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

Robo
Online
Joined: Jun 1 2003

Lord Palmerston wrote:

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

Unfortunately, sure they can divide St Jamestown. The Commission's initial proposals already have divided as cohesive, if not more cohesive, communities. For example, look at Thorncliffe Park. The Commission has proposed that most of Thorncliffe Park Drive -- a street with lots of people in lots of highrises, but nevertheless a single street -- is in the inelegently named Toronto North, but a few thousand people on that street are in Don Valley East. If the Ontario Commission saw fit to split a single street, there is no reason to automatically preclude St Jamestown being split. The municipality of Clarington, immeidately east of Oshawa, is split in three parts. Sometimes muncipalties have to be split in two due to their populations and those of neighbouring muncipalities. It would have been easy to make a proposal here to leave Clarington split onlt twice. Given the initial proposal from the Ontario Commission, one should not presume that almost anything cannot be done, unfrotunately. That is why people coming forward to make proposals about their communities is important.


Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002

nicky wrote:

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

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


David Young
Offline
Joined: Dec 9 2007

Does the Commission also take into consideration future growth?

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

 


theleftyinvestor
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2008

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


Wilf Day
Offline
Joined: Oct 31 2002

David Young wrote:

Does the Commission also take into consideration future growth?

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

  • Departure from rules

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

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

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

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

  •  


    Robo
    Online
    Joined: Jun 1 2003

    Wilf Day wrote:

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

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


    Left Turn
    Offline
    Joined: Mar 28 2005

    Wilf Day wrote:

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

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

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

     


    theleftyinvestor
    Offline
    Joined: Jun 6 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Wilf Day
    Offline
    Joined: Oct 31 2002

    Left Turn wrote:

    Wilf Day wrote:

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

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

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


    theleftyinvestor
    Offline
    Joined: Jun 6 2008

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

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

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

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

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


    toaster
    Offline
    Joined: Sep 5 2011

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


    Wilf Day
    Offline
    Joined: Oct 31 2002

    toaster wrote:

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

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

     


    theleftyinvestor
    Offline
    Joined: Jun 6 2008

    Report from the New Westminster meeting.

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

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

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

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


    Wilf Day
    Offline
    Joined: Oct 31 2002

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

    Tomorrow is the last day to submit Ontario objections.

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

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

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

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


    toaster
    Offline
    Joined: Sep 5 2011

    Wilf Day wrote:

    toaster wrote:

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

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

     

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


    Wilf Day
    Offline
    Joined: Oct 31 2002

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

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

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

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


    theleftyinvestor
    Offline
    Joined: Jun 6 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    kropotkin1951
    Offline
    Joined: Jun 6 2002

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


    Centrist
    Offline
    Joined: Apr 7 2004

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

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


    theleftyinvestor
    Offline
    Joined: Jun 6 2008

    Centrist wrote:

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

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

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

    kropotkin1951 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Lord Palmerston
    Offline
    Joined: Jan 25 2004

    Is anybody going to be attending the depositions at Metro Hall this Thursday?  I am going to speak about the map for Central Toronto - namely, TC/T-S/Mount Pleasant/St. Paul's.  My deputation welcomes the breaking up of TC and the removal of territory north of Bloor; Rosedale and Yorkville have a community of interest with what is now the eastern half of St. Paul's.  However instead of Wellesley - which violates the community of interest principle by splitting Church and Wellesley in half, our suggestion is to have the boundary go down to Dundas west of Yonge and then up to Bloor east of Yonge.  The Bay Corridor above Dundas is more of a "midtown" community socially and economically while Church and Wellesley has more of a community of interest with "downtown" communities.  


    Lord Palmerston
    Offline
    Joined: Jan 25 2004

    There's a big push for the creation for a waterfront riding - backed by both Rosario Marchese and Carolyn Bennett - rather than Mount Pleasant.

    Olivia Chow made a rather incoherent presentation calling to keep the Annex and Seaton Village in Trinity-Spadina and remove everything south of Front St. from Trinity-Spadina with everything east of Bathurst going to Toronto Centre and everything west going either to either Davenport or Parkdale-High Park (it wasn't clear).  

