Electoral maps part 4

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lord Palmerston
Electoral maps part 4

*

Lord Palmerston
bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Lou... a few improvements actually on the community of interest front (moving Inglewood into Centre for example) - although I do wonder why they didn't make an effort to keep the Dover communities in the renamed East riding (Forest Lawn) - pretty clear community of interest arguments to my mind - they are going to be swamped by the deep south-east communities. Looking at the numbers (and not just for Calgary, but province-wide) I think they did a pretty good job about equalizing the number of constituents in the ridings (if only the province could do the same....). And NAMES, we get actual names!

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

The Edmonton map looks good. 

Strathcona gains some bad areas in the south west of the riding, but those losses will be more than made up for by also adding Riverdale north of the river.

Edmonton Centre gets smaller, with some poor NDP areas to the west being shaved off.

And Edmonton Greisbrecht takes some of the best areas of the provincial ridings of Highlands, Beverly-Clariview and Calder (all held by the NDP) and puts them into one riding.

With the NDPs current level of support - these three ridings should be competitive.

If the NDP were to rise a little in Alberta, Edmonton Manning and Millwoods would be competitive as well.

I don't know Calgary very well, but the basic boundaries of the old inner city ridings of Calgary Centre, Centre-North and East all seem to be more or less intact.

Lord Palmerston

The breakup of Edmonton East seems to be a good thing from an NDP point of view, given that it was split between a more inner-city NDP section and more suburban Tory section.

Lord Palmerston

Looking now at the map for [url=http://www.openfile.ca/vancouver/blog/2012/five-new-federal-electoral-di....

Already (not just on rabble) I've heard suggestions these are "gerrymandered" in favor of the Tories, but I don't see it. 

Interestingly this article states that the propsosed Vancouver-Granville riding actually would have been a close Conservative-NDP battle - though I'm not so sure since it's got Shaughnessy and I'm not sure if they meant Lib (unless Fairview is the more "NDP" part of Van Centre that was transferred in).

Still, I'd wonder if a north/south split would make sense for the city's west side ridings in terms of community of interest, i.e. a Fairview/Kitsilano/Point Grey/UBC riding (somewhat along the provincial ridings of Fairview and Point Grey) and a Shaughnessy/Dunbar/Kerrisdale riding (somewhat akin to Langara and Quilchena).

Stockholm

I like that idea...extremely rich people have a community of interest so why not pack all the wealthiest neighbourhoods of vancouver into one "silk-stocking" district and then those people will be free to elect an MP whose singular job will be to promote interests of the rich!!

David Young

Lou Arab wrote:

Edmonton Centre gets smaller, with some poor NDP areas to the west being shaved off.

So, Lou, if Lewis Cardinal carries through on his promise to run again in 2015, will Edmonton McDougall be the former riding of Edmonton Centre?

 

Stockholm

I doubt if Rae will run again in 2015 anyways...Rosedale could also be folded in with Leaside to create all-rich riding in Toronto as well.

Lord Palmerston

I'm awaiting the Ontario map.  Given the growth in downtown Toronto, maybe they'll end up taking Rosedale and moving it into St. Paul's.  Then what will Bob Rae do?

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

David Young wrote:

Lou Arab wrote:

Edmonton Centre gets smaller, with some poor NDP areas to the west being shaved off.

So, Lou, if Lewis Cardinal carries through on his promise to run again in 2015, will Edmonton McDougall be the former riding of Edmonton Centre?

 

MacDougal and Centre are nearly identical, except for the changes I noted above.  So yes.

And while I've not heard this from Lewis directly, he remains active in the NDP and everyone seems to be saying he is gung ho to run again.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Stockholm wrote:

I like that idea...extremely rich people have a community of interest so why not pack all the wealthiest neighbourhoods of vancouver into one "silk-stocking" district and then those people will be free to elect an MP whose singular job will be to promote interests of the rich!!

