Electoral Maps 5

411 posts / 0 new
Last post
Stockholm

aka Mycroft wrote:

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. 

ASk and you shall receive. This site did the analysis on the first version of the proposed maps. I assume at some point they will update it for the final maps.

http://fed2012.pollmaps.ca/

 

aka Mycroft

We had the review and revision - that is where Trinity-Spadina NDP lined up at the mics to argue against the previous proposal. As it happens, some one has done a notional analysis of what the results would have been under the plan that the TS NDP lobbied against. 

The results of the last election in TS was as follows:

NDP 54.51%

Liberal 23.39%

Conservative 16.81%

Green Party 4.38%

According to http://fed2012.pollmaps.ca/index.asp the results under the originally proposed boundaries for TS using the 2011 results would have been:

 

NDP 55.59%

Liberal 22.6%

Conservative 16.51%

Green Party 4.35%

So in other words the TS NDP lined up to lobby against a proposal that would have, notionally, given them a BETTER result! It will be interesting to see the 2011 results applied to the current boundary proposal. 

Lord Palmerston

This site will hopefully be updated soon:

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

I don't understand the crowing about the NDP easily winning Spadina-Fort York based on the 2011 showing, when it was clear that the first proposal for Trinity-Spadina also would have easily gone NDP...yet the T-S NDP freaked out about the condos.

Also the Annex would have gone to a winnable St. Paul's, which would have lost its eastern half to the very Liberal Mount Pleasant.

And let's face it...this new map is far worse from the community of interest principle.  The Annex has a lot more of a community of interest with St. Paul's than Little Italy, Kensington Market and half of Chinatown have with Rosedale.  So they got rid of the southern condos...but now they're faced with the luxury condos around Bay and Bloor plus Rosedale.  Don't see how that's better.  

 

Stockholm

I think that the new University-Rosedale riding will prove to be a lot more NDP-friendly than the proposed St. Paul going down to Bloor would have been.

I also think that the new Toronto Centre is a perfectly drawn inner city riding and i cannot argue with it.

aka Mycroft

Stockholm wrote:

I think that the new University-Rosedale riding will prove to be a lot more NDP-friendly than the proposed St. Paul going down to Bloor would have been.

According to pollmaps.ca, the NDP would have won the new St. Paul's, with 36% of the vote. 

Stockholm

I will wager that the NDP vote in University-Rosedale will turn out to have been quite a bit higher than 36%

Lord Palmerston

The new TC is a great victory for the Left in Toronto.  The low income and racialized communities there no longer have to be in the same riding as Rosedale. 

Yet the way Trinity-Spadina was split up, along Dundas, this means that the low income and Chinese immigrant communities centered along Dundas is cut in half.  Alexandra Park goes to condoland, Kensington and half of Chinatown to University-Rosedale.

All because wealthy Annex homeowners wanted to avoid St. Paul's and icky condos.  How progressive!

aka Mycroft

Lord Palmerston wrote:

The new TC is a great victory for the Left in Toronto.  The low income and racialized communities there no longer have to be in the same riding as Rosedale. 

Yet the way Trinity-Spadina was split up, along Dundas, this means that the low income and Chinese immigrant communities centered along Dundas is cut in half.  Alexandra Park goes to condoland, Kensington and half of Chinatown to University-Rosedale.

All because wealthy Annex homeowners wanted to avoid St. Paul's and icky condos.  How progressive!

The Annex NDP intelligentsia didn't want to be lumped together with Forest Hill so they complained and now they're lumped together with Rosedale instead. What a great victory for socialism. I don't think it's altogether true, though, that Rosedale has no shared community of interest with Kensington Market. I'm sure quite a few Rosedale house staff make it down to Kensington Market to buy fresh produce for their employers.

Stockholm

aka Mycroft wrote:

The Annex NDP intelligentsia didn't want to be lumped together with Forest Hill so they complained and now they're lumped together with Rosedale instead. What a great victory for socialism. I don't think it's altogether true, though, that Rosedale has no shared community of interest with Kensington Market. I'm sure quite a few Rosedale house staff make it down to Kensington Market to buy fresh produce for their employers.