    A lot of people in the Annex spoke out against the moving of the Annex into St. Paul's, saying that the CPR tracks at Dupont represented this great physical barrier and suggested that the condos should be taken out instead.  They frankly made a lot of ignorant statements about condo residents in the south as some sort of monolithic bloc.

    Kristyn Wong-Tam stated that the boundary between TC and Mount Pleasant be moved from Wellesley to Charles St. so the village would not be split in two ridings.  She said this boundary suggestion was backed by both Glen Murray and Pam McConnell.

    The most powerful presentation in my opinion was that of John Goyeau on behalf of the Toronto Centre NDP.  The boundary proposal was rather similar to my own (Dundas west of Yonge and Bloor east of Yonge), but he had several more minor suggestions that would keep most of Church-Wellesley together.  The TC deputation is available online (google "John Goyeau NDP").  The president of the TC NDP also spoke out against the watefront riding idea.

    The CPR "barrier" argument is a bit disingenuous.  Nobody has an objecton to it in the present Davenport or TC (and no matter how you slice it the ridings will almost certainly cross the tracks in both the proposed Mount Pleasant and revised Davenport.)  Why does it matter so much more in Trinity-Spadina/St. Paul's?

    I am against a waterfront-centric riding and prefer the Mount Pleasant/TC split for 2 reasons:

    1.)  The population of the area south of Queen between Dufferin/Atlantic and the Don River was 73,825 in the 2011 census, far too small to justify a riding.  You'd have to stretch it further north and all that would do is send a lot more south of Bloor territory into a riding with Rosedale etc. - exacerbating the problem of lack of communities of interest.

    2.)  The socioeconomic divide and community of interest is VASTLY greater between north and south of Bloor in the present Toronto Centre than between the Annex and the present St. Paul's.  In TC, north of Bloor you have wealthy homeowners in Rosedale and south of Bloor it is predominantly made up of tenants in high rises and a huge low income population (ward 28 has the highest poverty rate of all city wards).  Since the 1930s, the poor neighborhoods just east of downtown have had to be part of a riding (for most its history) insultingly called "Rosedale." Progressives for years have fought for fair representation and this is a big step in the right direction.  

    I'm also frankly dumbfounded why nobody in the NDP wants to defend the proposed St. Paul's, which is now winnable for the NDP.  I can understand why the Liberals however want a waterfront riding as they'd have the edge in 3 of the 4 central Toronto ridings while the proposed map packs their support into Mount Pleasant. 


    adma
    Online
    Joined: Jan 21 2006

    Lord Palmerston wrote:
    I'm also frankly dumbfounded why nobody in the NDP wants to defend the proposed St. Paul's, which is now winnable for the NDP.

    Maybe it's under the chicken presumption that the Liberals will make it too winnable for themselves, esp. if Carolyn Bennett runs again...


    nicky
    Offline
    Joined: Aug 3 2005

    As I've written before in this topic, the proposed downtown Toronto ridings are about as favourable for the NDP as we could hope for. We would have won Toronto Centre by about 1% and St Paul's by about 3%. Trinity-Spadina would have remained safe. 

    Granted the Gay Village should not be split but that requires only a minor adjustment. Yet Olivia and others in the NDP seem to demand changes that would make St Paul's unwinable and imperil our chances in TC, all without materially improving our position in T-S.

    Very disappointing they can be so stategically blind.


    Lord Palmerston
    Offline
    Joined: Jan 25 2004

    adma wrote:
    Maybe it's under the chicken presumption that the Liberals will make it too winnable for themselves, esp. if Carolyn Bennett runs again...

    Carolyn Bennett lives in Chaplin Estates so she may opt to run in the safer Mount Pleasant.


    Lord Palmerston
    Offline
    Joined: Jan 25 2004

    nicky wrote:

    As I've written before in this topic, the proposed downtown Toronto ridings are about as favourable for the NDP as we could hope for. We would have won Toronto Centre by about 1% and St Paul's by about 3%. Trinity-Spadina would have remained safe. 

    Granted the Gay Village should not be split but that requires only a minor adjustment. Yet Olivia and others in the NDP seem to demand changes that would make St Paul's unwinable and imperil our chances in TC, all without materially improving our position in T-S.

    Very disappointing they can be so stategically blind.