So long as said silk-stocking riding doesn't include the predominantly renters neighbourhood of Marpole. My younger brother recently moved into a rental apartment in Marpole, and he has a only a modest income, as is the case with the majority of the renters in Marpole. He and the other modest-income renters in Marpole won't be very well served by an MP who primarily represents the interests of the rich in Shaugnessy.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

What do people think of the NDP's chances in the new Vancouver South?  It looks do-able to me - but I've never been too familiar with the turf there.

ghoris

A simple proposal for BC's redistribution. There are currently 85 seats in the provincial legislature, which were very recently redrawn. Under the new model, BC will have 42 seats - almost precisely half this number. Why not simply create federal seats by combining two provincial ridings into one federal riding? If I recall correctly, Toronto municipal wards are the federal ridings split into two. Any reason why the process couldn't work in reverse? Seems to me we'd have more reasonable boundaries than some of these goofy proposals.

For example, Burnaby North + Burnaby-Lougheed = Burnaby North, Burnaby-Deer Lake + Burnaby-Edmonds = Burnaby South

North Vancouver - Lonsdale + North Vancouver-Seymour = North Vancouver

West Vancouver-Garibaldi + West Vancouver-Capilano = West Vancouver

Powell River-Sunshine Coast + North Island = North Island - Sunshine Coast

Also, the prize for worst proposed new riding name has to go to the generic "Foothills" in Alberta.

Paul Gross

Concerning the issues with the North Vancouver area discussed in the previous thread: What do people think of a single riding stretching from Horseshoe Bay to Deep Cove, called "North Shore--The Crawl"

Source: http://youtu.be/2N37oQmdlrU

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Paul Gross wrote:

Concerning the issues with the North Vancouver area discussed in the previous thread: What do people think of a single riding stretching from Horseshoe Bay to Deep Cove, called "North Shore--The Crawl"

I seem to recall that Wilf Day mentioned in the previous thread chunk that the north shore is more than 10% deviation above one quota, so that probably wouldn't fly.

On a slightly related note, what's the obsession with hyphated riding names? I'm not really a fan. I'm of the view that if at all possible, ridings should be named after one geographical feature, with no hyphens. Seems to me that the single north shore riding, if it were feasible, could simply be named "North Shore", no? (this isn't just about your proposed riding name Paul, but about the whole practise of long, complicated, hyphenated riding names, some a lot longer than this proposal).

Stockholm

ghoris wrote:

A simple proposal for BC's redistribution. There are currently 85 seats in the provincial legislature, which were very recently redrawn. Under the new model, BC will have 42 seats - almost precisely half this number. Why not simply create federal seats by combining two provincial ridings into one federal riding? If I recall correctly, Toronto municipal wards are the federal ridings split into two. Any reason why the process couldn't work in reverse? Seems to me we'd have more reasonable boundaries than some of these goofy proposals.

For example, Burnaby North + Burnaby-Lougheed = Burnaby North, Burnaby-Deer Lake + Burnaby-Edmonds = Burnaby South

North Vancouver - Lonsdale + North Vancouver-Seymour = North Vancouver

West Vancouver-Garibaldi + West Vancouver-Capilano = West Vancouver

Powell River-Sunshine Coast + North Island = North Island - Sunshine Coast

Also, the prize for worst proposed new riding name has to go to the generic "Foothills" in Alberta.

 

That occurred to me too, but the problem is that the new BC electoral map that came into effect before the 2009 election was based on the 2006 census and the current federal redistribution is to be based on the 2011 census.

 

ghoris

Good point. Forgot about that.

I also noticed that a few municipalities (Vancouver, Surrey, Victoria/Oak Bay) have an odd number of seats within their municipal boundaries and so you would end up having some seats crossing municipal boundaries.

There seem to be quite a few seats in BC and Alberta using the Saskatchewan 'rurban' model - ie slice an urban centre into pieces and lump it in with a bunch of surrounding rural communities - eg Price George-Peace River/Cariboo-Prince George, Central Okanagan-Coquihalla/Kelowna-Lake Country, Red Deer-Mountain View/Red Deer-Wolf Creek, etc.

Stockholm

There is something to be said for the "rurban" model when you are dealing with small cities like Prince George or Red Deer that are barely big enough to be stand along ridings...or in the case of PG, if you made PG one stand along riding - you would need to make another riding take up up about two-thirds of the territory of BC (ie: all the non-PG parts of Caroboo Prince George and Prince George-Peace River - and even that might not have enough population!).

