Electoral Maps 5

411 posts / 0 new
Last post
Centrist

Wilf Day wrote:
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?

Obviously if the population meets the needs of three ridings on the North Shore, there is no need to cross Burrard Inlet.

But I actually dunno.

1. Perhaps add Pemberton and environs back into the West Van riding with a combined population of roughly just over 5,260, which population has a community interest with Whistler, Squamish, Vancouver as it is situate on the western side of the coastal mountains?

BTW, the Duffy Lake Road through to the Fraser Canyon side (arid Lillooet and Lytton) is just a paved and glorified logging road, which steeply ascends and descends with numerous mountain switchbacks that only the hardy tourist utilizes.

But then what about the new Chilliwack riding? It is now proposed to go waaaaaay up north to 100 Mile House in the Cariboo/Chilcotin region. People are not happy about that up there! With Pemberton and environs taken out, then will the proposed Chilliwack riding boundaries need to be extended even further north?

2. If Powell River is brought back into the West Van riding, how does it affect all of the new boundaries on Vancouver Island?

Seems like a house of cards.

I dunno. If I had access to all of the cartography and materials that the commission has, I would 'hope' to find some solution. But I don't have that information at my fingertips.

Lord Palmerston

OK but there are no student residences on the north side of Bloor.

adma

Lord Palmerston wrote:

OK but there are no student residences on the north side of Bloor.

Well, there's Tartu + various frat and sorority houses.  But yes, I agree that it's pretty marginal relative to U of T proper.

Oh, and re all the cries of doom re redistribution and all those added notionally-Tory seats: let's remember that the psychology of redistribution might wind up playing into the post-Orange Crush hands of the NDP--otherwise you might as well write off any chance of a non-Con in any 905 seat that isn't Bramalea-Gore...

Brachina

Blunt Objects has done a redistrubtion of the votes to the new ridings.

http://rabble.ca/news/2012/09/could-be-pqs-last-hurrah

Very interesting, we would have won a couple of seats in Scarbough last time, but I could see us sweeping Scarbough with s good campaign except Argicourt would be hard unless the Liberal drop hard in the GTA in favour of the NDP. Then again the NDP was no better in KW in the last election, then killed it in the bielection so who knows.

Wilf Day

The transposed results are on this site:

Con 191 (up 25)

NDP 111 (up 8)

Lib 32 (down 2)

Bloc 3 (down 1)

Green 1 (no change)

 

theleftyinvestor

Someone else noticed Brampton-Gore upthread but it's an interesting one to look at.

Old Bramalea-Gore-Malton was a very close contest both federally and provincially - it went Con by less than 1% in the former and NDP in the latter. New Brampton-Gore is composed *only* of a subset of BGM, and BG goes NDP by a 7.78% margin over Con.

Also the small part of BGM that goes to Mississauga North is NDP-friendly, but they're in third for the rest of the riding. Nonetheless, that might provide them a seed to plant in Mississauga for the future.

My parents (who supported Liberal Ken Dryden) live in a part of York Centre that is going to flip to Willowdale. Very interesting to note: The chunk of Willowdale that stays in Willowdale would very narrowly go Liberal due to the loss of a piece that is going to join Don Valley North. But the slice of York Centre that it gets attached to is once again enough of a Conservative lead to keep it leaning that way.

But speaking of Don Valley North (Conservative), it pulls in a chunk of the old Don Valley East. The rest of DVE gets expanded to a Liberal-friendly chunk of the now-defunct Don Valley West. As a result, new DVE goes Liberal despite the fact that both the old DVW and DVE had gone Conservative.

theleftyinvestor

308 has for the first time posted a projection based on the 338-seat proposed map.

What's been said upthread about BC holds quite true - the idea that even though the redistribution appears to create 6 new Conservative seats and also hand them 2 NDP seats, a lot of Con/NDP races become much closer. So instead of CON/NDP/LIB/GRN 29/10/2/1 based on 2011 results, Grenier projects 17/21/3/1 from BC polling numbers (can we bet that the new Liberal seat is Vancouver-Granville?).

Interesting how the overall Atlantic vote has the NDP leading the Cons by almost 7 points, but the seat projection still has the Cons winning one more than the NDP. And the third-place Liberals get even more than either the Cons or NDP. Woo hoo democracy? 

Anyway it shows 160 Con seats, short of the 169 required for a majority. LIB+CON would equal 172.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2012/09/august-2012-federal-polling-averages.html

Brachina

I wonder how many seats the Federal NDP would win if we had Dix's numbers, say 50+ percent.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Lots more BUT the federal party does not have that kind of support. Dix is facing an incompetent fool who is being guided by has been hacks. The big news is that the solid 40 to 45% of the electorate that votes for the right is breaking into two parts and the swing voters are all going to Dix.

If the BC Liberals collapse it is hard to say whether the NDP or Cons will pick up the bulk of those votes. Liberals federally also often vote Liberal provincially which means they support the free market fundamentalism offered up by both Campbell and Harper. A collapse of the BC Liberals while led by Clark, a federal Liberal, might also lead to a further erosion of the federal Liberals and that is a very double edged sword for the NDP.  If the federal Liberal brand hangs on to its progressive voters and sheds its right wing to the Cons the NDP will lose seats around the province.

