Jump to navigation
The new boundaries in Sakatchewan are very good for the NDP. The new all-urban riding of Regina-Lewvan would be a perfect place for Noah Evanchuk to run since he lost so narrowly last time in palliser which was a "rurban" riding larded with very conservative rural areas. In Saskatoon, the new riding of Saskatoon West is drawn to be a safe NDP seat and i here there is a brilliant woman named Nicole White who would be a great candidate there.
[quote=Stockholm]In Saskatoon, the new riding of Saskatoon West is drawn to be a safe NDP seat and i here there is a brilliant woman named Nicole White who would be a great candidate there.[/quote]
On the Commission's first proposal, it was Saskatoon Centre—University that was the NDP seat, with a transposed majority of 204 votes. Saskatoon West was Conservative by 1,639 votes, due to the Conservative voters in that part of Saskatoon--Wanuskewin.
The final Report has different boundaries which certainly make West look a lot better. I hope both are now winnable.
Even Saskatoon—Grasswood has cut the old Blackstrap Conservative majority of 7,511 down to 3,319 in the first proposal. The final Report is very similar. Could be winnable?
By the way, does anyone know if PollMaps.ca is going to update their transpositions soon?
Blunt Objects has analyzed the new rediribution reports for New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and part of BC. Handy poll maps are provided.
Athough no actual vote transpositions are given it is interesting to consider the changes WRT to two three-way marginals.
Moncton, which became much more Conservative with the initial proposal, now sheds some Conservative suburbs to the west and regains many opposition polls in Dieppe.
Vancouver Granville on the initial proposal would have gone Conservative narrowly over the NDP with the Liberals close behind. It now exchanges a belt of heavily NDP polls to Kingsway in return for some heavily Conservative polls from Vancouver South. I suspect it will now be difficult for the NDP to win.
So are these new Sask. boundaries definitely going to be implemented then? I thought I read somewhere that these had to go to a Parliamentary committee and that it could choose to adopt the minority report which would preserve the old "rurban" split ridings instead?
Actually forget it I found an article that I think answers my question: [url=http://www.globalnews.ca/canada/battle+lines+drawn+over+proposed+changes... News[/url] [quote]The parliamentary committee will hear from MPs who object to the proposed changes, likely in early March, then draft a report for Elections Canada. Lukiwski says he believes all of Saskatchewan's Conservative MPs will object. Elections Canada will send the report back to the Saskatchewan boundaries commission for final changes, if any. The commission doesn't have to make any more changes if it doesn't want to.[/quote]
I'm also thinking in terms of age, Wilf.
Do you think any of these M.P.s would enjoy the thought of being in the third-place party again after the next election and facing at least another four years untill the Liberals have any hope of being in a position to vie for power again?
Not if they can retire and enjoy their obscene parliamentary pensions, I'd bet!
They can use the excuse of the new riding boundaries as a signal 'It's time for me to go!' and laugh all the way to the bank!
I can see the NDP being in contention for the three new Saskatoon ridings and the other two Regina ridings now, plus Wascana if Goodale does retire.
Let's hope they get their candidates nominated early.
I'd like to see the quantitative numbers on Vancouver-Granville. The image at Blunt Objects is deceptive as the huge swaths of blue are mostly low-density residential areas. There is also the effect that Lib/NDP swing voters preferred whichever party was likelier to beat Conservatives in each of the areas that became Van-Gran, so there is really no telling what'll happen there in the next election.
[quote=David Young]I can see the NDP being in contention for the three new Saskatoon ridings and the other two Regina ridings now, plus Wascana if Goodale does retire.
Let's hope they get their candidates nominated early.[/quote]
Plus, of course, Desnethé--Missinippi--Churchill River, where the NDP was very close in 2011 and should win in 2015 anyway, plus the new boundaries look like helping a little.
All of which assumes no general trend to the NDP. With strong local candidates and a good NDP swing, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan and Prince Albert are not impossible.
Has there been any indication that Lawrence Joseph would be up to running again in D.M.C.R., especially if the new riding boundaries make it look that much better for the NDP?
In the event of a crushing BCNDP majority this year, another consideration is - a large number of experienced BC Liberal politicians will be out looking for work, and potentially running for both the federal Liberals and Conservatives. In fact a friend of mine has speculated Kevin Falcon will want one of those new Surrey ridings as a Conservative.
