Electoral Maps 5

411 posts / 0 new
Last post
adma

[quote=Stockholm] 

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.

[/quote]

And let's remember, too, that the 2008 and 2011 campaigns were hampered by *who* the Liberal incumbent was, i.e. to run an overly-aggressive NDP campaign vs the former NDP Premier ran the risk of coming off as quixotic sour grapes that's more of a voter turn-off than turn-on.  So, better to let Rae relatively off the hook and concentrate elsewhere.

Of course, next time it'll likely be an open/non-Rae seat, which'll make things easier.

Lord Palmerston

There's very little potential vote in the east of Avenue Rd. of the proposed University-Rosedale.

More untapped vote in the previously proposed St. Paul's that would have become competitive and opened the floodgates - territory represented by Joe Mihevc municipally but where many progressives vote Liberal federally and provincially because the NDP was never in contention.  Remember that the NDP ran basically a paper candidate in St. Paul's - a 22-year-old who had previously run against Josh Matlow for city council and got 4% of the vote.  

And the previous map was just a lot more sensible.  Mount Pleasant would have been the silk stocking district.  The new map has Rosedale in the same riding as Little Italy and Kensington but in a different riding from Yonge and St. Clair - makes no sense at all.  And yes, the Annex has more of a community of interest with St. Paul's than Little Italy and Kensington do with Rosedale.  

Stockholm

The next phase involves MP objections and suggestions to the redistribution commissions and there can and probably will still be some tweaking of the boundaries. One thing that might make sense would be if University-Rosedale got extended nortth to St. Clair and in exchange St. Paul Takes over most of Rosedale...that would make a lot of sense by creating a nice Forest Hill + Rosedale seat

Lord Palmerston

Not a bad idea, especially if College to Dundas can go into Spadina-Fort York (which is just about the acceptable population bound).  Hopefully the Annex folks won't mind those horrible CPR tracks.  

And I bet Rosedale would happily go to St. Paul's.

Stockholm

There is a fair amount of blue in Forest Hill and Rosedale in those maps that Krago does. I wonder if ther Tories would be competituive in a seat that was 100% rich like that?

David Young

Which of the new 'downtown' seats will be considered the 'new' seat?

Considering that the new Scarborough seat looks like an NDP pick-up, plus the Bramalea-Gore seat as well, are there at least 10 seats in the greater Toronto area that the NDP has the best chance at taking?

 

theleftyinvestor

[quote=David Young]

Which of the new 'downtown' seats will be considered the 'new' seat?

[/quote]

Trinity-Spadina's eligible electors (based on 2011) split into 53360 for SpaFoYo, and 47495 for UniRose.

SpaFoYo gains 4444 electors from TorCen in addition. UniRose gains 23366 electors from TorCen. A total of 61000 remain in TorCen.

Hence, I think it's reasonable to say that SpaFoYo consists mainly of a slim majority of the old riding plus a tiny addition. UniRose is more of an amalgam, and thus the "new" seat.

Wilf Day

NDP improved prospects in Ontario under the new boundaries, in addition to new University—Rosedale with a NDP victory margin of 12.33% (taking Spadina—Fort York as the successor riding to Trinity-Spadina), and Brampton East (NDP win by 6.93% margin):

Toronto Centre: Liberal victory margin over NDP shrinks from 10.8% to 3.08%.

Sault Ste. Marie: the Conservative victory margin over the NDP shrinks from 4.21% to 3.03%.

Scarborough Centre: Conservative margin over NDP shrinks from 5.41% to 4.78%.

Oshawa. It loses 12,999 North Oshawa voters who voted 58% Conservative and only 30% NDP, and picks up 15,436 west Oshawa voters who, as part of Flaherty’s riding, voted 55% Conservative and only 27% NDP. But those 15,436 had been in a riding where the NDP had no chance and got only 22%. They had not been exposed to a winning NDP campaign.

Ancaster: NDP moves up to second with 28.19%, compared with 18.57% in Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough—Westdale where the NDP had no chance.

Brant: NDP vote edges up from 28.51% to 28.98%.

Cambridge NDP vote edges up from 27.68% to 27.92%.

