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

Electoral Maps 5

409 replies [Last post]

Comments

Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

Perhaps the Church-Wellesley situation could be remedied by having Mt. Pleasant's southern boundary go down to College west of Yonge and then up to Bloor east of Yonge?

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).  Glen Murray could opt for either TC or Mt. Pleasant provincially.


Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

[double post]


adma
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2006

Another Liberal I can see opting for Mt Pleasant: Deborah Coyne.  (I think she lives up near Yonge + Eglinton.)


Stockholm
Online
Joined: Sep 29 2002
Lord Palmerston wrote:

Perhaps the Church-Wellesley situation could be remedied by having Mt. Pleasant's southern boundary go down to College west of Yonge and then up to Bloor east of Yonge?.

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!

Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

Population by census tract, 2011 census:

62.01 and 62.02 (Yonge to University, College to Bloor):  11,442

63.01 (Yonge to Church, Carlton to Bloor):  8,293

63.02 (Church to Jarvis, Carlton to Bloor):  6,934

64 (Jarvis to Sherbourne, Wellesley to Bloor): 3,858

65 (Sherbourne to Parliament, Wellesley to Bloor):  13,974

66 (Sherbourne to Parliament, Carlton to Wellesley): 8,032

67 and 68 (Parliament to Don, Gerrard to Bloor):  4,021 


theleftyinvestor
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

Well clearly the sheer density of that Bloor-Wellesley strip is exactly why it ended up in MP - they had to remove enough from T-C to account for future growth, and MP needed some more people.

Idea: "Counter-clockwise swirl" the boundaries of T-C, MP, St. Paul's and T-S.

Bring T-C's northern boundary up to Bloor. Now to compensate, MP requires people so its boundary shifts somewhere to the west to swallow up part of St. Paul's (How about Forest Hill?). Then St. Paul's, its richest constituents having been jettisoned, shifts its boundary south enough to grow back to the right size. Maybe to avoid splitting U of T or Spadina, this shift should only happen west of Bathurst or so. And then T-S grows eastwards a little bit to compensate.

Every change is going to have a ripple effect on the other ridings... the question is which effects are more palatable than the problems we're trying to fix...


Stockholm
Online
Joined: Sep 29 2002
Lord Palmerston wrote:

Population by census tract, 2011 census:

62.01 and 62.02 (Yonge to University, College to Bloor):  11,442

63.01 (Yonge to Church, Carlton to Bloor):  8,293

63.02 (Church to Jarvis, Carlton to Bloor):  6,934

64 (Jarvis to Sherbourne, Wellesley to Bloor): 3,858

65 (Sherbourne to Parliament, Wellesley to Bloor):  13,974

66 (Sherbourne to Parliament, Carlton to Wellesley): 8,032

67 and 68 (Parliament to Don, Gerrard to Bloor):  4,021 

I gather from this data that electoral boundaries do not have to keep census tracts intact since 63.01 and 63.02 are both split along Wellesley between TC and MP

edmundoconnor
Offline
Joined: Jul 7 2009

Stockholm wrote:

3. I am about 99% certain that York South-Weston would have gone NDP provincially under these proposed boundaries. It was a very narrow NDP loss and the area being shifted out of the riding is heavily Liberal.

It would have helped a lot, yes, but chopping off that eastern chunk might well have meant Paul Ferreira losing by only 150 votes, instead of by 734 votes. Assuming the dynamics of the riding remained exactly the same, that is. However, by the centre of gravity of the riding shifting westward towards Weston Road (an NDP-leaning area), the advantage and momentum may well have shifted toward the NDP.


toaster
Offline
Joined: Sep 5 2011

I think Carol Hughes resides in Kapuskasing, but I could be wrong.  Surely Angus will stay in his riding (Kap moves into Timmins-Cochrane-James Bay).  Wonder if she'll move to Algoma-Manitoulin-Killarney, even though it becomes a much more anglophone riding.  


TheNewTeddy
Offline
Joined: Sep 3 2011

TheNewTeddy wrote:

I'd also like to run an idea past some people, in particular, that Far North Ontario

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/FarNorth/2ColumnSubPage/266506.html

Be assigned it's own riding. 

 

Bump this idea as it seems to have been missed?

 

 

edit

Far North Ontario

better map.

 

Note that most of the voters in this new riding would be First Nations.


Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002

edmundoconnor wrote:

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.

Robo wrote:
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.

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.

toaster wrote:
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.

Carol was, when elected, a resident of Elliot Lake for 26 years. No doubt she will stay in Algoma—Manitoulin—Killarney.

adma wrote:

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...

Someone has suggested "King--Maple--Wonderland."


Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

Stockholm wrote:
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!

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. 


Stockholm
Online
Joined: Sep 29 2002

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.


Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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.  


Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

"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):

queerliberal wrote:
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.
 

http://queer-liberal.blogspot.ca/2012/08/electoral-riding-commission-thr...

 


Stockholm
Online
Joined: Sep 29 2002

Lord Palmerston wrote:

"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):

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!  Cool


Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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.


adma
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2006

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.)


Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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.  


Brachina
Online
Joined: Feb 15 2012
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.

TheNewTeddy
Offline
Joined: Sep 3 2011

This website

http://fed2012.pollmaps.ca/index.asp

Has all the transpositions you'll ever need.

Thanks to https://twitter.com/punditsguide for this amazing find!


nicky
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2005

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.


Stockholm
Online
Joined: Sep 29 2002
As I suspected, the Montreal riding of st. Leonard shifts to the NDP on the new map and it isn't even close!

PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
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.

Stockholm
Online
Joined: Sep 29 2002

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!


Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002

Lord Palmerston wrote:
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).

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.


PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
Wilf Day wrote:

Lord Palmerston wrote:
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).

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.

PoliSciStudent
Offline
Joined: May 27 2012
Stockholm wrote:

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!

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.

Stockholm
Online
Joined: Sep 29 2002

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"


theleftyinvestor
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

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.

Vancouver Granville

2011 Redistributed Results:
Conservative by 1654 votes, 3.66%

Conservative    14830    32.85
NDP    13176    29.19
Liberal    12574    27.86
Green 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.


Comment viewing options

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