Falcon lives in Cloverdale—Langley. (His provincial seat is called Surrey—Cloverdale.) That will be a fairly safe Conservative seat with no incumbent MP from any party (assuming Mark Warawa runs in Fort Langley—Aldergrove). I'd say it's very likely that Falcon will run for the Conservatives there.
Although it would be ironic if Kevin Falcon were sitting in the federal Conservative benches while his peers get up and loudly exclaim "blah blah NDP's billion dollar carbon tax"...
The latest from SK. CP wire copy:
OTTAWA - The federal Conservative party is acknowledging it commissioned a so-called "push poll" in the Prairies warning would-be voters that changes to their electoral boundaries would undermine "Saskatchewan values."
OTTAWA - The federal Conservative party is acknowledging it commissioned a so-called "push poll" in the Prairies warning would-be voters that changes to their electoral boundaries would undermine "Saskatchewan values."
Read more here.
In case you were wondering if the Harper Conservatives can get any sleazier... they can.
Please tell me progressive individuals and groups will mobilize against this crap?
I'm waiting for the radio clip this morning to get posted - a Boundaries Commission member's masterful smack down of Stephen Harper.
Refering to Harper's comments in the house yesterday about 75 percent opposition to the proposed changes: "If someone were to say that, it would be an untruth"
And for some reason they seem to be fucking up royally in the damage control department. Maybe they just assume it doesn't matter, which is why they let Tom Lukiwski stick handle it.
Why aren't the Conservatives being criticized for gerrymandering?
What's happening in Saskatchewan is a blatant example of how political parties discard the tenets of democracy and gerrymander electoral boundaries in order to benefit themselves undemocratically.
Electoral boundaries should be set up with the objective of insuring that different groups in society are as fairly and accurately represented in Parluament as is possible. Setting up electoral boundaries that allow one political party to win almost every riding with roughly half the votes or even less, should be universally recognized as being illegitimate.
And of course the best solution to the problem of gerrymandering is proportional representation.
Harper's comments about the boundaries are telling. He's not going to oppose the new boundaries when they come before the House. Sure, he'll lose a few seats in Saskatchewan, but those MPs are a little too obviously socially conservative for the party. Besides, the Tory thinking is that whatever they lose on the SK swings, they'll more than mak up for on the Ontario, Alberta, and BC roundabouts. Why have headline-generating MPs, when you can add a few more trained seals?
The Conservatives do seem to be benefitting from the redistribution being done in Ontario, BC, and, Alberta, so the loss of 2 or 3 seats in Saskatchewan shouldn't be disturbing them as much at it apparently has. But Harper aggressively fights for as much advantage as possible, within legal boundaries or otherwise. If the next election is decided by a couple of seats, he doesn't want a couple of lost seats he could have kept in Saskatchewan to cost him power. So this aggresive campaign to keep the rural-urban seats in Saskatchewan makes sense given the Conservatives take no prisoners style of politics. But the Conservatives must be encouraged overall by how redistribution is enhancing their chances of winning yet another phony FPTP election. According to pollmaps.ca, if people vote in 2015 as they did in 2011, in Ontario, BC, and Alberta, the Liberal seat total will stay the same, the NDP will lose 4 seats, and the Conservatives will gain a whopping 27 seats.
Luckily, with FPTP, small swings in popularity can result in huge swings in seats. Once again the swing in voting patterns in Ontario will go a long way in determining the outcome in 2015 but all things being equal, the Conservatives' chances of winning another phony FPTP election seem to be enhanced by the current redistribution.
Frankly, the advice I'd offer the Cons is: deft campaigning can overcome a "gerrymander" a lot of the time. And they can look to their own record as proof.
And who knows, maybe a healthy-once-again federal Grit party can split the left-vote in Lewvan and keep the Cons in power there, too. (No, I'm not advocating. Just telling the Cons to "quit their whining".)
It looks like we're going have to wait until next week for the revised Ontario and Quebec maps...
Ontario and Quebec are out.
Looks like an interesting solution was created for the "Toronto Centre problem" that saw the Church St village split up.
1) Toronto Centre is reduced by slicing off the extreme southern end, which allows it to go almost all the way up to Bloor. I presume it's now safer NDP territory.