David Young

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 

If the BC Liberals collapse it is hard to say whether the NDP or Cons will pick up the bulk of those votes. Liberals federally also often vote Liberal provincially which means they support the free market fundamentalism offered up by both Campbell and Harper. A collapse of the BC Liberals while led by Clark, a federal Liberal, might also lead to a further erosion of the federal Liberals and that is a very double edged sword for the NDP.  If the federal Liberal brand hangs on to its progressive voters and sheds its right wing to the Cons the NDP will lose seats around the province.

Somebody please pass these words of wisdom around to any who still maintains the utter non-sense that a Liberal/NDP merger/co-alliance/blah-blah-blah would automatically result in the defeat of the Conservatives!!!!

A substantial portion of Liberal supporters will either stay at home and not vote, or vote Conservative, but will never vote NDP.

In order to defeat the Harperites, the NDP has to continue to lure away soft-left leaning Liberal voters, but keep the right-of-centre Liberals where they are.  Which will be much easier now that the NDP is clearly the party in the best position to defeat Harper.

Oh...Debater??????  Where are thou?

 

theleftyinvestor

There are various "gradations" of Liberals in BC, I find,at least from a Vancouver perspective. I know people who fall into each of the following camps:
- Support Vision Vancouver and COPE, vote for federal Liberals only in Van Centre / Quadra / South, and otherwise support the NDP & BCNDP most of the time. (I voted for Hedy Fry in 2008, full disclosure, and for Libby Davies in 2011)
- Support Vision Vancouver, federal Liberals and the BCNDP - identify as Liberals who draw the line at getting into bed with Conservatives, hence BCNDP instead.
- Support Vision Vancouver (and all of the people in it who have NDP links!), federal Liberals and the BC Liberals - identify as centrist or even progressive but have a laundry list of reasons why they can't stomach the NDP.
- (increasingly rarer breed) Support the NPA, federal Liberals and BC Liberals
- Support the NPA, federal Conservatives and BC Liberals
- (oddly enough) Support Vision Vancouver, federal Conservatives and BC Liberals
(I have never met anyone who supports the BC Conservatives.)
But as you can see, all this partial overlap makes for strange bedfellows when people from one level of politics show up at an event for another.

Ippurigakko

Federal electoral riding proposal snubs Nunavik again Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission puts Nunavik in two ridings — not one of its own

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674federal_electoral_rid...

TheNewTeddy

That riding was the only one not to be continous in all of Canada. In addition, the number of people who live in the affected area is either at or near 0. 

Lord Palmerston

Apparently Glen Murray is planning to push to get the entirety of Church-Wellesley moved into Mount Pleasant.

Unionist

Has anyone considered population transfers?

Stockholm

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Apparently Glen Murray is planning to push to get the entirety of Church-Wellesley moved into Mount Pleasant.

I can see why he would want that...Murray would much rather run in Mount Pleasant which is designed to be a safe Liberal seat - but he would not want to be seen to be fleeing a riding that contains the gay village - so this way he would be able to have his cake and eat it too! Also, if they moved the boundary of Mount Pleasant south to College it would mean that Toronto Centre would have to take more of the condo belt from Trinity-Spadina, which in turn would mean that T-S would have to regain the Annex and Seaton Village, which in turn would mean St. Paul would have to regain some territory east of Yonge...this is a BAD idea from an NDP perspective since it takes St. Paul from being a good NDP prospect back to being  safe Liberal seat - while doing nothing to make TC or TS any safer or more winnable. I want the NDP to win 3 out of 4 seats from TS, SP, MP and TC...this change would make it 2 out of 4. The NDP should oppose this proposal every step of the way!

theleftyinvestor

There's a hearing at SFU downtown in Vancouver Monday night. I think I'm going to drop in. Anyone else?

Lord Palmerston

Don and Libby Davies on the proposed boundaries for Vancouver: http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/local/2012/09/13/20197451.html

It seems to me that the Vancouver map could be greatly improved, but that would require a more "radical" tweaking of the riding boundaries.

Van Centre really shouldn't cross False Creek.  And on the west side especially 16th Street is a great boundary - no "communities of interest" cross 16th.  In Quadra, you end up having the more progressive Kitsilano and UBC vote being dilluted by the more wealthy and small-"c" conservative neighborhoods of SW Vancouver.  But the west side is split on a north/south rather than east/west axis.  A "Point Grey-Fairview" riding above 16th and stretching from UBC to say, Cambie seems more reasonable (and quite winnable for the NDP I should say) - a bit like the proposed changes for St. Paul's riding in Toronto.

Look forward to hearing about the Vancouver depositions.