It makes no sense at all in Sask. Regina and saskatoon are each as big as cities like Windsor or London that all have totally urban ridings in them.

Lord Palmerston

Stockholm wrote:
That occurred to me too, but the problem is that the new BC electoral map that came into effect before the 2009 election was based on the 2006 census and the current federal redistribution is to be based on the 2011 census.

That's true, although it wouldn't hurt to use the BC provincial ridings as a model and make some minor adjustments based on more recent population changes. 

theleftyinvestor

So who wants to make a statement at the hearings? :D

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

A couple more points on the Alberta map:

Calgary Centre North was the best NDP riding in the city in 2011.  It get's renamed Calgary Confederation, the University area gets added to it, while some very Conservative surburban areas to the north are dropped.

Lethbridge is shrunk quite dramatically, cutting out lots of rural areas from the riding.

Both of these are positive developments for the NDP.

Wilf Day

Lou Arab wrote:
Calgary Centre North was the best NDP riding in the city in 2011.  It get's renamed Calgary Confederation, the University area gets added to it, while some very Conservative surburban areas to the north are dropped.

As I already noted here. (If I'd noticed it was the 99th post, I'd have started this new thread.)

Wilf Day

Alberta has 34 ridings, six of them new. Where are the new six ridings? That depends how you look at it. I think there are three in metropolitan Edmonton, two in Calgary, and a new Bow River riding as a result of growth east of Calgary.

There are two new ridings in Calgary city, where Calgary Southeast was 43% over quotient, Nose Hill was 42% over, Northeast and West were each 40% over, and so on. I won't speculate which of the two will have open Conservative nominations.

Wildrose (29% over quotient) loses 0.31 quotient to become the Calgary suburban riding of Banff -Airdrie, making 11 ridings in the Calgary metropolitan area.

The three new ridings in the Edmonton metropolitan area, also totalling 11, are:

  1. Edmonton Manning takes 0.50 quotient from Edmonton-Sherwood Park (28% over quotient) after Sherwood Park and Fort Saskatchewan (0.78) form most of the suburban Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan. The new Edmonton Manning picks up 0.49 quotient from Edmonton East (26% over), which in turn picks up 0.24 quotient from Edmonton-St. Albert (27% over) to become Edmonton Griesbach.
  2. The new hybrid Edmonton-Wetaskiwin comes from Edmonton-Leduc (40% over quotient) shrinking about 0.37 quotients to become Edmonton Riverbend, while Edmonton - Mill Woods - Beaumont (30% over) shrinks 0.29 quotients to become Edmonton Mill Woods. Those 0.66 quotients add 0.34 quotients from the present Wetaskiwin to make the new riding.
  3. The new suburban riding of Sturgeon River is created when Edmonton-Spruce Grove (41% over quotient) shrinks about 0.45 quotients to become Edmonton Callingwood. That 0.45 quotient joins with 0.32 (?) quotient from Yellowhead and 0.22 (?) quotient from the south part of Westlock-St. Paul.

In the North which deserves half a new riding, Peace River (41% over quotient) becomes Grande Prairie (0.96) by losing 0.45 quotient to Peace River-Westlock. Yellowhead also loses 0.25 quotient to Peace River-Westlock, while Fort McMurray - Athabasca (8% over) loses 0.11 quotient to Peace River-Westlock. The present Westlock-St. Paul contributes 0.22 (?) quotient to Peace River-Westlock, 0.33 (?) quotient to the new suburban riding of Sturgeon River, and 0.46 quotient to the renamed Lakeland (0.97). Vegreville-Wainwright (9% over quotient) shifts half a riding to the north and is renamed Lakeland after it loses 0.32 quotient to Battle River and 0.26 to the new suburban Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan.

In the South, Lethbridge (17% over quotient) shrinks 0.18 quotients. Macleod (15% over) shrinks 0.18 quotients to become Foothills. Medicine Hat (12% over) shrinks 0.10 quotients.

The new riding of Bow River (0.95) picks up those 0.46 quotients and 0.49 from Crowfoot (17% over quotient), leaving the majority of Crowfoot (0.68 quotient) to be renamed Battle River.