2) Rosedale is still attached to a significant chunk of downtown, but instead of making that riding go all the way up to Mount Pleasant, it instead annexes the entire north half of Trinity-Spadina above Dundas St. This new riding is University-Rosedale.
3) Old Trinity-Spadina south of Dundas, plus the area lopped off the south of Toronto Centre, minus the area bounded by Dundas-Bay-Front-Yonge, is now Spadina-Fort York.
As you may have figured out, Trinity-Spadina is no more. Where will Olivia Chow run if she stays in federal politics? With her riding (and Chinatown) split, has either half become Liberal-friendly enough to tip the scales?
The new downtown Toronto ridings are disappointing. The initial porposals, as some of us observed, were about as good as the NDP could have expected. Trinity-Spadina remained safe and Toronto Centre and St Pauls would have gone NDP by small margins.
Without adding up the numbers I would think the NDP wd still have a small margin in the new Toronto Centre but St Pauls becomes unwinnable. The new University-Rosedale riding is a monstrosity similar to the old Toronto Centre. Good NDP areas in the Annex will be swamped by Rosedale just like Rosedale used to swamp everything south of Bloor.
The new Spadina riding becomes essentially condoland along the water. Although Chow wd have won it, Marchese wd have lost it in the provincial election.
So we go from one safe NDP seat and two close wins to one marginal NDP seat and one close win.
I expect the Liberals out-generalled us over the final boundary report.
I don't know that I agree with that analysis of University-Rosedale. Rosedale isn't very dense, is it? You plug it into half of the dense Trinity-Spadina, which went very close to uniformly NDP on a poll by poll basis, and surely Rosedale is outnumbered.
Regarding Spadina-Fort York - even condoland along Queens Quay had an NDP plurality for many of its polls. The little chunk of TorCen that it inherits is mixed Lib/NDP.
I think if Olivia Chow stays in federal politics and picks either half of her old riding, she'll win it resoundingly. Even with Rosedale in the mix. The big wildcard is what we'll see if she runs municipally - with both her and Rae retiring, who knows whose it is.
I think the new University-Rosedale" riding could be won by the NDP with the right candidate. The new Toronto Centre is tailor made to be an NDP riding.
Setting aside partisan considerations - given that boundaries are supposed to reflect "communbity of interest" etc...I think you can easily justify the new boundaries. There are three downtown Toronto ridings - one is true inner city and includes skid row, St. jamestown and the Gay Village etc... - Toronto Centre. Another is all condos and apartments and hipsters - Spadina Fort York and another is all intelligentsia and old money - University-Rosedale. It does make some sense!
Yeah, if Rosedale had to be attached to part of downtown, in an odd way it makes sense to jam it into U of T. But Uni-Rose also contains a lot of the housing co-ops that were in T-S, doesn't it?
I look forward to seeing the PollMaps transfers.
Toronto does tend to have a lot of Lib-NDP swing voters who line up with a likely winner. You can see that in the poll by poll maps, that on one side of a boundary it's all orange and on the other side it's mixed but with a lot of red. Change the boundaries, lose popular incumbents, and it's anyone's game.
We don't have to speculate. We could redraw the boundaries right here and see what happens.
Truthfully, even if the NDP ends up winning the new ridings, the re-districting has the effect of making those ridings more competitive and less safe. So while Liberals and the NDP are spending valuable resources battling each other, the Conservatives will be free elsewhere.
From what I can tell in the map I posted... ( http://impolitical.blogspot.ca/2011/07/meet-new-toronto.html )...
It's actually an improvement. If the main constituency offices don't move, then Olivia Chow would stay on as MP in the new Spadina-Fort York, and a New Democrat would probably replace Bob Rae in Toronto Center (which was probably gonna happen anyway).
If you want to think of University-Rosedale as the new riding, then it would be pretty competitive. The "university" section has gone from marginally NDP in 2008 to strongly NDP in 2011. And the "rosedale" section has gone from strongly Liberal to right-wing split. Conservatives could make a decent showing here. Which might actually work out to the NDP's advantage, if the rich folk can't decide which horse to back, and the NDP runs up the middle.