Lord Palmerston

Stockholm wrote:
I can see why he would want that...Murray would much rather run in Mount Pleasant which is designed to be a safe Liberal seat - but he would not want to be seen to be fleeing a riding that contains the gay village - so this way he would be able to have his cake and eat it too! Also, if they moved the boundary of Mount Pleasant south to College it would mean that Toronto Centre would have to take more of the condo belt from Trinity-Spadina, which in turn would mean that T-S would have to regain the Annex and Seaton Village, which in turn would mean St. Paul would have to regain some territory east of Yonge...this is a BAD idea from an NDP perspective since it takes St. Paul from being a good NDP prospect back to being  safe Liberal seat - while doing nothing to make TC or TS any safer or more winnable. I want the NDP to win 3 out of 4 seats from TS, SP, MP and TC...this change would make it 2 out of 4. The NDP should oppose this proposal every step of the way!

Indeed, it would be bad.  I think the Toronto map is great overall.  The old gerrymandered "Rosedale" that dates back to the 1930s (also reflected in the former provincial riding of "St. George-St. David") is gone. University Ave./Avenue Rd. is a good solid boundary as is Bloor.  St. Paul's had stretched to far east since the 90s.  It makes sense to have the eastern half of St. Paul's united with northern TC.  This is the closest the federal map has gotten to the "block ridings" in the 1972 city council maps that progressives had fought for.

I just spoke with someone in Olivia Chow's office today.  Initially they were opposed to the Annex/Seaton Village being taken out of T-S.  Now they are planning on "conusuting" residents north of Bloor about the proposed boundary change.  But presumably there's going to be coordination among the NDP in Toronto, and I think they'll come to realize this map is better.

Lord Palmerston

Hedy Fry is in her seventies and unlikely to run again I think.  

What would you say are the boundaries for DTES?  I've heard different definitions - sometimes including Strathcona, Chinatown and Gastown.

Left Turn

Lord Palmerston wrote:

What would you say are the boundaries for DTES?  I've heard different definitions - sometimes including Strathcona, Chinatown and Gastown.

My definition of the DTES includes Gastown, Victory Square, all of Chinatown, the area northeast of Main & Hastings as far east as Campbell, and the properties that front onto the south side of that stretch of Hastings. It doesn't include Strathcona or any of the port lands owned by the Port of Vancouver.

What's your thought on moving all or part of this area, and possibly some of strathcona, into Van Centre?

Left Turn

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Van Centre really shouldn't cross False Creek.

That would require moving part of Van East into Van Centre to keep the population high enough in Van Centre. Either they'd move part of Mount Pleasant into Van Centre, with a very tenuous geographic link between Mount Pleasant and the rest of Van Centre, or they'd  move at least part of the Downtown Eastside (DTES) into Van Centre. If they move the DTES into Van Centre there would be an outcry from DTES residents, not to mention from Libby herself. Libby Davies has folk heroine status among  many in the DTES, and they wouldn't take such a move lying down.

On the other hand, if the DTES were moved into Van Centre, that would be the one scenario in which the NDP might have a  decent chance of defeating Hedy Fry. Or it might leave the DTES to be represented in Parliament by Hedy Fry, which would be a tragedy.

nicky

As a long time resident of Toronto Centre I agree with Lord Palmerston that the proposed boundaries for downtown Toronto are about as good as it can get for the NDP. 

TC (or Rosedale, St George-St David or St David before that) has always been cruel to the NDP who have never won the seat, federally or provincially since CCF days. Strong support south of Bloor hs always been swamped by Rosedale which has been only a quarter of the popuation but perhaps a third of the vote because of higher turnout.

And there is almot no community of interest  between Rosedale and the rest of the riding. Bloor St is a huge cultural and economic divide. I live in Cabbagetown and almost never go to Rosedale except to drive trough it. I am sure the opposite pertains for residents of Rosedale.

On the new boundaries, TC would have voted NDP by about 1%. Without Bob Rae running again (a considerable likelihood IMO) it should be an easy pickup next time. The new Mt Pleasant combines Rosedale with the wealthier eastern section of St Paul's . The new St Paul's in consequencs shifts west and south and would have voted NDP by about 3%. If an aging Caroline Bennett does not run again (or chooses Mt Pleasant) this is another likley gain for the NDP.

I am concerned that Olivia Chow criticized the new map for moving the north Annex from Trinity-Spadina to St Paul's. This would not affect her margin but at the same time puts St Paul's in play. She shd back down on this for the benefit of the party.

Any regigging of the proposed map could well put TC and St P beyond reach for the NDP so we should be very careful of what we wish for.

The splitting of the gay village remains a valid concern. If it is combined back into TC then TC will be overpopulated and will have to shed ground either to Mt Pleasant or T-S. Does anyone have thoughts on what effects this might have?

 

theleftyinvestor

If Toronto's ridings could be rejigged without regard for where current boundaries are, what might that look like? Would there be a solution that is more satisfying for all residents, where the main disadvantage is that most of the old ridings are smashed up?

Lord Palmerston

Exactly nicky.  The eastern half of St. Paul's + the northern part of TC are quite similar in demographics and voting patterns and it makes sense to have them together.  Bloor St. is an ideal boundary between TC/Mt. P in terms of community of interest but yes it would leave TC overpopulated.  I think the best they can do is move the boundary down from Wellesley to College west of Yonge, and then up to maybe Charles or Isabella to take in the gay village.   