The new Kitchener South—Hespeler has an NDP vote of 25.8%, in a riding where 65% of voters were in Kitchener-Conestoga where the NDP had no chance.

Note this does not include ridings where the NDP was already in contention but the new boundaries make no difference.

theleftyinvestor

Well with Olivia Chow now openly contemplating a mayoral run, that could leave both UniRose and SpaFoYo without an incumbent.

With Olivia going municipal, might it be nice to see Mike Layton go federal? His ward is half of Trinity-Spadina but sliced up along Bathurst/Christie. 

I think all three of UR, SPF and TC will have very competitive NDP nomination contests in 2015.

Wilf Day

[quote=theleftyinvestor]I think all three of UR, SPF and TC will have very competitive NDP nomination contests in 2015.[/quote]

As will Scarborough Centre, Brampton East, Oshawa, and maybe others in the GTA. Plus lots more elsewhere.

Wilf Day

While BC, transposed, goes from 12 NDP seats to 11 (including the new Cowichan—Malahat—Langford), let's look at the close ones (transposed):

Courtenay—Alberni
Conservative 44.66%

NDP 40.94%

Green Party 6.88%

Liberal 6.67%

Vancouver Island North—Comox—Powell River

Conservative 46.02%

NDP 41.75%

Liberal 6.36%

Green Party 5.15%

Vancouver Centre

Liberal 31%

NDP 26.37%

Conservative 26.05%

Green Party 15.08%

South Okanagan—West Kootenay

Conservative 44.84%

NDP 39.37%

Green Party 8.13%

Liberal 7.09%

Port Moody—Coquitlam

Conservative 46.4%

NDP 40.55%

Liberal 8.52%

Green Party 4.26%
(Here's where the party has a problem, a traffic jam in Burnaby and New Westminster. Fin Donnelly's riding of New Westminster-Coquitlam goes primarily to Port Moody—Coquitlam, while a smaller portion goes to New Westminster—Burnaby. But Peter Julian in Burnaby—New Westminster has the primary claim on New Westminster—Burnaby, although Burnaby South also comes more from Burnaby--New Westminster than from Burnaby--Douglas. But although Burnaby--Douglas goes primarily to Burnaby North—Seymour, no doubt Kennedy Stewart would prefer to run in Burnaby South.)

Burnaby North—Seymour
Conservative 44.3%

NDP 35.08%

Liberal 15.72%

Green Party 3.88%

Kootenay—Columbia

Conservative 49.92%

NDP 39.04%

Green Party 6.42%

Liberal 3.47%

Stockholm

Its worth noting that these seven seats went narrowly Conservative in the context of the 2011 election when the federal Conservatives won BC by a 13 point margin over the NDP 46% to 33%. If in 2015 BC is even a close race between the NDP and Tories - as most polls seem to predict - all seven of those seats would go NDP

theleftyinvestor

308 has released a monthly polling average with the new new boundaries, the first projection I've seen to use them.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2013/03/february-2013-federal-polling-a...

In this projection the BC popular vote for the Cons is 33.7, essentially tied with the NDP at 33. And indeed, Wilf and Stockholm, the result is that a number of marginal seats flip CON-NDP (and CON-LIB too).

PollMaps transposition 2011 BC: 28 CON / 11 NDP / 2 LIB / 1 GRN
Threehundredeight projection BC: 19 CON / 16 NDP / 6 LIB / 1 GRN

Of course this poll does not take into account the Trudeau Effect. But it's a good illustration of how marginal many of those Con seats are.

socialdemocrati...

Interesting thing about the polls is that the NDP is now basically where they were before Mulcair took over, which is pretty much treading water since 2011. That means a strong showing in Quebec, and a lot of safe seats in urban ridings. At the very least, they've cemented a lot of their new seats.

What's really happened is that the Liberals have gained at the expense of the Conservatives.

Makes sense, since Trudeau's only notable policy positions have been for more oil with less Canadian ownership, and abandoning the gun registry.

If the NDP treads water and the Conservatives lose seats, we have the NDP in a real position of power: either as a powerful opposition in a minority government, or as the leader of a progressive coalition.