From Red Deer (25% over quotient), the south part (0.71 quotients) takes in Mountain View (including Olds and Didsbury, 0.30 quotients, most of what's left of Wildrose after creation of Banff-Airdrie) to become the renamed Red Deer-Mountain View. The present Wetaskiwin (6% over) takes Lacombe County and Ponoka, Hobbema, etc. (0.45 quotients) and adds them to the rest of the present Red Deer (0.54) to form the renamed Red Deer-Wolf Creek, while the present Wetaskiwin loses parts of Leduc and Wetaskiwin counties with 0.34 quotients to the new suburban Edmonton-Wetaskiwin, and loses 0.27 (?) quotient to Yellowhead which has shifted south. 

JKR

Sask. riding boundaries unique: political scientists
But do Saskatchewan's urban-rural ridings skew election results?

Quote:

At one point a distribution of seats was prepared that included some city seats. However, Smith said when the commission held public meetings there was a strong negative reaction.

"The unanimous opinion, public opinion was: No good," Smith said. "And we were told several times, several times, there is no such thing as an urban interest in Saskatchewan."

Pilon said the boundaries commission members should not have felt compelled to follow the voices heard at sparsely-attended public meetings.

"They should have stuck to their guns and said we're going to divide things rurally and urbanly so that we can do what's best for the people of Saskatchewan," he said.

The next opportunity to redraw Saskatchewan's federal riding boundaries will follow the next census. However, Smith said he does not expect any major shift in population to justify changing the current approach to creating Saskatchewan's federal ridings.

This is not what democracy looks like.

theleftyinvestor

If SK were so easy to redraw we might have heard from them by now. I would not be surprised if the committee is deliberating this quite heavily. Mulcair himself told me that a lot of the people who pushed in 2002 for the rural/urban ridings were NDPers and that they can't repeat this mistake agian.

nicky

The comments about the Lethbridge redistribution got me curious so I have done a quick calculation deducting the 17 rural polls that are removed from the riding under the proposed redistribution.

These polls have an astounding level of support for the Conservatives: 1734 to 169 for the NDP, 79 Lib, 74 Green, and 30 for the Christian Heritage Party.

Under the new boundaries Lethbridge would have voted: C 55.3% (down from 56.5) N 28.1(27.2) L 8.8 (8.4) G 4.4 (4.4) CHP 3.7 (3.6)

The Con margin would therefore be reduced from 29.3 to 27.2 %.

Athough the margin is daunting, Lethbridge remains by far the NDP's best prospect in Alberta outside of Edmonton. 

Northern-54

theleftyinvestor wrote:

If SK were so easy to redraw we might have heard from them by now. I would not be surprised if the committee is deliberating this quite heavily. Mulcair himself told me that a lot of the people who pushed in 2002 for the rural/urban ridings were NDPers and that they can't repeat this mistake agian.

The hard part of drawing the ridings has to do with the growth of Saskatoon and Regina while the rural areas continue to lose population.  This means that the Conservatives are unsure whether they should continue with the mixed ridings.  If the urban parts of the ridings dominate the ridings, could it in fact start to work in the NDP's favour to have the ridings remain mixed ridings?  I cynically sugggest the delay goes down to that issue...   How much smaller do the 8 mixed ridings get in area and what is the split between rural and urban.

Saskatoon has grown to the point that metro-Saskatoon has approximately 265,000 while metro Regina/Moose Jaw combined has 248,000.  The province's population, according to the census is 1,033,000, meaning each riding should have approximately 74,000 votes.  Dividing Saskatoon's population into 4, gives an urban/rural split of 66,000 urban to 8,000 rural.  Dividing Regina/Moose Jaw's population by 4, gives an urban/rural split of 62,000 urban to 12,000 rural.  The split is getting signficant enough that I think the Conservatives on the commission are considering whether these mixed ridings are still in their best interests.  I suspect that we might find that we have 4 completely urban ridings and 4 mixed ones, with boundaries drawn to make the NDP winning more than 2-4 of them unlikely.

Wilf Day

Northern-54 wrote:
The hard part of drawing the ridings has to do with the growth of Saskatoon and Regina . . .

Indeed, it's tricky.