I have written to Olivia Chow expressing my concerns, you may want to do so as well.

(One minor thing: it's not the "north Annex" that's being shifted to St. Paul's, it's all of the Annex.  The Annex doesn't go south of Bloor.)  

Robo

nicky wrote:

The splitting of the gay village remains a valid concern. If it is combined back into TC then TC will be overpopulated and will have to shed ground either to Mt Pleasant or T-S. Does anyone have thoughts on what effects this might have?

Anyone can make a presentation to the Boundaries Commission, provided that that person completes the form on the Commission's web site by October 1. While there may be a concern about Church-Wellesley remaining within one riding, I think it is fair to also propose that the St James Town area (bounded by Sherbourne, Bloor, Parliament, and Wellesley) not be split. Fixing one is not great if it messes up the other -- riding boundary issues are almost always a balancing of interests.

Lord Palmerston

Good point robo.  It is important to keep St. Jamestown in TC - though I don't see how they could actually "split" St. Jamestown (pop. 16,000).

Having looked at dissemination area populations (subsections of census tracts), I would back the following:

- Transfer the area between Wellesley and College (pop. 3500) west of Yonge into Mt. Pleasant.

- Transfer the area between Isabella and Wellesley (pop. 7000) between Yonge and Sherbourne into TC. 

This leaves TC at approximately 103,000 and Mt. P. at 96,000.

 

nicky

If Lord P's proposal flies it would mean that Mt Pleasant wd be seriously underpopulated and would have to gain affluent areas either to the north from Toronto North or to the west from St Paul's.

If the latter, St Paul's wd likely have to gain more from Trinity Spadina which in turn would likely get something from the west or south of Toronto Centre which would have gained all of the gay village.

This musical chairs exercise would I think increase the NDP's prospects in both TC and St Paul's but somewhat reduce its marging in TS. 

toaster

nicky wrote:

 

I am concerned that Olivia Chow criticized the new map for moving the north Annex from Trinity-Spadina to St Paul's. This would not affect her margin but at the same time puts St Paul's in play. She shd back down on this for the benefit of the party.

This made me cringe.  If we heard this from a Conservative MP but then went back on his word for the "benefit of the party" we would be yelling and screaming and calling for an inquiry.  I believe it is more important for democracy that we keep like-minded communities together than to gerrmander, just because it happens to be in our favour.  Now I'm not saying I disagree with the new ridings, I believe they have been set up quite well actually, besides the divide of the gay community, which should be fixed.

Lord Palmerston

My proposal leaves Mount Pleasant with about 1000 more than the reconfigured Don Valley West (stupidly named "Toronto North").  It leaves it a little small but is somewhat better at preserving the community of interest.  I would guess something like 1500-2000 could be added to Mt. Pleasant if the Avenue Rd./Chaplin Cres. triangle is moved from St. Paul's to Mt. Pleasant.  Alternatively, about 5000 could added to Mt. Pleasant if the area between Yonge, Avenue Rd., Eglinton and Briar Hill is taken out of Eglinton-Lawrence (the proposed E-L is at 104,000).  

Another idea is to put Yonge/Queen's Park/Wellesley/College into MP and Yonge/Jarvis/Isabella/Wellesley into TC.   That takes 3500 out of TC and 4600 in.  But I have my doubts that the Jarvis/Sherbourne/Isabella/Wellesley zone any more "belongs" in Mt. Pleasant than the rest of the area I have added.

 

 

 

 

Robo

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Good point robo.  It is important to keep St. Jamestown in TC - though I don't see how they could actually "split" St. Jamestown (pop. 16,000).

Unfortunately, sure they can divide St Jamestown. The Commission's initial proposals already have divided as cohesive, if not more cohesive, communities.

For example, look at Thorncliffe Park. The Commission has proposed that most of Thorncliffe Park Drive -- a street with lots of people in lots of highrises, but nevertheless a single street -- is in the inelegently named Toronto North, but a few thousand people on that street are in Don Valley East. If the Ontario Commission saw fit to split a single street, there is no reason to automatically preclude St Jamestown being split.

The municipality of Clarington, immeidately east of Oshawa, is split in three parts. Sometimes muncipalties have to be split in two due to their populations and those of neighbouring muncipalities. It would have been easy to make a proposal here to leave Clarington split onlt twice.

Given the initial proposal from the Ontario Commission, one should not presume that almost anything cannot be done, unfrotunately. That is why people coming forward to make proposals about their communities is important.

Wilf Day

nicky wrote:

If Lord P's proposal flies it would mean that Mt Pleasant wd be seriously underpopulated . . .

The Ontario Commission obviously decided NOT to aim at a 10% deviation, unlike some other provinces. Look at their southern Ontario populations: 12 more than 10% over quotient, 3 more than 10% under quotient. Toronto North, with 95,278 residents, is 10.30% under quotient. Their focus is community of interest. 

David Young

Does the Commission also take into consideration future growth?

If they can see a certain area is undergoing greater than normal population growth, wouldn't they lower the voter count in specific ridings and try to avoid the Brampton-Gore-Malton situation of having more than twice a riding's population in one riding?