I'm not saying i agree or disagree with the sentiment by some in the Annex of not wanting the areas north of Bloor to be merged with St. Paul's. My impression was that the argument was never "we don't want to be in the same riding as Forest hill" - I think the argument was that Bloor St. was the heart of a community that went north and south of Bloor and that it should not be a boundary separating the Annex and Seaton Village into a separate riding from all the territory south of Bloor and north of College (aka "Ulster/Sussex"). They got their wish - any way you could have sliced it there aren't enough people in that area to be a stand alone riding so either you have to expand south and take in more condos, north to take in Forest Hill or east to take in Rosedale - choose your poison!

aka Mycroft

Stockholm wrote:

I'm not saying i agree or disagree with the sentiment by some in the Annex of not wanting the areas north of Bloor to be merged with St. Paul's. My impression was that the argument was never "we don't want to be in the same riding as Forest hill" - I think the argument was that Bloor St. was the heart of a community that went north and south of Bloor and that it should not be a boundary separating the Annex and Seaton Village into a separate riding from all the territory south of Bloor and north of College (aka "Ulster/Sussex"). They got their wish - any way you could have sliced it there aren't enough people in that area to be a stand alone riding so either you have to expand south and take in more condos, north to take in Forest Hill or east to take in Rosedale - choose your poison!

Exactly. But it is somewhat galling that the Annex NDPers got their wish not to be divided from those south of Bloor at the expense of Chinatown which is now bifuracted and the other working class communities that straddle Dundas. What does it say that the wishes of upper middle class NDPers in the Annex carry more weight than Chinatown or marginalized working class communities and indeed, what does it say that they were so short sighted that they didn't see the implications of what they were advocating for people outside of the Annex?

Stockholm

FYI, there can still be minor adjustments to the map...the argument about not dividing Chinatown makes sense - you could always move the boundary south to Queen St, east of bathurst and move it up to College west of Bathurst to compensate. Just an idea.

Lord Palmerston

Maybe the best solution from an NDP point of view would have been to move the Trinity-Spadina/St. Paul's boundary from Bloor to Harbord (west of Spadina): it would have made St. Paul's even more favorable for the NDP and stopped the "splitting of Bloor St." 

theleftyinvestor

Well, SpaFoYo is 22% below the quota (anticipating condo developments?), UniRose is 6% below and TorCen is 11.5% below.

I suppose part of the idea of the Dundas boundary was to keep all U of T buildings inside UniRose, as there are a small number south of College.

Ultimately any further adjustments would have to consider that SPF is significantly under quota, so you can't net subtract any more people from there.

Lord Palmerston

I doubt keeping U of T in one riding had much to do with it: the federated colleges were part of TC before and would have gone to Mount Pleasant in the previous proposal.  They were obviously trying to create some sort of condo riding, but with not enough population south of Queen the "logical" step was to stretch it up to Dundas.

socialdemocrati...

You guys got it wrong. The NDP didn't blow up the proposed revisions Trinity-Spadina because they were worried about losing. They blew it up because they were worrieda bout winning too big.

It's "inefficient voting". A more dominant lead doesn't do anything for them in FPTP. So they want to take some of the orange in Trinity Spadina and beat Condoville. And they want to take the rest of the orange in Trinity Spadina and beat Rosedale. And then they want to lop Rosedale off of Toronto Center and win there too. They're trading one dominant riding for a realistic chance of winning three.

It's higher risk, higher reward. And I'm not sure the risk is all that bad -- as I'm sure we'll see when they update PollMaps.ca.

Lord Palmerston

I really don't think that's the case.  First of all they already had a realistic chance of winning 3 ridings.  But more importantly, I don't think the Annex NDPers were thinking that "big" - they just wanted to stay in Trinity-Spadina and not go to St. Paul's, without really thinking of the consequences of "take out condos", which Olivia Chow took up.  

Not to mention what Olivia actually called for was to make T-S an even safer NDP riding than it already is: as she called for the removal of everything below Front St. and the CNR tracks *instead* of the area north of Bloor.  That's antithetical to spreading the NDP vote around.  

Whatever it was this is not an example of the T-S NDP being "the smartest people in the room", by any means. 

adma

And of course, remember what "higher risk, higher reqard" meant for Sask's rurban ridings.