And this is outside of the context of an election, where the candidates have a small opportunity to talk directly to voters, without spin and BS.

jerrym

The NDP is trying to get the unpopular proposed merger of North Burnaby and North Vancouver ridings by the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission  reversed by a parliamentary committee. 

"The NDP, which stands to lose at least one of its 12 B.C. MPs as a result of the Lower Mainland riding changes, argues that more than the Burrard Inlet separates the two communities. There are also deep political, demographic and cultural differences in the proposed new Burnaby North-Seymour riding.

'There is no need to rip apart and forcibly join two communities that don't have a community of interest between them,' Peter Julian, one of three New Democrat MPs objecting to the proposal, told the committee last week.

The committee is taking a final look at the once-a-decade riding redistribution across Canada based on population growth and shifts. B.C.'s 4.4 million total in the 2011 census has resulted in it increasing its seat total in the House of Commons from 36 to 42.

The commission makes its final decisions in June.

One of the commission's challenges is population growth on the North Shore. With the target for B.C. ridings set at 104,763 residents, the panel was confronted with two fast-growing, high-income - and Conservative-friendly - ridings over that mark. West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country had a population in 2011 of 133,910, while North Vancouver had 127,339. Burnaby-Douglas had 123,275.

The commission's solution was to distribute part of Burnaby-Douglas to neighbouring ridings, and match the North Burnaby part with part of the old North Vancouver riding."

http://www.vancouversun.com/makes%2Bquash%2Briding%2Bmerger/8088246/stor...

theleftyinvestor

I respect Mr. Julian for trying to accomplish this, but I think that any attempt to undo this riding means tearing up the entire map and starting again. And every alternative I have seen has resulted in some rural combination even worse than this riding.

Wilf Day

[quote=theleftyinvestor]

I respect Mr. Julian for trying to accomplish this, but I think that any attempt to undo this riding means tearing up the entire map and starting again. And every alternative I have seen has resulted in some rural combination even worse than this riding.

[/quote]

What Peter Julian said on March 5 on "how to fix this" is on tape on the parliamentary website. A reduced Burnaby-Douglas riding. A reduced Burnaby--New Westminster. A riding for east New Westminster and Coquitlam's Mallardville area. And one for Port Moody--Coquitlam. They would all be within 2% of quotient. But what would happen on the north shore?

theleftyinvestor

[quote=Wilf Day]

What Peter Julian said on March 5 on "how to fix this" is on tape on the parliamentary website. A reduced Burnaby-Douglas riding. A reduced Burnaby--New Westminster. A riding for east New Westminster and Coquitlam's Mallardville area. And one for Port Moody--Coquitlam. They would all be within 2% of quotient. But what would happen on the north shore?

[/quote]

Indeed, his proposals seemed pretty reasonable, but it didn't really fix the North Shore problem. And once you start meddling with the North Shore, somewhere along the line you have to start pasting together populations that are separated by sparse rural expanses. As bad as it is to straddle Burrard Inlet, I would have a harder time justifying new unforeseen awkward rural combinations that are created solely to satisfy urban populations that don't want to mix.

Left Turn

[quote=Wilf Day]But what would happen on the north shore?[/quote]

Your proposal from last April was workable. If I recall it was:

One riding that would be most of North Van District and all of North Van City.

One riding that would be the rest of North Van District all of West Van, the Sunshine Coast, and the Howe Sound region up to and including Squamish.

One riding that would be Whistler, Pemberton, Liloet, Lytton, and Merritt.

From my observation it seemed that the sticking point was that the commission was unwilling to put Whistler in a different riding than West Vancouver.

What isn't possible is to both keep north Burnaby and North Van District seperate, AND keep Whistler in the same riding as Squamish and West Van. Whister specifically requested that it be in the same riding as Squamish and West Van, and it seems to me that the commission gave that a higher priority than the overwhelming desire to keep north Burnaby and North Van seperate.

[quote=theleftyinvestor]

[quote=Wilf Day]

What Peter Julian said on March 5 on "how to fix this" is on tape on the parliamentary website. A reduced Burnaby-Douglas riding. A reduced Burnaby--New Westminster. A riding for east New Westminster and Coquitlam's Mallardville area. And one for Port Moody--Coquitlam. They would all be within 2% of quotient. But what would happen on the north shore?