    The Commission is still accepting letters for a few more days.  Their e-mail address is: ontario@rfed-rcf.ca

     


    Wilf Day
    Offline
    Joined: Oct 31 2002

    It's remarkable what happens when you put in charge a Northern Ontario judge who was a city council member for seven years, a lawyer since 1970 and judge since 1990 (nothing to prove at this point). His commission gives priority to community of interest. He doesn't insists on staying within 10%, or even 15%. Look at their latest revised proposals:

    Brant: 132,454 (they started with 115,901, but the public wanted more of the county kept together, and it currently has 137,102 people): 24.7% over quotient.

    Niagara Falls: 128,357 (they started with 98,397, but no one liked shifting Fort Erie into Welland): 20.8% over quotient.

    Niagara West: 86,528 (they started with 115,563, but no one liked shifting Thorold into Niagara West): 19.5% under quotient.

    And when the government gives the public and the Commission shorter, inadequate, timelines, they make decisions on the road, and schedule a partial second round of hearings to consider new alternatives for 15 of the 121 ridings. Pundits have suggested a second round for decades, with no legislative action. So these guys did it themselves.

    Brilliant!


    David Young
    Offline
    Joined: Dec 9 2007

    Someone in the Conservative Party must have gotten to the Electoral Commission here in N.S.

    The first proposal would have seen a Conservative-friendly section at the very western end of South Shore-St. Margaret's put into Southwest Nova (helping the Conservatives greatly in keeping this traditional swing seat from going back to the Liberals) while adding a very NDP-friendly section from Halifax West (thus helping to keep the NDP from defeating the Liberal there).  This would've greatly increased the NDP's chances of winning S.S.S.M.

    However, now that western section is to remain in S.S.S.M.

    Looks like the Cons want to prevent the NDP from winning either riding.

     

     


    Wilf Day
    Offline
    Joined: Oct 31 2002

    Interesting how all the comments here are about a small number of metropolitan communities.

    We Canadians don't all live in metropolitan areas the size of Winnipeg or larger. In fact, only half of us do.

    Analyzing the results of the 2011 Canadian census, 50.3% of us live in the top eight metropoltian areas: Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, Ottawa - Gatineau, Calgary, Edmonton, Québec, and Winnipeg. The NHL cities (well, if the Nordiques can be brought back).

    The other 49.7% of us don't. Where do we live?

    The typical resident of the other half of Canada lives in an area of 55,000 people. I took Statistics Canada figures for "census agglomeration areas" (like metropolitan areas these include suburbs, but under 100,000 they are not called metropolitan). Courtenay (B.C.) has 55,213 people, and 24.9% of us live in places smaller than that. Another 24.9% of us live in the 50 places like Courtenay or larger, smaller than Winnipeg.

    The typical places where "the other half" lives include Grande Prairie (Alta.) with 55,032, Cornwall (Ont.) with 58,957, Brandon (Man.) with 53,229, and Saint-Hyacinthe (Que.) with 56,794. Going further afield, in Atlantic Canada are Charlottetown (P.E.I.) with 64,487 and Truro (N.S.) with 45,888.

    They are growing. In the five years from 2006 to 2011, Courtenay grew 7.5%, Grande Prairie 16.8%, Cornwall 0.8%, Brandon 10.3%, Saint-Hyacinthe 3.3%, Charlottetown 8.7%, Truro 1.8%.

    They are urban. Courtenay is 80% urban, Grande Prairie is 99.8% urban, Cornwall 84% urban, Brandon 87% urban, Saint-Hyacinthe 86% urban, Charlottetown 70% urban, and Truro 51% urban.

    Many of us can identify with such areas. The Cobourg/Port Hope/West Northumberland area where I live has 58,594 people, 56% urban. We don't have an NHL team, but we support our own daily newspaper, hospital, and all the other community institutions we need.

    Like most of the other half of Canada.

    Communities over 56,000 people invariably are the centre of their own riding, until you get up to Prince George B.C. (84,232) and Red Deer Alta. (90,564) which each centre two ridings.

    But poor Courtenay B.C. (55,213) is proposed to be split between two ridings: VANCOUVER ISLAND NORTH centred on Campbell River (36,096), and NANAIMO--ALBERNI centred on Parksville (27,822) and Port Alberni (25,465).