Saskatchewan's quotient is 73,813.

Saskatoon City is 222,189, 3.01 ridings, while Saskatoon Census Metropolitan Area is 260,600, 3.53 ridings. Do they do three city ridings plus "Saskatoon Doughnut?" Although Martensville and Warman are both north of Saskatoon, Corman Park surrounds it and other smaller municipalties are also scattered around it. And the fourth riding will have to go beyond the CMA, like Rosthern, Humboldt, Watrous and Lanigan, all in the Saskatoon Health Region.

On the other hand, Regina CMA is only 210,566, not including Moose Jaw, 2.85 ridings. Clearly three Regina ridings are feasible, with a little extra to make up. Not the same as Saskatoon. Unless you add Moose Jaw which makes 244,977, 3.32 ridings, like Saskatoon, four ridings are justified.

Stay tuned.

nicky

If in fact the Saskatchewan map is subject to partisan influence, then Northern-54's remarks make a lot of sense. BUT.....

1. The northern Saskatchewan seat is bound to be significantly smaller in population than the rest, thereby raising the quotient somewhat for the rest of the province. 

2. Given the potential size of some of the rural ridings could the Commission not justfy a larger population for the "rurban ridings" , thereby continuing to dilute the influence of city voters?

Incidentally can anyone provide the % breakdown, urban vs rural, with the present 8 rurban ridings?

Northern-54

nicky wrote:

If in fact the Saskatchewan map is subject to partisan influence, then Northern-54's remarks make a lot of sense. BUT.....

1. The northern Saskatchewan seat is bound to be significantly smaller in population than the rest, thereby raising the quotient somewhat for the rest of the province. 

2. Given the potential size of some of the rural ridings could the Commission not justfy a larger population for the "rurban ridings" , thereby continuing to dilute the influence of city voters?

Incidentally can anyone provide the % breakdown, urban vs rural, with the present 8 rurban ridings?

 

I can do an approximate breakdown from the poll-by-poll results in various ridings.  Not sure if I have time for all right now.  Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar was the riding where the NDP came closest to winning, losing by 538 votes.

The rural polls represented 27.3% of the vote while the urban ones were 72.7%.  The Conservatives won approximately 66.5% of the rural vote while the NDP got about 30.7% (the remaining to the Liberals and Greens).  The closer to the city the rural polls were, the higher the NDP vote.  The NDP won most of the polls in Saskatoon but not all.  The vote result was about 52.7% NDP, 41.7% Conservative in the city.  The Conservatives won the rural area by 2,956 votes while the NDP won the urban area by 2,418.

 

Northern-54

Palliser was the riding where the NDP came second closest to winning, losing by 766 votes.  The rural polls represented 13.8% of the vote while the urban ones were 86.2%. The Conservatives won approximately 68.4% of the rural vote while the NDP got about 23.7% (the remaining to the Liberals and Greens). No discernible pattern with the rural vote. The NDP won most of the polls in Regina but not all. The vote in Moose Jaw was fairly evenly split. The urban vote result was about 48% NDP, 43.5% Conservative. The Conservatives won the rural area by 2,081 votes while the NDP won the urban area by 1,315.

 

Northern-54

Saskatoon-Humboldt was a riding where there is a bigger rural presence and the part of Saskatoon included is made of primarily richer neighbourhoods.  The NDP lost the riding by 6,683 votes.  The rural polls represented 31.7% of the vote while the urban ones were 68.3%. The Conservatives won approximately 66.4% of the rural vote while the NDP got about 24.2% (the remaining to the Liberals, an Independent Candidate and Greens). The NDP's vote was higher in those parts of the rural area that included First Nations people. The Conservatives won the majority of the polls in the urban part of the riding as well.  The Conservatives took 46.1% of the votes in Saskatoon and the NDP took 40%.  The Conservatives won the rural area by 5,088 votes and the urban area by 1,595 votes.

Wilf Day

nicky wrote:
1. The northern Saskatchewan seat is bound to be significantly smaller in population than the rest, thereby raising the quotient somewhat for the rest of the province. 

Not necessarily. The Alberta proposals are all within 5%, even in the North. In 2002 the Manitoba Commission did the same thing, even for Churchill. They then gave in slightly, ending up with Churchill -8%. 

