put about 50% of Canadian voters in each category.
One thing I have noticed is that many 'Swing' voters prefer to vote in provincial governments of another party than the federal government as a counter-balance.
In 1984, when Mulroney was elected P.M., there were provincial Conservative (Social Credit) governments in every province except Quebec and Manitoba, but by 1993, they were all voted out except for Alberta.
Trying to match provincial voting patterns to federal ones isn't a very acurate measure of support.
You can see the Partisans in polls where they ask for the "second place" option.
About 15% of Canadians have no second place option for the CPC (Tories) meaning that this is their core vote.
The Liberals and NDP have a "core" vote of closer to 5% as voters are willing to trust the other party, but tis varies by province, with the Liberals having a core of closer to 10%-15% in Ontario
The Bloc has a core of near 10% or so in Quebec.
[quote=Centrist]So I guess that's the key then. Provide the commission with maps of alternative riding boundaries so that the North Shore meets the quotient and doesn't need to cross Burrard Inlet into Burnaby.[/quote]
Suggested joint objection from Kennedy Stewart and Alex Atamanenko.
The problems with the Commission’s proposal include:
1. Burnaby North—Seymour crosses Burrard Inlet with no community of interest
2. Central Okanagan—Coquihalla has, after losing Penticton, no cohesion, being left-over parts ranging from 23,155 people in a chunk of downtown Kelowna to Summerland (split from Penticton), Princeton, Merritt, Logan Lake, right up to the south boundary of Kamloops, and even 8,663 people from Chase and other parts of Columbia-Shuswap.
3. Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon runs from part of Chilliwack (split) 357 km to 100 Mile House, more than a four-hour drive, still including Lytton, Lillooet, Pemberton, Ashcroft, and Cache Creek, and adding the west side of Highway 97 (but excluding Clinton) and part of the 100 Mile House area. This riding has 73,368 people in the Lower Mainland, losing part of Chilliwack, and 29,251 in the Interior.
These three problems have a common solution:
1. WEST VANCOUVER--NORTH VANCOUVER--SUNSHINE COAST has West Vancouver’s 42,694 residents, 2,700 from Capilano reserve, and about 27,500 in North Vancouver District (some of whom were already in West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast - Sea to Sky Country), along with 4,791 in Lions Bay/Bowen Island, and 28,619 in Sunshine Coast. Leave out Whistler and Squamish. With about 106,304 residents, it is 1.5% over quotient.
2. NORTH VANCOUVER then has about 107,261 residents, 2.4% above quotient.
3. Remove the rest of Chilliwack from FRASER CANYON. It then has 26,401 people from Fraser Valley Regional District (Kent, Hope, etc.). Add Whistler and Squamish, making 38,171 in the whole of Squamish—Lillooet RD. Add Merritt, Logan Lake, Clinton, and the parts of Thompson-Nicola not included in the new Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, making the total from Thompson-Nicola RD 23,624. Include the 100 Mile House area and Cariboo G (6,851). Add Princeton and Okanagan-Similkameen H (4,492). Total: 99,539 (5% under quotient).
4. Shift a belt of six proposed ridings to the east: Burnaby North--Seymour, Port Moody—Coquitlam, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Mission—Matsqui, and Abbotsford—Sumas. These become: BURNABY NORTH—PORT MOODY, COQUITLAM CENTRE, PORT COQUITLAM—EAST COQUITLAM—PITT MEADOWS, MAPLE RIDGE—MISSION, ABBOTSFORD CENTRE, and CHILLIWACK—ABBOTSFORD EAST (Chilliwack 81,011 and about 23,750 in Abbotsford).
5. OKANAGAN CENTRAL—SOUTH then includes West Kelowna, Peachland and area (45,107), the Penticton area not including Okanagan—Similkameen D (36,644), Summerland (11,280), and about 20,850 in Kelowna, total 113,881 (8.7% over quotient) . (KELOWNA—LAKE COUNTRY will then have about 113,882 people, 8.7% over quotient.)
6. SOUTH OKANAGAN—WEST KOOTENAY, after moving 5,284 people in New Denver, Silverton, Slocan and Central Kootenay H to KOOTENAY—COLUMBIA, then has 93,823 people including 26,412 people in Oliver, Osoyoos, Keremeos, and Okanagan—Similkameen A, B, C, D, and G; 31,138 people in Kootenay—Boundary, and 36,273 in Central Kootenay: 10.4% under quotient.
7. KOOTENAY—COLUMBIA then has about 22,168 people in Central Kootenay along with East Kootenay’s 56,685 and 14,457 in Columbia-Shuswap, making about 93,310 people, 10.9% under quotient. Since the Commission finds Skeena—Bulkley Valley acceptable with 14.1% under quotient, Kootenay—Columbia should have some consideration.