 

theleftyinvestor

So I am hoping to make it to the evening hearing tonight at SFU downtown in Vancouver. I obviously haven't registered to speak but I want to see who shows up and says what. I was reading in the news that Libby and Don Davies object to having a chunk of Mount Pleasant swallowed up by a westside riding. Might be interesting to see how it turns out.

Wilf Day

David Young wrote:

Does the Commission also take into consideration future growth?

If they can see a certain area is undergoing greater than normal population growth, wouldn't they lower the voter count in specific ridings and try to avoid the Brampton-Gore-Malton situation of having more than twice a riding's population in one riding?

The legislation tells them what to look at, and it doesn't include future growth. So some past commissions have declined to look at that. However, if I recall correctly I think some have ocassionally referred to it. It's a slippery slope because it can be rather speculative. So when preparing submissions it's not something to hang your hat on.

Another question is, what are they to do about Indian Reserves not included in the census because they were not completely enumerated for a variety of reasons? This was a major problem last time in Brant because Six Nations was not included in the census. As a result, in the 2011 census Brant riding turned out to be 29.08% over quotient when the 7,159 residents of Six Nations were counted. 

Quote:
In 2011, there were a total of 31 Indian reserves and Indian settlements that were 'incompletely enumerated.' For these reserves or settlements, enumeration was either not permitted or was interrupted before it could be completed, or enumeration was not possible because of natural events (specifically forest fires in Northern Ontario).

In Ontario, the current "registered populations" listed on the AANDC (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada) site for 13 Indian reserves and Indian settlements in Kenora electoral district, where enumeration was not possible as a result of forest fires in Northern Ontario at the time of census collection, total 9,289. Since these make up almost 15 per cent of the population of the present electoral district of Kenora, the Commission is certainly thinking about them but has not said so.

Quote:

  • 15. (1) In preparing its report, each commission for a province shall, subject to subsection (2), be governed by the following rules:

    • (a) the division of the province into electoral districts and the description of the boundaries thereof shall proceed on the basis that the population of each electoral district in the province as a result thereof shall, as close as reasonably possible, correspond to the electoral quota for the province, that is to say, the quotient obtained by dividing the population of the province as ascertained by the census by the number of members of the House of Commons to be assigned to the province as calculated by the Chief Electoral Officer under subsection 14(1); and

    • (b) the commission shall consider the following in determining reasonable electoral district boundaries:

      • (i) the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, and

      • (ii) a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province.

  • Departure from rules

    (2) The commission may depart from the application of the rule set out in paragraph (1)(a) in any case where the commission considers it necessary or desirable to depart therefrom

    • (a) in order to respect the community of interest or community of identity in or the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province, or

    • (b) in order to maintain a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province,

    but, in departing from the application of the rule set out in paragraph (1)(a), the commission shall make every effort to ensure that, except in circumstances viewed by the commission as being extraordinary, the population of each electoral district in the province remains within twenty-five per cent more or twenty-five per cent less of the electoral quota for the province.

  •  

    Robo

    Wilf Day wrote:

    The Ontario Commission obviously decided NOT to aim at a 10% deviation, unlike some other provinces. ... Their focus is community of interest. 

    Well, given the examples I cite above in Post #181 -- literally drawing the boundary between Toronto North and Don Valley East within a street -- that street being Thorncliffe Park Drive -- I don't think one can really say that it is apparent that the Commission has chosen to focus on community of interest. Unless, of course, someone can define how the residents who live on Thorncliffe Park Drive between Overlea Blvd and the road leading down into the Don Valley have a different community of interest than the residents who live on the remainder of that street...

    Left Turn

    Wilf Day wrote:

    The legislation tells them what to look at, and it doesn't include future growth. So some past commissions have declined to look at that. However, if I recall correctly I think some have ocassionally referred to it. It's a slippery slope because it can be rather speculative. So when preparing submissions it's not something to hang your hat on.

    I would agree that it makes little sense for the commissions to consider all possible growth over the next decade; but surely it makes sense for the commissions to consider the population that will occupy that new construction which is either being built, or which has been approved to be built, at the time the commission draws up the riding boundaries.

    Here in South Burnaby, there are four highrise residential towers currently under construction. These buildings will be occupied before the 2015 election, and will represent population growth that can be reliably predicted. Surely if the commission is doing its job it would include the number of residents projected to live in these buildings in its calculation of where to put the riding boundaries, no?

     

    theleftyinvestor

    Okay here is the rundown of last night's hearing in Vancouver. I missed the earlier 2pm session where Libby and Don Davies both spoke, but apparently they both had concerns about Van East and Van Kingsway losing sections east of Ontario St that are traditionally East Van. Many later presenters echoed this view.

    The first presenter favoured making boundaries more rational,  and proposed Van-Granville's boundary should be Main north of 41st and Cambie south of 41st. Next presenter wanted Kingsway to go to Ontario St. Some guy then got up and rambled about politics without saying anything about boundaries (apparently he has none) so he was asked to sit down.