Wilf Day

We now have a choice of two map tools to look up poll-by-poll results on:

This one which I have been using for months. It has a handy regionalized index.

Or this new one which is quite pretty but, in the first riding I checked, had a small blank spot where one poll should be, because it had been merged with an abutting poll.

By the way, it's fun to look at the Liberal vote in Saskatoon--Rosetown-Biggar: seven polls with zero Liberal votes.

 

Wilf Day

Northern-54 wrote:
The hard part of drawing the ridings has to do with the growth of Saskatoon and Regina while the rural areas continue to lose population.  This means that the Conservatives are unsure whether they should continue with the mixed ridings.  If the urban parts of the ridings dominate the ridings, could it in fact start to work in the NDP's favour to have the ridings remain mixed ridings?  I cynically sugggest the delay goes down to that issue...   How much smaller do the 8 mixed ridings get in area and what is the split between rural and urban.

One solution would be Saskatoon West Centre and Saskatoon East Centre, both within the city, and Saskatoon-Martensville and Saskatoon-Watrous, both urban-rural (one half urban, one quarter suburban, one quarter rural).

Would anyone like that?

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Wilf Day wrote:

nicky wrote:
1. The northern Saskatchewan seat is bound to be significantly smaller in population than the rest, thereby raising the quotient somewhat for the rest of the province. 

Not necessarily. The Alberta proposals are all within 5%, even in the North. In 2002 the Manitoba Commission did the same thing, even for Churchill. They then gave in slightly, ending up with Churchill -8%. 

 

I suspect that northern Alberta is far more populated than northern Sask. That should make it easier to develop ridings closer to the norm.

Northern-54

Wilf Day wrote:

Northern-54 wrote:
The hard part of drawing the ridings has to do with the growth of Saskatoon and Regina while the rural areas continue to lose population.  This means that the Conservatives are unsure whether they should continue with the mixed ridings.  If the urban parts of the ridings dominate the ridings, could it in fact start to work in the NDP's favour to have the ridings remain mixed ridings?  I cynically sugggest the delay goes down to that issue...   How much smaller do the 8 mixed ridings get in area and what is the split between rural and urban.

One solution would be Saskatoon West Centre and Saskatoon East Centre, both within the city, and Saskatoon-Martensville and Saskatoon-Watrous, both urban-rural (one half urban, one quarter suburban, one quarter rural).

Would anyone like that?

 

This would pretty much guarantee two NDP seats and two Conservative ones as the NDP vote is highest in the centre of Saskatoon.  Generally, it would put the Conservaitve urban polls with the Conservative rural ones.

The same could be done with Regina, having two urban seats be Regina Northeast and Regina Northwest, having the more Conservative southern-eastern part of Regina be lumped in with extensive rural area south and east of the city and the more NDP south-western part of the city lumped in with Moose Jaw and the country in between.  This would give the NDP a good chance of winning 2 of the seats and a possible chance at the 3rd. 

That is how I would draw the ridings.  Seeing as I'm an NDP partisan, I suspect the commission will not draw the ridings that way. 

 

gadar

The new proposal puts an extra seat in the Surrey/Delta area in NDP's reach. As Cons have an edge in Delta, NDP can win the three Surrey seats and it can mean end of Nina Grewal as MP.

Stockholm

The new proposed Nova Scotia map is out:

http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/content.asp?section=ns&...

Not much change. I think if anything Dartmouth-Cole Harbours becokmes a safer NDP seat and i think South Shore St. Margaret may have annexed some NDP areas in Halifax...but i will leave it to the local experts to extrapolate

Wilf Day

The four proposed Halifax ridings are collectively 21.6% over quotient, while the other seven are 21.6% under quotient. The two Cape Breton ridings alone are 23.82% under quotient. Both exceed the 10% deviation that most Commissions consider desireable. (Alberta went to the other extreme with 5%.) I thought (see post 3#) Central Nova should lose all of Antigonish to a Cape Breton--Antigonish. No.