[quote=David Young]In 1984, when Mulroney was elected P.M., there were provincial Conservative (Social Credit) governments in every province except Quebec and Manitoba, but by 1993, they were all voted out except for Alberta.[/quote]
Though they were voted *in* in Manitoba by that time...
[quote=Wilf Day]These three problems have a common solution:
1. WEST VANCOUVER--NORTH VANCOUVER--SUNSHINE COAST has West Vancouver’s 42,694 residents, 2,700 from Capilano reserve, and about 27,500 in North Vancouver District (some of whom were already in West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast - Sea to Sky Country), along with 4,791 in Lions Bay/Bowen Island, and 28,619 in Sunshine Coast. [u]Leave out Whistler and Squamish.[/u] With about 106,304 residents, it is 1.5% over quotient.
3. Remove the rest of Chilliwack from FRASER CANYON. It then has 26,401 people from Fraser Valley Regional District (Kent, Hope, etc.). [u]Add Whistler and Squamish[/u], making 38,171 in the whole of Squamish—Lillooet RD. Add Merritt, Logan Lake, Clinton, and the parts of Thompson-Nicola not included in the new Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, making the total from Thompson-Nicola RD 23,624. Include the 100 Mile House area and Cariboo G (6,851). Add Princeton and Okanagan-Similkameen H (4,492). Total: 99,539 (5% under quotient).[/quote]
Removing Squamish and Whistler from WVNVSC and placing same in Fraser Canyon will cause more of an uproar in those two towns with their "community of interest" tied to Vancouver - not to the eastern Fraser Valley and the Fraser Canyon.
On that note, the village of Pemberton, situated just north of Whistler (actually somewhat of a bedroom community of Whistler) is now demanding to also become part of WVNVSC:
[quote]An online petition to get Pemberton added to the political discussion with the aim of switching its federal riding has been set up by the Village of Pemberton.
The village wants to see the boundaries for two ridings change, removing Pemberton from Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon and adding it to West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast–Sea to Sky Country, the riding that includes Whistler, Squamish, West Vancouver and the Sunshine Coast, which is currently represented in parliament by MP John Weston of the Conservative Party of Canada.
"Our social orientation, our transportation infrastructure, our business supply infrastructure, our recreation, our food supply... just about everything goes north-south here from Pemberton down into Vancouver. There is zero connection with the eastern Fraser Valley," said Pemberton Mayor Jordan Sturdy in an interview.
"We are a part of the Sea to Sky. The constituency for it is West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky. Well, they left out part of the Sea to Sky, the 'Sky' part. Which is us!"
Sturdy said he had made both Weston and Mark Strahl, Pemberton's current MP, aware of Pemberton Village's hope to switch ridings.
Sturdy said both MPs are on board.[/quote]
What a mess! This Fraser Canyon proposal sounds like a bigger problem in terms of "community of interest" than Burnaby North-Seymour.
Meanwhile, in my own riding of Trinity-Spadina (now populated at 144,000), Olivia Chow is objecting to the new boundaries. On Twitter she wrote on Aug. 27:
[quote]University of Toronto neighbourhood will be chopped up in half by new boundaries. Trinity Spadina will lose Annex. Bad idea.[/quote]
First of all, U of T is already split - the campus stretches east to Bay St. and the east/west divide between the current TC and TS is Queen's Park Crescent. U of T doesn't go north of Bloor. Second, T-S remains an NDP stronghold while at the same time St. Paul's becomes winnable with the addition of the Annex and Seaton Village (and a very small sliver around Oakwood and St. Clair) and the loss of everything east of Avenue Rd. So what's not to like?
[quote=Centrist]Removing Squamish and Whistler from WVNVSC and placing same in Fraser Canyon will cause more of an uproar in those two towns with their "community of interest" tied to Vancouver - not to the eastern Fraser Valley and the Fraser Canyon. On that note, the village of Pemberton, situated just north of Whistler (actually somewhat of a bedroom community of Whistler) is now demanding to also become part of WVNVSC [/quote]
So how do you make the numbers work? Try to take Powell River back, and try to assemble enough communities to make three North Shore ridings?
Actually yes, U of T does go north of Bloor:
- OISE- Jackman Humanities Building - Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work- Admissions & Awards- Leighton Goldie McCarthy House (Child Study)
But you're right, the QP boundary removes more of U of T than Bloor does. The campus map shows about 37 building symbols in the space between QP and Bay. Maybe there's a solution to both the village-splitting problem and the campus-splitting (along QP) issue which, along with adjusting some other ridings, would create more rational boundaries?