I agree with nicky. This new University-Rosedale in many respects is like the old provincial riding of St. Andrew-St. Patrick, except stretching east to Rosedale instead of north to St. Clair.
Chinatown is cut in half and Kensington Market, half of Chinatown and U of T in the same riding of Rosedale make no sense.
It's unfortunate that the Trinity-Spadina NDP decided to attack the earlier map and call for the Annex to stay in T-S and cut off the waterfront, rather than defend what was a very good map where only some minor changes were needed (i.e. moving the TC/Mount Pleasant boundary down to Dundas west of Yonge and then Bloor east of Yonge in order not to split Church-Wellesley.)
Instead of having the advantage in 3 out of 4 central Toronto seats, now they're only safe in one and would be lucky to win either University-Rosedale or Spadina-Fort York.
You still really need to run the numbers rather than just looking at the map, because the map doesn't tell you anything about density. Rosedale is not a particularly dense neighbourhood compared to the downtown parts.
True but most of the area east of University Ave. isn't exactly NDP territory. And Dundas is not a good boundary west of University as it rips right through the middle of Chinatown. University-Rosedale appears to be an "after-thought" of a riding.
I have lived in Toronto Centre or an adjoining riding for most of my adult life. The NDP has never won TC or its provincial counterparts unless you go back to a couple close CCF wins in the 40s when William Dennison won (before my time)
We have sometimes come close, quite often carrying Cabbagetown and Regent Park and the waterfront polls but running into a brick wall in Rosedale.
Theleftyinvestor makes the point that Rosedale is low density so does not have as many voters as a similar sized area elsewhere. But I think he overlooks two things. First, although Rosedale only comprises about a quarter of TC its turnout is quite high so it casts maybe a third of the votes. Second, the NDP vote in Rosedale is negligible, sometimes less than 10 votes in a poll.
These factors have allowed Rosedale to dominate TC and they may wellallow it to dominte University-Roseale as well.
Now considering Trinity-Spadina and its progeny. We should not assume that it is safe NDP territory. Until the last election Olivia Chow only managed to eke out close victories and in fact once lost to the egregious Tony Ianno who held the seat for years. Although Olivia won a landslide in '11 it was something of a perfect storm with the Liberal collapse and the Orange wave.
Only four months later Rosario Marchese barely won the riding in the provincial election. He suffered a large advers swing notwithstanding that there was a large swing provincewide from the Liberals to the NDP.
I think this reflects at least two factors. Olivia Chow has a large personal vote which cannot be transferred in a block. Also, the rapidly expanding condo neighbourhoods are changing the riding demographicallly and not to the NP's benefit.
I agree with Lord P that the TS NDP was very unwise in opposing the provisional boundaries . We will have to await an actual transposition of votes to determine the electoral terrain of the new downtown ridings but it seems clear that the NDP position has been significantly worsened.
One difference though. In the current TC riding, Rosedale has a high turn-out and is lumped in with a lot of south of Bloor areas that tend to have very low turn-outs - e.g. St. jamestown, Regent Park, lots of apartment buildings that are highly transient. In the proposed new University-Rosedale riding - Rosedale is now lumped in with NDP leaning areas in Annex, Seating Village and around the university where "civil society" is very active and that will have equally high turnouts to Rosedale
With the division of Scarborough-Rouge River into 2 seats, it looks like the NDP can pick up the new seat there, doesn't it?
Dundas street IS a nonsensical boundary. South of Dupont, neighborhoods tend to share commonalities on a north-south axis. Chinatown is largely oriented on Spadina. Professionals are largely oriented on Bay. University is the University (and hospitals). Even all of Bathurst or Ossington shares a similar character from north to south.
Trying to organize things from east to west, you get a really silly combo of Rosedale with UofT with Chinatown with Little Italy.
But the bright side is that it's a very winnable riding for the NDP. I'm sure the Liberals are hoping the map looks more like 2006. But whether they realize it or not, they've potentially watered down the influence of one of the most elitist and wealthy neighborhoods in Canada.
Just eyeballing the 2011 map, the NDP would have dominated Spadina-FtYork and the new Toronto Centre, and still won University-Rosedale.
Actually the Liberals should be happier with this revised map. The earlier proposal basically packed the Liberal vote into a very Liberal Mount Pleasant. Now they're competitve in Spadina-Fort York and University-Rosedale and St. Paul's remains very safe for them.