I thought all of Halifax (except the 9,253 in St. Margaret's) with 4.55 quotients should have four and a half ridings, so we would get Sackville-Truro (a good NDP prospect, entirely made up of NDP provincial ridings.) Instead, we get a slice bizarrely added to Kings-Hants, which was right on quotient, making it over. We get another slice added to South Shore - St. Margaret's, which in turn has to lose a slice to West Nova, which was right on quotient but is now 8% over. We find another slice (including Halifax Airport) added to Central Nova. I call this a dog's breakfast.

theleftyinvestor

Wilf Day wrote:

The four proposed Halifax ridings are collectively 21.6% over quotient, while the other seven are 21.6% under quotient. The two Cape Breton ridings alone are 23.82% under quotient. Both exceed the 10% deviation that most Commissions consider desireable. (Alberta went to the other extreme with 5%.) I thought (see post 3#) Central Nova should lose all of Antigonish to a Cape Breton--Antigonish. No.

I thought all of Halifax (except the 9,253 in St. Margaret's) with 4.55 quotients should have four and a half ridings, so we would get Sackville-Truro (a good NDP prospect, entirely made up of NDP provincial ridings.) Instead, we get a slice bizarrely added to Kings-Hants, which was right on quotient, making it over. We get another slice added to South Shore - St. Margaret's, which in turn has to lose a slice to West Nova, which was right on quotient but is now 8% over. We find another slice (including Halifax Airport) added to Central Nova. I call this a dog's breakfast.

To cite them as "21.6% over quotient" gives the incorrect mathematical impression that there are 21.6% more people living in those ridings than the representation they will be getting. But you arrived at that figure by adding up the four deviations. It would be much more correct to say that the Halifax region is 5.4% over 4 quotients. Only three ridings province-wide deviate by more than 10%, the worst over being Halifax at 10.41% and the worst under being Sydney-Victoria at 12.49%.

Wilf Day

Mid-way through the Boundary Commissions' proposals, with five reports (BC, Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador), we have a great divergence of approach to the permissible variance from the "quotient" for each riding.

Last Nov. 17 Michael Pal told the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs "At the Mowat Centre, we suggest that this bill should be amended to allow only a 5% to 10% variance, with some exemptions for ridings such as Labrador." Dr. Nelson Wiseman testified "like Michael, I would prefer that it be narrowed, perhaps to 10% or possibly 15%." But no action was taken. The permitted variance is still 25%. Although most Commissions will not need to go beyond 10% for normal ridings, there is no uniform standard. It would have been helpful.

Instead, at one extreme we have Alberta's Commission, proposing all 36 ridings within 5% of the provincial average or quotient. At the other extreme we have New Brunswick which has Miramichi at 28.7%, and four more at 22.6%, 16.8%, 14.3%, and 12.7%, so that half the ten ridings exceed 10% variance.

In between we have BC: 13 of the 42 are over 5% variance, but only the exceptional northern Skeena-Bulkley Valley is over 10%, and even it is only 14.1% over. (Although the Commission's reasons for squeezing Penticton into BC Southern Interior, making it 9.5% over quotient, are unconvincing.)

I have no problem with most of Northern Ontario being up to 25%, and Kenora being exceptional. But how is Miramichi comparable to Labrador and Kenora? How is half of New Brunswick comparable to Northern Ontario? The Moncton Census Metropolitan Area has 1.85 quotients, but has been shortchanged. Beausejour-Dieppe (43% of which is now in the Moncton CMA) is 22.6% over, Moncton-Riverview is 7.6% over, Saint John is 14.3% over quotient, and the dog's breakfast of Fundy-Quispamsis includes 14% of Moncton CMA as well as 25% of Saint John CMA.

Almost as bad as New Brunswick is Nova Scotia where Halifax, with 4.66 quotients, gets four over-sized ridings while parts of Halifax are sliced off into three abutting ridings, yet both Cape Breton ridings are more than 10% under quotient.

Five to go.

David Young

Stockholm wrote:

The new proposed Nova Scotia map is out:

http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/content.asp?section=ns&...