    A guy I know from the BCNDP downtown got up and stated his support for leaving the DTES in Van East, out of Van Centre, and for using the section south of False Creek to make up the quotient, while pointing out that eventually population trends will see the riding shrink to be downtown-only.

    Many people from Vancouver South and Kingsway suggested the odd "panhandle" near Boundary could be transferred from Kingsway to South to even out other suggestions. Antony Hodgson from Fair Voting BC asked the commission to comment on the implications of our election practices in the final report and favour electoral reform.

    Two reps from the Vancouver Centre Conservative riding association each separately made the wacky suggestion of pasting the West End and Kitsilano together with a swath of Quadra in order to let Coal Harbour, Yaletown and some Westside neighbourhoods end up with a riding that reflects higher incomes (gee no agenda there right?). I don't think anyone took them seriously as the population numbers aren't big enough to get a federal riding that splits downtown.

    One guy gave a very impassioned speech about how he lives "75 feet and $75,000 from Ontario St." in explaining how attached he is to the East Van community from his place just east of Ontario St. John Boychuk, formerly of Vancouver Pride Society, is also on the Mount Pleasant BIA and echoed the pro-Ontario-St boundary view for Vancouver East.

    The boundary suggestions for Vancouver South were more varied, with Cambie, Ontario and Main St all coming up as possibilities.

    Overall it was a pretty low-key session. The commission members seemed genuinely interested in dialogue and did not dismiss any reasonable suggestions. I had some interesting chats with other attendees. We observed that by the time the next redistribution comes along, there may be no choice but to break up the Mount Pleasant area from other East neighbourhoods. I suggested (not to the panel, just casually) that if Vancouver had one more riding, I would divvy up the East Side first by having only two ridings that touch Boundary Rd, and let them come as far west as they need to meet the quotient. This would leave space for a DTES / Mount Pleasant type riding, and it would increase flexibility of other boundaries.

    Wilf Day

    Left Turn wrote:

    Wilf Day wrote:

    The legislation tells them what to look at, and it doesn't include future growth. So some past commissions have declined to look at that. However, if I recall correctly I think some have ocassionally referred to it. It's a slippery slope because it can be rather speculative. So when preparing submissions it's not something to hang your hat on.

    I would agree that it makes little sense for the commissions to consider all possible growth over the next decade; but surely it makes sense for the commissions to consider the population that will occupy that new construction which is either being built, or which has been approved to be built, at the time the commission draws up the riding boundaries.

    One counter-example is the 2002 Manitoba Commission which said "In some situations where the population trends indicate the strong probability of future growth within an electoral district, the boundaries have been drawn in anticipation of this development." I don't know another Commission which said that.

    theleftyinvestor

    BC anticipated future growth in carving out Vancouver-False Creek, because at the time of redistricting the Olympic Village was still under construction.

    http://www.elections.bc.ca/docs/rpt/BCEBC-Prelim/Part%209-Vancouver.pdf

    The Wood Commission, 1999, rejected removing Yaletown from the downtown riding but said: "However, it is important to note that if our concerns about future population growth in the Yaletown and former Expo 86 grounds are borne out over the next decade, it may very well be impossible to respect the anticipated downtown orientation of this emerging neighbourhood at the next redistribution."

    In the 2007 commission, Vancouver-False Creek was created with a -14.2% deviation, with the following explanation: "At present, this proposed electoral district will have a deviation of minus 14.2 percent. However, BC Stats population projections to 2013 (see Appendix O) and other information we have received indicates the population of this proposed electoral district will meet or exceed the provincial electoral quotient by the 2013 election."

    Which meant that in the 2009 election, VFC was overrepresented.

    toaster

    So the new Timmins-Cochrane-James Bay riding (at population 94k) does not take into account all the First Nation reserves?  How is that high of a population justified for such a large geographical riding.  Surely it would be over quotient taking those into account.  

    Wilf Day

    toaster wrote:

    So the new Timmins-Cochrane-James Bay riding (at population 94k) does not take into account all the First Nation reserves?  How is that high of a population justified for such a large geographical riding.  Surely it would be over quotient taking those into account.  

    The only one not enumerated was Attawapiskat (1,281 by the AANDC site). That brings Timmins—Cochrane—James Bay (93,918) to 95,199. Still 10.4% under quotient.

     

    theleftyinvestor

    Report from the New Westminster meeting.

    By and large the loudest issue raised was that Queensborough finds itself in the proposed Richmond East riding. They had an avalanche of speakers from Queensborough, including a petition from members of a Sikh temple, to keep Queensborough attached to New Westminster.

    Peter Julian and Fin Donnelly both spoke there (and wished they hadn't missed the big vote in the HoC but could not miss this meeting), as well as a few New Westminster city councillors, former BCNDP MLA Chuck Puchmayr, nominated BCNDP candidate Judy Darcy, former Reform MP Paul Forseth and various other concerned residents.

    One thing Julian and Donnelly brought up was an alternate proposal for a riding along the river, that would stretch from eastern New Westminster through Maillardville and PoCo, which would have strong community ties. Another speaker underlined that if they have no choice but to make ridings that cross municipal boundaries, they should be picking ones that actually have ties, such as the Burquitlam area. Forseth spoke mainly about some small tweaks to boundaries based on complaints he'd heard from residents. One other speaker pointed out that Port Coquitlam gets fractured into three pieces on this proposed electoral map, and that there must be a saner way to do it.