Stockholm

Wainfleet is a very conservative, rural area that voted overwhelmingly CPC in 2011 when it was part of Welland. By removing it and placing it in the Tory sink hole of Niagara West it probably increases malcolm Allen's margin in the newly renamed Niagara Centre riding by as much as 1,000 votes. So its all good.

robbie_dee

Anyone have analysis on the new Hamilton and Niagara area ridings? I am intrigued by the addition of a fourth "urban" riding in Hamilton, called "Ancaster," which appears to include both McMaster University and Mohawk College as well as Dundas, Westdale and urban Ancaster, while lopping off rural Ancaster and Flamborough and shifting them to the new, mainly rural "Flamborough-Glanbrook". Clearly Ancaster would still be the wealthiest riding in Hamilton, but with a definite academic/creative class element due to the postsecondary institutions (as well as a substantial population of student renters). With the right candidate and vote splits I think there's at least the potential for an NDP pick up. The other NDP ridings in Hamilton: Hamilton Centre, Hamilton East-Stoney Creek and Hamilton Mountain are relatively unchanged and still look solid. I don't know enough about the Niagara Falls area to understand the effect of shifting Wainfleet from Welland to the new Niagara West. Thoughts? 

theleftyinvestor

adma wrote:

And of course, remember what "higher risk, higher reqard" meant for Sask's rurban ridings.

Yeah, 2004 walloped the NDP on two fronts - one because of the boundaries and two because of the coalescence of Alliance/PC into one solid vote. The 1988 and 1993 elections appear to have been fought on a map that had some all-urban and some rurban ridings, and on that map the NDP won some of both types of districts. But of course in 1988 there was no Reform party to compete for the Western protest vote. In 1993 there was, and the gradual realignment process of protest vote -> Reform -> Conservative began, but in the meantime the PC split still allowed the NDP through in an election where they hit historic lows. I wonder if anyone in 2002-3 at the redistribution hearings could have foreseen that a rurban map would leave the NDP in the Saskatchewan wilderness for a whole decade.

socialdemocrati...

Yeah, higher risk higher reward cuts the other way too. Obviously, the Liberals are banking on a GTA resurgence under Trudeau. If that happens, the numbers will look a lot closer to 2006, and the NDP may be lucky to hold any of them.

The seat-by-seat picture matters. But really, it's about having another, bigger orange wave. If the NDP collapses, it will hardly matter how the ridings are drawn in the grand scheme of things.

Lord Palmerston

Someone I know ran the numbers for the new map:

The NDP would have taken Spadina-Fort York with 50.2% and University Rosedale with 44.8%.

I'd say let the crowing about the "tactical brilliance" of the T-S NDP begin, but it still doesn't change the fact that this map is much worse in terms of community of interest.  And nicky's point about Olivia Chow's personal vote not necessarily being transferred as a block (ask Rosario Marchese!) still stands.  

theleftyinvestor

Very interesting to know. I wonder what it looks like on 2008 numbers.

I'm sure Sarah Thomson would be interested in taking another go at running for office, either provincially or federally, in the Spadina-Fort York boundaries. It was said that she did well with the "condo vote".

Lord Palmerston

The problem with that is Sarah Thomson is now "persona non grata" in Liberal Party circles.  But a more credible Liberal candidate could certainly take the current Trinity-Spadina as well as the proposed University-Rosedale and Spadina-Fort York.  

theleftyinvestor

Lord Palmerston wrote:

The problem with that is Sarah Thomson is now "persona non grata" in Liberal Party circles.  But a more credible Liberal candidate could certainly take the current Trinity-Spadina as well as the proposed University-Rosedale and Spadina-Fort York.  

I must have missed something. She ran as an OLP candidate; did something happen since then between her and Liberals?

Lord Palmerston

She is still a Liberal but is hated by just about everyone in the party at this point.  She went through three campaign managers and publicly lashed out at other Liberals (and named names!) on FB and Twitter for not supporting her on her campaign.

Stockholm

Its worth noting that in every federal election since 1984 the federal Liberal candidate in Trinity-Spadina has either been Tony Ianno or his wife - both utterly charmless liabilities to their party.