    Duncan, BC (43,252) is a winner. Until now, it has been part of Nanaimo--Cowichan. The south half of that riding, centred on Duncan, is proposed to join some Victoria suburbs in the new SOUTH COWICHAN--JUAN DE FUCA, 62% of which comes from Nanaimo--Cowichan.

    Not until you get down to Midland, Ont. (35,419) do you find a community in a riding centred on a larger community (Orillia, 40,731).

    Moose Jaw, Sask. (34,421) is a winner. Today it is partnered with southwest Regina, making 50% of Palliser, but it is proposed to centre MOOSE JAW--LAKE CENTRE--LANIGAN.

    Alma, Que. (33,018) is a winner. Currently it is part of Jonquière--Alma, while underpopulated Roberval--Lac-Saint-Jean (78,765) is centred on Dolbeau-Mistassini (16,019). Alma is proposed to be elbowed into the new LAC-SAINT-JEAN (105,783) where it will be the largest centre. Its gain is the region's loss, as the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region drops from three seats to 2.7 when CHARLEVOIX--SAGUENAY takes in 32% of the present Montmorency--Charlevoix--Haute-Côte-Nord.

    Baie-Comeau, Que. (28,789) and Sept-Îles, Que. (28,487) continue as partners in Manicouagan.

    No joy for Leamington (28,574), proposed to remain shoved in with Chatham (44,074, the urban part of Chatham-Kent's 104,075), in CHATHAM-KENT (106,636). That's because Windsor-Essex-Chatham-Kent-Sarnia-Lambton is proposed to be under-represented.

    But Miramichi, N.B. (28,115) remains the centre of the proposed MIRAMICHI (53,587), which that Commission finds more exceptional than Churchill or Timmins--James Bay.

    Thetford Mines, Que. (27,968) stays the centre of the enlarged Lotbinière—Mégantic. And Rivière-du-Loup (27,734) stays the centre of its enlarged riding. And Corner Brook, N.L. (27,202) stays the centre of its riding, now LONG RANGE MOUNTAINS.

    Will Centre Wellington, Ont. (26,693) (Fergus) be a winner, as the population centre of WELLINGTON--WOOLWICH? Stay tuned.

    Fort St. John, B.C., (26,380) is unchanged as a junior partner with part of Prince George.

    Kentville, N.S. (26,359) stays the centre of KINGS-HANTS. Cranbrook, B.C. (25,037) stays the centre of KOOTENAY--COLUMBIA. Okotoks, Alta. (24,511) stays the centre of a riding, now FOOTHILLS. Pembroke, Ont. (24,017) stays the centre of its riding.

    Brooks, Alta. (23,430) is a winner, the largest centre in the new BOW RIVER, no longer shoved in with Medicine Hat.

    Quesnel, BC (22,096) and Williams Lake (18,490) remain junior partners with part of Prince George in CARIBOO--PRINCE GEORGE.

    Edmundston, N.B. (21,903) and Campbellton (17,842) remain partners in MADAWASKA--RESTIGOUCHE. Collingwood, Ont. (19,241) and Alliston (New Tecumseth, 30,234) stay the centres of SIMCOE-GREY.

    North Battleford, Sask. (19,216) stays the centre of a riding.

    Enough for now.


    nicky
    Offline
    Joined: Aug 3 2005

    Three final redistribution reports are now in - for Newfound land Lab, Nova Scotia and Manitoba.

    http://blunt-objects.blogspot.ca/2012/12/newfoundland-nova-scotia-and-ma...

    So far the NDP seems to have lost a little ground. 

    The initial N&L boundaries seem to be confirmed with few changes. The NDP remains a long distance from picking up a third seat on these boundaries.

    In NS, as noted by David Young, above, the commission has reversed its changes to SSSM and shored up the Conservative margin. It has also abandoned major changes to Dartmouth which would have significantly expanded Robert Chisholm's precarious margin.

    In Manitoba the major change is to Winnipeg North. Under the first proposal Lamereux's stronhold in the Maples was to be excised, which would have plunged him into third place. It has now been restored, together with his chances of re-election.

    Is there a deadline for the final redistributiion reports for the other provinces? I seem to recall that they have to report by the end of the year or perhaps the end of January.


    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