[/quote]. As bad as it is to straddle Burrard Inlet, I would have a harder time justifying new unforeseen awkward rural combinations that are created solely to satisfy urban populations that don't want to mix.[/quote]

The awkward rural combination that would result would be the Whistler, Pemberton, Lilooet, Lytton, and Merrit riding I mentioned above. Despite it's awkward geography, I'd argue it's sill better than the Burnaby North--Seymour option, for two reasons. One, there is a stark difference in the ethnic makeup of the Burnaby North--Seymour riding that would not exist in the Whistler to Merritt riding. Specifically the Chinese population goes from somewhere in the order or 30-33% in North Burnaby, down to 1-2% on the North Shore.

Two, there is a stark difference in the 2011 NDP vote between North Burnaby and the North Shore that again would not exist in the Whistler to Merritt riding. The NDP came first in North Burnaby with a vote percentage in the low 40% range. In the North Shore portion of the proposed riding, the NDP got less than 10% of the vote. 

Centrist

[quote=Left Turn]The awkward rural combination that would result would be the Whistler, Pemberton, Lilooet, Lytton, and Merrit riding I mentioned above. Despite it's awkward geography, I'd argue it's sill better than the Burnaby North--Seymour option,[/quote]

Practically speaking, Whistler has always been part of the West Van riding and in this instance, the commission included Pemberton into the West Van riding due to community of interest concerns.

The Duffy Lake Road, which is just a paved logging road traversing the Coastal Mountains into the interior (separating Whistler/Pemberton and Lillooet/Lytton), is already an adventure to drive in the summer. During the winter, it faces washouts, snow avalanches, and rock avalanches along its twisty route, which is full of switchbacks, single lane wooden bridges, etc. In any event, can't see much of a community of interest between the coastal communities and the interior communities. If this riding was created I can already hear the howls protest.

 

David Young

I've been trying to keep track of all the provincial commissions; are all the reports finished (except for the last-minute tweeking of boundaries in a few areas)?

 

Wilf Day

[quote=David Young]I've been trying to keep track of all the provincial commissions; are all the reports finished (except for the last-minute tweeking of boundaries in a few areas)?[/quote]

Yep. And the Parliamentary Committee hearings have been held for Alberta (they supported eight requests for changes), Newfoundland (one change supported), Manitoba (no objections), Nova Scotia (no objections), PEI (no objections), BC (pending, next meeting March 19), New Brunswick (pending, next meeting March 19). To come: Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec.  

knownothing knownothing's picture
edmundoconnor

In other news, turkeys are nervously noticing how close to December it's getting.

Randy Hoback, the Tory MP for Prince Albert, suggested that Saskatchewan urbanites are inextricably tied to their rural surroundings. “The reality is it’s the daughter of the 500-acre farmer who bought the 700-foot loft in Regina.”

Er, no. My in-laws are all decidedly urban, and proudly Saskatchewan. There are rural roots, but that doesn't mean they're constantly harkening back to them. The MPs seem positively *afraid* of an urban Saskatchewan taking root.

By Hoback's logic, we could tear apart Winnipeg, for starters. But of course the Tories aren't concerned about uniting the rural and urban in some happy gathering. Apparently such dreamers in Manitoba can get lost. It's simply about cravenly circling the wagons in a last-ditch attempt to stave off the near-inevitable.

edmundoconnor

http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Saskatchewan+Tories+riding+boundary+proce...

Dion said he finds Saskatchewan MPs’ arguments puzzling when other Conservative MPs from Alberta and British Columbia are appearing before the committee to argue against the introduction of some blended urban-rural ridings in those provinces. (my emphasis)

!!!!!!!!

 

theleftyinvestor

[quote=edmundoconnor]

Er, no. My in-laws are all decidedly urban, and proudly Saskatchewan. There are rural roots, but that doesn't mean they're constantly harkening back to them. The MPs seem positively *afraid* of an urban Saskatchewan taking root.