Lord Palmerston

The Liberals would probably want to run a Bill Graham or Bob Rae type in a University-Rosedale riding:  a patrician who can also appeal to the intelligentsia.  David Miller would probably be the ideal candidate from an NDP point of view, or some "progressive" Bay St. type with a higher profile than Paul Summerville (to prove they have "credibility on the economy" or whatever).

Stockholm

The NDP would probably want to run exactly the same type of candidate there. There is no shortage of "public intellectuals" living in "University-Rosedale" who would probably be eager to run for the NDP or for the Liberals. Get out the popcorn.

Lord Palmerston

Trudeau vs. Taylor? 

Centrist

PollMaps.ca has now come out with a revised seat redistribution count based upon the final boundary reports.

Canada (showing change from preliminary boundary reports):

Con: 189 (-2)

NDP: 108 (-3)

Lib: 36 (+4)

BQ: 4 (+1)

Green: 1 (+-0)

http://fed2012.pollmaps.ca/

 

 

socialdemocrati...

Comparing the seat distributions from the original projection is taking our eye off the ball.

The Conservatives net 20 new seats. The political power shifts westward.

 

David Young

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Comparing the seat distributions from the original projection is taking our eye off the ball.

The Conservatives net 20 new seats. The political power shifts westward.

 

Granted, but it doesn't take into account so many variables that could come into play next election:

Wil the B.Q. still be a viable player on the federal scene?

Will the Conservative government make decisions that turn off certain portions of the population?

Can the opposition New Democrats draw the quality candidates needed to win enough seats to form a government?

Will Justin Trudeau soar like an eagle, or flop like a turkey?

Does Elizabeth May matter to Canadians outside of her own riding?

When someone can predict the 2015 Stanley Cup winning team years ahead of time, then and only then would I listen to their seat-count predictions for the next federal election.

 

 

socialdemocrati...

Agreed. A lot of people are just trying to apply the 2011 (or even the 2013 electorate) to 2015. If you really wanted to predict the next election, you'd be trying to predict events, and issues. And we all know that's far more art than science. Polls don't get us very far.

toaster

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Agreed. A lot of people are just trying to apply the 2011 (or even the 2013 electorate) to 2015. If you really wanted to predict the next election, you'd be trying to predict events, and issues. And we all know that's far more art than science. Polls don't get us very far.

My understanding is that people are trying to give a picture of how the 2011 election would have resulted with these new ridings.

Stockholm

The Conservatives get more seats "notionally" but so many of them are by such paper thin margins that it would still only take a weak breeze to take away their majority

theleftyinvestor

The new boundaries see Vancouver-Granville with CON 35, LIB 30, NDP 24, GRN 9. But ultimately those are votes based on four different former ridings. 38% of voters come from Hedy Fry's Van Centre, about 18% each from Don Davies' Van Kingsway and a very Conservative part of Van Quadra, and 26% from Lib-turned-Con Van South. In all four, swing voters were influenced by strong incumbents, and in 2015 zero of their candidates will be incumbents. Note also the margin of theoretical victory 2279 is less than the 2838 Green votes transferred from Van Centre for Adriane Carr. Absent her taking a run, the Green vote is not going to be that high either. So really the riding is up for grabs by anyone. 

University-Rosedale and Spadina-Fort York are NDP by 12% and 26% margins. TorCen is Liberal by only 3%. All three of those could change absent the incumbency effects of Chow and Rae.

Brampton East goes NDP over Liberal by 7%.

The SK proposals must have changed somewhat. The last proposal saw Saskatoon Centre-University going NDP by a squeaker. The chunk of Sask-Rosetown-Biggar that went into that riding is gone and now Saskatoon-University is Conservative by 11%. Instead the big NDP contingent from SRB goes into Saskatoon West which is NDP majority by 9% (the last proposal's version of Sask West went Conservative by 5%).

Somewhere in BC something flipped one net CON->NDP from the last proposal. Haven't noticed where yet. It's still a loss of one seat from the old boundaries, and a gain of 7 CONs. But these are not, of course, the voters of the future.

Centrist

theleftyinvestor wrote:
Somewhere in BC something flipped one net CON->NDP from the last proposal. Haven't noticed where yet.