Not to mention that the low-income and Chinese immigrant communities centered along Dundas St. in T-S now are split into 2 ridings and have their vote diluted. Alexandra Park for instance gets put in a condo-dominated riding.
Little Italy, Kensington and Chinatown have no community of interest with Rosedale...at all.
Maybe the NDP can squeak through in at least one of them but they're terrible in terms of the community of interest principle.
All to "save" the Annex from condos and St. Paul's...sometimes you need to be careful what you wish for!
From reading through the commission's report, I don't get the sense that University-Rosedale was a solution that any of the presenters had put forward. It seems that they took into account the criticisms of their initial proposal, and then arbitrarily decided on a split to accommodate them.
The flaw in the commission process is the lack of recursion... when the initial proposal is flawed enough that it requires implementation of new ideas that were not seen in either of the original boundaries nor the proposal, it is possible to end up with a final "solution" that is not widely favoured, too late in the process to do anything about it.
Anyway I can't think of anything much better either.
I agree that (winning aside), the ridings are nonsense. They don't line up with any sense of shared community. What MP could speak to all those different concerns?
I looked at the map of 2011 voter patterns I posed above and compared it to this population density map: http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/7076/torontodensity3dw1.gif
And honestly, it looks like all three parties have something to celebrate.
The NDP is happy that Jack Layton would have delivered 3 NDP ridings instead of just 1. They believe Trinity-Spadina is safe. And they're counting on doing as well as they did in 2011, giving them Toronto Center (now that it has no Rosedale, and soon no Bob rae), AND University-Rosedale (since Rosedale's red-blue is outnumbered by the University orange).
The Liberals are happy because they think Trudeau will make them competitive on the University side of University-Rosedale, and that they'll be able to hang onto Toronto Center even without Rae or Rosedale to help. They believe they'll turn 1 Liberal riding into 2.
And the Conservatives are happy that the NDP and Liberals will waste resources on competitive races in downtown Toronto, while they shore up Conservative candidates in the burbs and the West.
Basically, everyone likes war.
I don't think you could ever draw a riding in downtown Toronto with a population of about 100,000 and have everyone in it have a perfecrtly shared feeling of community. The current Trinity-Spadina has everything from academics in the Annex to singles in studio condos to immigrant areas in the west etc... anyway you slice it - you will end up putting areas together that seem odd. At least its a better match to put Rosedale in the same riding as the Annex and Seaton village than to keep putting it in with all the poor inner city areas in the downtown east side.
Though if it's of any consolation, the dynamic might be such that the Tories and Liberals will split the right and allow the NDP up the middle, in both Rosedale and the waterfront condos...
I'd be interested in seeing how provincial voting patterns correspond to the federal ones.
We can presume that there will be another Ontario provincial election before the 2015 federal one, so wouldn't it be wiser to wait and see how the provincial voting patterns go? Wouldn't that give a better indication where voter support lies?
So what do you guys think the net effect will be in seat distribution for Ontario and Quebec as a whole. How many seats switch hands and how many of the new seats go to each party?
First of all, there is no guarantee that the next provincial election will follow the new boundaries, seeing as there is no legal requirement for Ontario to continue using the federal boundaries. Second, provincial voting patterns are definitely different. In general, the provincial Liberals do better against Conservatives than the federal Liberals, and federal New Democrats are more popular than provincial New Democrats.
That must be what happened. I attended the hearings at Metro Hall and if one excluded the "rep by pop" advocacy people (who said GTA ridings should be smaller so immigrant and racialized communities weren't diliuted) I'd say about 50% of all deputations came from Annex NIMBYs who didn't want to be in St. Paul's. The solution was simple: take out the condos and make a condo riding instead. But these were appeals based on emotion not evidence. It is just not possible to simply draw a line along Queen St. and create a new riding below it.
So they had to stretch up to Dundas, which is a terrible boundary.
The Mount Pleasant riding made far more sense, all that was needed was some minor tweaking. Why should Yonge and St. Clair be in a different riding from Rosedale? There's a great deal of "communuity of interest" between then northern part of the present TC and eastern half of St. Paul's. And the Annex has enough in common socioeconomically to go into St. Paul's.