    A few mentioned in passing the Burnaby North-Seymour fiasco but I'm sure this will be talked about more at next month's meeting in Burnaby.

    toaster

    Wilf Day wrote:

    toaster wrote:

    So the new Timmins-Cochrane-James Bay riding (at population 94k) does not take into account all the First Nation reserves?  How is that high of a population justified for such a large geographical riding.  Surely it would be over quotient taking those into account.  

    The only one not enumerated was Attawapiskat (1,281 by the AANDC site). That brings Timmins—Cochrane—James Bay (93,918) to 95,199. Still 10.4% under quotient.

     

    Still the most populated in Northern Ontario, despite being the (2nd) largest geographically.  Kenora, similar in size, is given special considertaion and allowed to maintain a small population.  THe same should be the case for far Northeastern Ontario (with Timmins removed).  Urban Timmins has absolutely nothing in common with Moosenee, Moose Factory, and Attawapiskat.  People in the south complain because an area a few blocks away is different from them and shouldn't be part of their district.  Do you think an area over 10 hours away by vehicle (only accessible in the winter by road) in a remote area is similar to anyone in urban Timmins?  

    Wilf Day

    toaster wrote:
    Still the most populated in Northern Ontario, despite being the (2nd) largest geographically.  Kenora, similar in size, is given special considertaion and allowed to maintain a small population.  THe same should be the case for far Northeastern Ontario (with Timmins removed).  Urban Timmins has absolutely nothing in common with Moosenee, Moose Factory, and Attawapiskat.  People in the south complain because an area a few blocks away is different from them and shouldn't be part of their district.  Do you think an area over 10 hours away by vehicle (only accessible in the winter by road) in a remote area is similar to anyone in urban Timmins?

    Has the Timmins—James Bay NDP, or Charlie Angus, submitted an objection?

    Timmins—Cochrane—James Bay has 93,918 because it includes about 10,327 people in the north end of Timiskaming District, of whom 8,133 are in Kirkland Lake. Since these are already in Charlie Angus' riding, he is unlikely to object to continue serving them. Without them, Cochrane District plus the four James Bay reserves would have 84,872 people (including uncounted Attawapiskat). Of course it adds Kapuskasing because the Commission is not going to repeat the mistake of grouping Kapuskasing with Manitoulin.

    That number, 84,872, would be better. So why does Nickel Belt—Timiskaming (93,707), not include all of Timiskaming? Because the Commission is trying to include all the francophone communities in the Sudbury area. Those 10,327 people around Kirkland Lake would bring Nickel Belt—Timiskaming up to 104,034, while Sudbury is only 85,263, even smaller than Sault Ste. Marie (88,869). They would have to shift some people into the Sudbury riding, from the francophone communities in the Sudbury area. So, no. 

    theleftyinvestor

    I attended (the first two hours of) the Burnaby hearing last night. In short:

    - There were 55 registered speakers and most chairs in the room were occupied.

    - MPs Peter Julian and Kennedy Stewart made presentations, as did MLA Kathy Corrigan and her husband Mayor Derek Corrigan.

    - Every single speaker I heard mentioned the Burnaby-North Seymour riding and was opposed to it. The alternate proposals varied.

    - Kennedy Stewart presented the results of a poll his office commissioned, showing that 61% of residents of both halves of the riding objected to being put together (in fact this is one of the only things they both agree on).

    - Peter Julian showed visuals of the proposals he'd made in the New Westminster meeting. He is proposing a reduced-size Burnaby-Deer Lake and Burnaby-New Westminster, a Burquitlam-Port Moody-Coquitlam riding, a river-centred New Westminster-Maillardville-PoCo riding, and one more that included the rest of Coquitlam plus I forget what else.

    - The only presenter to break the unwritten rule of not talking about political parties was Kathy Corrigan who made note of the obvious outcome that the proposed Burnaby-North Seymore riding would go Conservative.

    - A few presenters referred to discussions that had gone on at the North Van meeting, where in response to the "North Shore Problem" residents of Sechelt expressed a willingness to be mixed into an Island riding if that would help, rather than being lumped in with West Van.

    - Overall, it was clear that nobody was happy with this result and hopefully they're going back to the drawing board.

    kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

    Unfortunately the arguments that they used about community interests being different from one side of the Ironworker's Memorial Bridge to the other were used by NDP politicians to argue that one side of a busy street in Vancouver to the other didn't share the same "community interests." Libby and Don's arguments sound the same as the ones made in Burnaby and given the panel an opportunity to discount it for both.

    Centrist

    theleftyinvestor wrote:
    - A few presenters referred to discussions that had gone on at the North Van meeting, where in response to the "North Shore Problem" residents of Sechelt expressed a willingness to be mixed into an Island riding if that would help, rather than being lumped in with West Van.