[/quote]

Also, even if she is the daughter of the guy who owns a rural farm, there's a reason she moved out. Does she really need to be in the same riding as Dad?

knownothing knownothing's picture
Wilf Day

It's odd the way the House Committee was so gentle in its Saskatchewan objections. With provinces like Ontario, the Committee said "the Committee supports" the proposals of Bryan Hayes, M.P. for Sault Ste. Marie; Jay Aspin, M.P. for Nipissing–Timiskaming; Mr. Woodworth, M.P. for Kitchener Centre; Diane Finley, M.P. for Haldimand–Norfolk; Peter Van Loan, M.P. for York–Simcoe; Kyle Seeback, M.P. for Brampton West; Parm Gill, M.P. for Brampton–Springdale; Wladyslaw Lizon, M.P. for Mississauga East–Cooksville; Bob Dechert, M.P. for Mississauga–Erindale; Mark Adler, M.P. for York Centre; John Carmichael, M.P. for Don Valley West;  Royal Galipeau, M.P. for Ottawa–Orleans; Erin O'Toole, M.P. for Durham; Barry Devolin, M.P. for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock; Rick Norlock, M.P. for Northumberland–Quinte West; Colin Carrie, M.P. for Oshawa; and Dean Del Mastro, M.P. for Peterborough. But on several others they said only, for example: "The Committee refers Mr. Goodyear’s proposal to the Commission for its consideration."

But for Saskatchewan, the Committee supported nothing.

Their preamble stated "Based on the objections filed by Members, the Committee does recommend some changes to electoral boundaries. The Committee trusts that the Commission will receive the proposals in this report with openness and with a view to striking the appropriate balance between representation by population and the maintenance of communities of interest and communities of identity in existing electoral districts."

But then they never said "supports" or "recommends." They said "The Committee refers Mr. Clarke’s second and third proposals . . .  to the Commission for its consideration." "The Committee refers Mr. Hoback’s proposal to the Commission for its consideration." And similar wordings for Mr. Lukiwski, M.P. for Regina–Lumsden–Lake Centre; Ms. Block, M.P. for Saskatoon–Rosetown–Biggar, and Mr. Trost, M.P. for Saskatoon–Humboldt; and Ed Komarnicki, M.P. for Souris–Moose Mountain.

How can one explain such deference? Backdown from their ill-considered robo-call campaign against the Commission?

Krago

The final amended reports of three provinces are now out.  Ontario is still outstanding.

 

British Columbia

Quebec

Saskatchewan

nicky

The three amened reports released today include maps from December and February.

Does this mean that we still await the final maps or that the maps from Dec and Feb have now been finalized without changes?

Determinant

Anyone know why the Ontario final report is taking so long?

Stockholm

Its a  bigger province?

Centrist

The BC Boundaries Commission refused to change the boundaries of the new Burnaby North-Seymour riding even after the parliamentary committee recommended same. Hope Kennedy Stewart hangs in there. Sucks.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

[quote=Krago]

The final amended reports of three provinces are now out.  Ontario is still outstanding.

 

British Columbia

Quebec

Saskatchewan

[/quote]

Six purely urban ridings in Saskatchewan.

Nice.

Left Turn

[quote=Centrist]The BC Boundaries Commission refused to change the boundaries of the new Burnaby North-Seymour riding even after the parliamentary committee recommended same. Hope Kennedy Stewart hangs in there. Sucks.[/quote]

The commission could have easily avoided a cross-Burrard Inlet riding. They could have created a north shore riding encompassing North Van City and the eastern two thirds of North Van District; and another riding comprising the western third of North Van District, West Van, the Sunshine Coast, and Howe Sound up to and including Squamish. It would of course have required putting Whistler and Pemberton in an interior riding, something the commission was apparently not willing to do.

The cynic in me thinks that Burnaby North--Seymour is in fact gerrymanmdering to ensure the election of a pro Kinder Morgan pipeline Conservative MP to represent the area containing its north Burnaby terminus.

My guess is that Kennedy Stewart will run in the new South Burnaby Riding, as his chances at reelection are much better there.

theleftyinvestor

I think what it comes down to is - every solution that avoided a cross-Burrard Inlet riding would create an awkward rural combination where the community of interest is tenuous and the transportation links may even be unavailable. While BN-S is a lousy combination, it does at least place the requisite "most awkward combo riding" close to an urban centre. I would still be mighty pissed off if I lived in N Burnaby though.