When they re-arranged Surrey in the final report, the new riding of Surrey-Newton was created. NDP takes the riding by 1.29%. Based upon colour-coded riding maps, I had initially postulated that the Libs would have marginally kept same earlier in the thread.

 

Krago
Krago

And here are some results maps from the recent federal by-elections:

Calgary Centre

Durham

Victoria

 

Centrist

Thanks Krago!!!! Your colour-coded riding maps are the best! Really!!!!! 

Lord Palmerston

Nice work!  I guess the Rosedale-Bay riding would serve a useful purpose of boxing in the Liberal vote but it's probably too gerrymandered to fly.

I would propose moving all of TC east of Yonge (but picking up the area below Esplanade), sending the Bay to Yonge sections of TC into University-Rosedale and moving the Dundas to College zone west of University (to bring these communities that straddle Dundas together) into Spadina-Fort York.  Based on 2011 census dissemination area populations this would leave TC at about 88,500, U-R at 91,500 and S-FY at 96,000.  I know that S-FY is presumed to be the fastest growing, but this seems to best serve the community of interest principle and shouldn't really hurt or help any party.  But of course I preferred the more rational Mount Pleasant/TC and Trinity-Spadina/St. Paul's splits.  

ETA:  We could move another approx. 4500 people around by shifting the boundary of TC/Fort York BELOW Front to York St. instead of Yonge and take in the Islands as well.  That leaves a nice even spilt of about 93,000 in TC, and 91,500 each in S-FY and U-R.  Or Spadina-Fort York could be contained all west of York St./University Ave. with TC maintaining the CBD and City Hall (shifting another 1,500 or so people I believe).

Krago

Here is (was?) my alternative plan to incorporate David Marit's objections into the new Saskatchewan map in a way that would benefit the NDP.

 

Saskatchewan - Alternative

Saskatoon - Alternative

Regina - Alternative

Krago

Here are two more options that add Davenport and St. Paul's to the mix and join Forest Hill with Rosedale.

 

Downtown Toronto - Option 4 - Federal

Downtown Toronto - Option 4 - Provincial

Downtown Toronto - Option 5 - Federal

Downtown Toronto - Option 5 - Provincial

 

Krago

For you Catherine Fife fans, here's where she won:

 

Kitchener-Waterloo By-election

Lord Palmerston

Krago wrote:

Here are two more options that add Davenport and St. Paul's to the mix and join Forest Hill with Rosedale.

I'm betting Rosedale residents will howl about the current proposal and demand to be put in St. Paul's!

Lord Palmerston

Rosario Marchese on FB: "Little Italy, welcome to Rosedale. This is the worst case of gerrymandering I have ever seen"

nicky

Hard to disagree with Rosario.

Although the NDP would have won both Spadina-Ft York and University-Rosedale on the strength of Olivia's 2011 vote it would have lost Toronto Centre by about 3%. The final proposal shifted a band of polls in the St Lawrence neighbourhood and that that tilted the balance from the original proposal.

The pollmaps.ca site also shows a transposition of the 2008 federl vote. TC would have gone Liberal by 35% and UR by 10%. SFY wd have been NDP by 1.6%.

The massive condo developments in the last 5 years would likely have wiped out the tiny 2008 margin in SFY.

It is not necessary to transpose the 2011 provincial results to know that the Liberals would have won all three ridings, TC and UR by large margins and SFY more narrowly.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Nothing compares to Gracie's Finger in the early 1980's.  If you Google Gracie's Finger you get lots of hits still.  I can't find a map but it was basically an appendage sticking out of the main body of the riding into a rich neighbourhood.  It turned her tough seat into a safe seat.

Stockholm

nicky wrote:

The pollmaps.ca site also shows a transposition of the 2008 federl vote. TC would have gone Liberal by 35% and UR by 10%. SFY wd have been NDP by 1.6%.

The massive condo developments in the last 5 years would likely have wiped out the tiny 2008 margin in SFY.

 

Yes, but you havw to consider that in 2008 the NDP had an extremely weak candidate in Toronto Centre and put no resources whatsoever into the campaign there (the same was true in 2011 but a rising tide raises all ships). The proposed new TC is extremly fertile NDP territory in terms of the makeup of the riding and you can be sure that in 2015 the NDP will run a high profile candidate there and put maximum money into the campign.

Pages