    Why would some residents in far off Sechelt attend a meeting in Burnaby about the Burnaby riding? And make themselves essentially worse off by willing to get mixed into an island riding?

    theleftyinvestor

    Centrist wrote:

    theleftyinvestor wrote:
    - A few presenters referred to discussions that had gone on at the North Van meeting, where in response to the "North Shore Problem" residents of Sechelt expressed a willingness to be mixed into an Island riding if that would help, rather than being lumped in with West Van.

    Why would some residents in far off Sechelt attend a meeting in Burnaby about the Burnaby riding? And make themselves essentially worse off by willing to get mixed into an island riding?

    Read my post more carefully. A few presenters *in Burnaby* referred to discussions that had gone on *at the North Van meeting*... some residents of Sechelt came to the North Vancouver meeting which I believe was in September. Some Burnaby residents were at the same meeting in North Van because it was earlier than the Burnaby meeting and would address the topic of the mixed riding. When those people came to Burnaby they talked about what was said in North Van. I am just repeating what I heard third-hand in Burnaby.

    kropotkin1951 wrote:

    Unfortunately the arguments that they used about community interests being different from one side of the Ironworker's Memorial Bridge to the other were used by NDP politicians to argue that one side of a busy street in Vancouver to the other didn't share the same "community interests." Libby and Don's arguments sound the same as the ones made in Burnaby and given the panel an opportunity to discount it for both.

    I was at the second Vancouver meeting but not the afternoon one that Libby and Don came to. The people I heard in Vancouver had varied opinions over the importance of the precise location of boundaries, but it's nothing compared to what I saw in Burnaby. In Vancouver some supported it as-is, some wanted to make minor adjustments.

    In Burnaby it was not just a case of a couple politicians coming out and arguing against a cross-Inlet riding. I sat down at 7 PM and left at 9 PM - only about halfway through the list of speakers. Every single person who got up was speaking against the proposal. The shape of the alternate proposals varied from speaker to speaker but the message was consistent.

    The arguments against Burnaby North-Seymour go far beyond anything that could have been said about the Vancouver ridings. Say what you will about eastside/westside ridings, but you can still walk or bike across Ontario St if the riding office is on the other side. What if the BN-S riding office is in North Van - will transit-oriented Burnaby residents (esp. SFU students) spend over an hour on buses (a 2-zone fare no less, because all routes across the bridge go through Vancouver) to try and reach their MP? Or if it's in Burnaby, will (largely car-oriented) North Van residents feel represented if they have to leave the North Shore to meet their MP? Or if there are two offices, how much of their time are they willing to tie up getting between them?

    Other matters raised included the two different school districts, different health authorities, stark demographic differences... one guy brought up the statistics of the HST vote which was about 60% contra-HST in the Burnaby half and 60% pro-HST in North Van (NOT that I think this is a particularly good indicator for many reasons but it was brought up). 

    Oh there was also a guy from Port Moody who added - for his city of 35,000 people, would it not be unreasonable to put the whole place in one riding rather than split it up?

    Wilf Day

    Lord Palmerston wrote:
    My proposal leaves Mount Pleasant with about 1000 more than the reconfigured Don Valley West (stupidly named "Toronto North").  It leaves it a little small but is somewhat better at preserving the community of interest.  I would guess something like 1500-2000 could be added to Mt. Pleasant if the Avenue Rd./Chaplin Cres. triangle is moved from St. Paul's to Mt. Pleasant.  Alternatively, about 5000 could added to Mt. Pleasant if the area between Yonge, Avenue Rd., Eglinton and Briar Hill is taken out of Eglinton-Lawrence (the proposed E-L is at 104,000).

    Tomorrow is the last day to submit Ontario objections.

    Objectors may have an easy time in most of Ontario, with little competition. If you judge only by municipal council objections, there will be few objections in Ontario.

    The major hot spot is the belt of seven ridings: HALIBURTON—UXBRIDGE, OSHAWA-BOWMANVILLE, OSHAWA-DURHAM, KAWARTHA LAKES—PORT HOPE—COBOURG, PRINCE EDWARD—QUINTE WEST, BELLEVILLE—NAPANEE—FRONTENAC, and LANARK—FRONTENAC—HASTINGS. Virtually every municipal council and County or Regional council has objected, and has set up working groups preparing alternative plans.

    There is a small, easily fixed hot spot in SIMCOE—GREY. Both The Blue Mountains council and members of Collingwood council have expressed a desire for Blue to remain in Simcoe-Grey. In Dufferin County, Mulmur and its county council agree: don’t remove Mulmur from DUFFERIN—CALEDON. Moving Mulmur back out of SIMCOE—GREY into DUFFERIN—CALEDON would put DUFFERIN—CALEDON back to its present population of 116,341, less than 10% above quotient. SIMCOE—GREY would lose Mulmur and regain The Blue Mountains, making it 116,307, also less than 10% above quotient. BRUCE—GREY—OWEN SOUND would shrink to 106,475, perfect. Problem solved.

    Other than that, nothing coherent that I can find from municipal councils. Rumblings in Aurora, comments from the mayor of Whitchurch-Stouffville, so York Region is worth watching. That’s about it. 

    Pages