Krago

Here's the report of the Krago Commission for British Columbia.  It solves the Burrard Inlet issue, and keeps Courteney/Comox/Cumberland together.  It also avoids dividing Nanaimo and puts the Gulf Islands together in one seat.

theleftyinvestor

[quote=Krago]

Here's the report of the Krago Commission for British Columbia.  It solves the Burrard Inlet issue, and keeps Courteney/Comox/Cumberland together.  It also avoids dividing Nanaimo and puts the Gulf Islands together in one seat.

[/quote]

Hmm.

I don't know enough to see where the potential objections might be. Off the top of my head:

- Gibsons and possibly Sechelt may be seen as having a better community of interest with Horseshoe Bay than with the rest of the Sunshine Coast and north VI due to the nature of the transportation links and where they get their nearest services from.

- The most common ferry trips taken to and from the Gulf Islands are from or to Sidney or Nanaimo. So to place all the GIs in a riding that includes neither major ferry terminal might be inadvisable. Under the current Commission report, while the GIs are divided up they also tend to be grouped with locales to which they have transportation links, hence a trip to their MP's office would require leaving the riding and re-entering. This is very similar to the objection against Burnaby-Seymour.

- The little chunk of Cariboo Hwy in Kamloops-Thompson is really awkward-looking. Driving from Clinton, BC to Kamloops requires exiting the riding unless you take a minor unlabelled road instead (I think these might be logging roads??).

Krago

Moved post to Ontario Forum

Wilf Day

[quote=Determinant]

Anyone know why the Ontario final report is taking so long?

[/quote]

Any day now, I hear. I think Elections Canada had a hard time doing the exact numbers on some of the last-minute tweaks. Question: will Del Mastro's plan to stuff even more Conservative voters into Oshawa crash and burn?

[quote=David Young]

Which of the new 'downtown' seats will be considered the 'new' seat?[/quote]

The three "new" ridings in Toronto (that is, they are not "successor" ridings) are University—Rosedale, Don Valley North and Scarborough—Wexford.

[quote=Stockholm]

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

[/quote]

Safe bet: 43.24%.

But my favourite is new Brampton East
2011 Redistributed Results:

NDP 10,916: 37.6%

Liberal 8,904: 30.67%

Conservative 8,565: 29.5%

John McCallum will be 65 by the time of the 2015 election. The successor to his current riding is Markham—Thornhill, where the Liberal margin shrinks from 3.4% to 0.77%. One of the three new ridings in York Region is called Markham--Unionville, confusingly (they shouldn't do this) since that is the same name as McCallum's present riding although the majority of his riding goes into Markham—Thornhill. Will McCallum run in Markham--Thornhill? Will Peter Kent run again at age 72 in Vaughan—Thornhill—Markham, his successor riding? Will Julian Fantino run again at age 73 in Vaughan—Woodbridge, his successor riding? Will we see lots of new Conservative candidates, including the open ("new") ridings of Aurora—Richmond Hill, King—Vaughan, and Markham—Unionville? Will some of them be right-to-lifers like Frank Klees in Aurora? 

socialdemocrati...

That's a cool site.

Interesting to see, the new Toronto Center (minus Rosedale) loses votes in these numbers (from 2011):

Liberal: -7000
Conservative: -5571
NDP: -2191
Green: -699

Which severely damages the Liberals in Toronto Center. In the new Toronto Center, the NDP would have still lost to Bob Rae. But by a much narrower margin. Only 3%.

And what about all the Liberals crammed into the new riding in University-Rosedale?  NDP is up by a healthy margin. (Though not as healthy as Trinity-Spadina... but Spadina-Fort York looks very very safe.)

It's a small trade-off:

- The NDP starts with an advantage in the new University-Rosedale, but the Liberals are within closer distance than Trinity-Spadina.
- Toronto Center is a toss-up, as the NDP and Liberals are within the margin of error.
- The safe seat in Trinity-Spadina becomes the safe seat in Spadina-Fort York.