Lord Palmerston is right. Rosedale has more in common with midtown than downtown. Just as a matter of "community", all strategy aside.
I think this is the point I've been trying to make. Rosedale isn't very dense to begin with. And if half of it goes Conservative, the Liberals don't just lose... they get dominated by the NDP.
But moreover, those "waterfront condos" downtown aren't especially yuppie.
Living downtown, I can spot two dynamics at play. One is that a lot of the condos are populated by young people, who lean more progressive on the environment, equality, foreign policy, and so on. They're "creative class" -- neither wealthy nor working class. The second dynamic is that a lot of condos are having their units bought out by "financial class" investors, and are rented out to working people. Especially as they deteriorate -- it's becoming a bit of a scandal how badly some of those condos are built.
[quote=Stockholm]The new Toronto Centre is tailor made to be an NDP riding.[/quote]
Is Kristyn Wong-Tam the logical candidate?
Yes, the TC NDP did their homework and ended up getting pretty much what they wanted at the commission. In a reversal of fortunes, TC looks like it'll be the safe downtown seat.
Blunt Objects provides an anaysis of the new Montreal area ridings:
As far as I can tell: NDP loses the NDG- Lachine seat which is carved up beyond recognition. It gains a new seat in Ville Marie and therefore maintains the same number of seats as before. This compares with the present map in effect in the last election. The Liberals are also strengthened in Westmount which had been very close for them. The NDP gains at least two new seats in the suburbs.
Comparing the new map with the origial proposal: Montreal itself loses the one new seat it got under the initial proposal, now shifted back to eastern Quebec which originally was to lose one seat.
The proposed Maurice Richard, which wd have been an NDP gain is wiped out and largely submerged into the new Ahuntsic. The Liberals gain this seat because boundaries are shifted to the west. St Leonard which wd have gone NDP reverts to its current shape and Liberal lead.
One good development is that the Commission abandoned riding names of famous (or not) people and reverted back to geographical names which is much less confusing.
Yes indeed Burnaby Douglas no longer exists.
I think the new University-Rosedale" riding could be won by the NDP with the right candidate. The new Toronto Centre is tailor made to be an NDP riding.[/quote]
So is the current Toronto Centre. However, I would argue that the NDP has a better chance of winning the current Toronto Centre than they do the new Rosedale-University, paricularly if Olivia Chow reitires. And of course, provincially, the new map is a disaster for Rosario Marchese who, incredibly, also lobbied against the previous map and for a "condo riding".
The previous draft was much better for the NDP. By bowing to the wishes of Annex NDPers the TS NDP have committed a major tactical error by lobbying for the "condo riding". We've gone from a situation where the map would have had a Liberal-leaning Mout Pleasant and NDP leaning Toronto Centre and Trinity-Spadina (NDP advantage 2:1) to one where the Liberal leaning St. Paul's is retained and we now also have a Liberal leaning University-Rosedale, a Liberal leaning Spadina-Fort York and an NDP leading Toronto Centre (Liberal advantage 3:1).
That this bizarre map that lumps together Kensington Market with Rosedale rather than recognising Bloor Street as a natural socio-economic divide is the result not of some Tory-Liberal connving but TS NDP lobbying just shows the dangers of a) being too clever for your own good and b) getting what you wish for.
And to think this is all because well to do Annex NDPers didn't like the original proposal and preferred to roll the dice in the hope that they could continue to be in an NDP riding. Just an example of how, even in the NDP, class gives you clout.
I have not done the calculations (I'm sure someone will) but I'm 99% certain that the NDP would have very easily won "Spadina-Fort York" if the 2011 election had been fought on these boundaries. I think that the NDP would also have won "University-Rosedale" - even though the NDP barely campaigned at all in the Rosedale part of TC last time. The new Toronto Centre is probably demographically the most NDP friendly of the three but I suspect NDP support there would look lower based on 2011 because the NDP campaign in Toronto Centre was quite weak. If these boundaries are final - you can be sure that in 2015 the NDP would put all three of these seats at the top of the "A list" of ridings to target would run very high profile well-resourced candidates.
It would be interesting if someone can do an analysis of what the notional results would have been in the last election in the 4 ridings in question under both the earlier proposal for new riding boundaries and the current proposal.