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

Centrist
Offline
Joined: Apr 7 2004
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
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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


adma
Offline
Joined: Jan 21 2006

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
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
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
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

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
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2012
I wonder how many seats the Federal NDP would win if we had Dix's numbers, say 50+ percent.

kropotkin1951
Online
Joined: Jun 6 2002

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
Offline
Joined: Dec 9 2007

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

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
Offline
Joined: May 30 2011

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
Offline
Joined: Sep 3 2011

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
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Has anyone considered population transfers?


Stockholm
Offline
Joined: Sep 29 2002

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

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


Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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.


Left Turn
Offline
Joined: Mar 28 2005

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.


Lord Palmerston
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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
Offline
Joined: Mar 28 2005

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?


nicky
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2005

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

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
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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
Offline
Joined: Jun 1 2003

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
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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
Offline
Joined: Aug 3 2005

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
Offline
Joined: Sep 5 2011

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
Offline
Joined: Jan 25 2004

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.

 

 

 

 


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