Of course, 2015 won't be 2011.

If the Liberals keep Toronto Center, they have a good shot at capturing the new University-Rosedale. But Spadina-Fort York is safe.

Krago

The Ontario Report is now out.

The Commission made minor changes in Brampton (Snelgrove) and Toronto (Bennington Heights) and returned to their initial proposal for Scarborough.

Here is my alternative: Krago Commission for Ontario

wage zombie

Are BC and Alberta done already?  Does that mean we have the final new boundaries?

Krago

Yes.  All done.

wage zombie

Does anyone know a source to get the geodata for the new riding boudaries?  I suppose likely each of the three provinces with changes put out their own collections of geodata?

I know the riding boundaries are available at https://koordinates.com/layer/3225-canadas-308-federal-electoral-distric... but they are the old ones.

I notice too that Wikipedia hasn't yet been updated - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_electoral_districts (I guess it may take a while).

ETA: Did federal riding boudaries change in all provinces?  Or just BC, Alberta, Ontario?

David Young

They added 3 new seats in Quebec too, W.Z.

And they adjusted several of the boundaries here in Nova Scotia, so I'm sure that they were adjusted in each province.

Look earlier in this thread for info about the new boundaries.

 

wage zombie

Thanks, I forgot the other provinces were redistricting as well.  I imagine it will take some time for a full set of riding boundary geodata.

scott16

if the saskatchewan maps stay this way (final map) how many seats are realistically winnable for the NDP?

David Young

[quote=scott16]

if the saskatchewan maps stay this way (final map) how many seats are realistically winnable for the NDP?

[/quote]

Depending on whether Ralph Goodale decides if staying with a third-place party again after the next election is his best option, I would say that all 3 Saskatoon seats are in play, as are the other two Regina seats (besides Goodale's Wascana) as well as the northernmost riding, Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River (especially if Lawrence Joseph wants to repeat as candidate, after losing by 794 votes in 2011).

 

Wilf Day

[quote=David Young]Depending on whether Ralph Goodale decides if staying with a third-place party again after the next election is his best option, I would say that all 3 Saskatoon seats are in play, as are the other two Regina seats (besides Goodale's Wascana) as well as the northernmost riding, Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River (especially if Lawrence Joseph wants to repeat as candidate, after losing by 794 votes in 2011).[/quote]

Agreed. The 2011 votes transposed to the new ridings are:

Saskatoon West: NDP by 2663 votes, 8.72%
Regina—Lewvan: NDP by 609 votes, 1.59%
Note that Saskatchewan NDP voters cast enough votes in 2011 to elect five MPs. The new boundaries give them two MPs, showing that less than half of the problem was the boundaries. The biggest villain is still winner-take-all.

But other seats are indeed in play:

Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River: Conservative by 461 votes, 2.17%
Saskatoon—Grasswood: Conservative by 3740 votes, 10.36% (successor to Blackstrap)

Saskatoon—University: Conservative by 3715 votes, 10.67% (successor to Saskatoon--Humboldt)

Regina—Qu'Appelle: Conservative by 4424 votes, 14.56% (including Wynyard)
Regina—Wascana: Goodale by 2233 votes, 6.12% (if he runs again at age 66, and why not?)

Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan: Conservative by 10301 votes, 27.8% (successor to Palliser)
Prince Albert: Conservative by 9980 votes, 31.02%
Battlefords—Lloydminster: Conservative by 9841 votes, 37.86%

I mentioned Wynyard:

November 30, 2013 – 1:30 – 4:00 p.m.

Canadian Legion, 202-3rd St. East

WYNYARD, SK

WHAT ABOUT ELECTORAL REFORM?

SPEAKER: NANCY CARSWELL

Co-Chair, Saskatchewan Chapter of FAIR VOTE CANADA

In our present “Winner-Take-All” voting system, more than 7 million voters cast votes that sent NO ONE to Parliament!

Is there a better way?

Fair Vote Canada (FVC) believes proportional representation is a better way.

Join us and learn how you can help FVC

make 2015 the last unfair federal election in Canada

http://www.fairvotecanada.org/

Council of Canadians event, Quill Plains Chapter

Pages