Not much change. I think if anything Dartmouth-Cole Harbours becokmes a safer NDP seat and i think South Shore St. Margaret may have annexed some NDP areas in Halifax...but i will leave it to the local experts to extrapolate

I've done a little number crunching, and this is what I can determine about the new boundaries for South Shore-St. Margaret's:

1.  The western tip of the riding (18 polls) were all solid Conservative polls in 2011.  Putting them into West Nova makes logistical sense, as these polls are all under the BOW postal designation, which is serviced out of Yarmouth.  Politically, it looks like someone is trying to help the Conservatives hang onto West Nova, a traditional 'swing' seat, by giving them a slice of solid Conservative support.

2.  The section of Halifax West being switched to S.S.S.M. (11 polls) is a strong NDP section, which helps Gerald Regan fend off the NDP next time.  Looks like someone doesn't want a New Democrat elected there.

3.  While the loss of an overwhelmingly strong Conservative section and the inclusion of a more NDP-friendly section should be good news for the next NDP candidate in S.S.S.M., it looks more to me like an attempt to maintain a Conservative margin of victory here.

Does anyone still think gerrymandering doesn't exist anymore?

 

Stockholm

How does it help the Conservatives in SSSM to lose a solidly Conservative area and gain a solidly NDP area - given that any threat to the Conservatives in that riding will come from the NDP?

David Young

Stockholm wrote:

How does it help the Conservatives in SSSM to lose a solidly Conservative area and gain a solidly NDP area - given that any threat to the Conservatives in that riding will come from the NDP?

My way of thinking was that the Cons think that their 2900-vote margin of victory can absorb the loss of the Con-friendly western portion and the inclusion of the NDP-friendly eastern bit.  They probably think that since Gordon Earle won't be the candidate again in 2015, the soft Liberal vote that the NDP has been gaining since 2004 will go Liberal again, ensuring them another victory in S.S.S.M.

I certainly hope not.  I will be very happy if these two changes happen.

It reminds me of the provincial riding of Queens in 2003, which had voted P.C. in every provincial election since 1953.  In that year's redistribution, an NDP-friendly portion of the neighbouring riding of Lunenburg West was added to Queens, which helped the P.C.'s win both seats.  But in 2006, that section provided the 46-vote margin of victory when Vicki Conrad became the first New Democrat ever elected to represent Queens.

I'm really hoping history repeats itself in 2015!!!!

 

North Star
love is free love is free's picture

just looking over montreal, there's a lot not to like here.  right off the bat, mulcair's district becomes less friendly, as all the mile end polls are moved into the new plateai-mile end district (have i mentioned lately that lavardière has to go?) and replaced with far less friendly turf sucked out of mount royal.  the new westmount-ndg riding is a pretty good bet never to go ndp again, perfectly gerry-mandered for the bad guys.  ville marie is crazy, but i guess lumping everything from the cartier bridge to verdun makes as much sense as including westmount, though i think the old verdun riding did a good job lumping like with like.  idola saint-jean is a good urban riding, as is hochelaga (which i think probably should have absorbed a certain point of ville marie - maybe from papineau east).  saint leonard actually looks a little better for the good guys, but that's such a stronghold for the plc that the net effect seems to be a shifting of boundaries to even out lpc support in north and west montreal island, with ahuntsic being served up to the good guys on a plate.  really cynical.

looking at these maps, it's almost as if last time around, the liberals overreached, attempting to append cold neighborhoods to their hardcore bases so as to maximize seats, and now, they're playing defense, getting core support hoods back into solid ridings.  these ridings have been cut up so favorably for the liberals, that i can't see how this doesn't cause significant consternation on parc avenue.  mulcair personally ought to be breathing fire over his riding changes.

and i really just don't get why montreal is finally getting the riding name treatment, it's really annoying, especially all the ones they added were anglophones.

Wilf Day

There are so many changes in Quebec, I can't grapple with most of them.

Charlevoix--Saguenay contains 70,904 people in Saguenay and 29,578 people in Charlevoix (29% of the riding) two and a half hours drive away. The Commission could have made the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region three ridings each about 9.6% below quotient. No, they had to screw them around. Chicoutimi NDP MP Dany Morin will be scratching his head, while Jonathan Tremblay, NDP MP for Montmorency-Charlevoix-Haute-Côte-Nord, finds himself expected to run in Côte-de-Beaupré, only 54% of which is within his present riding (although he does live in that part), while the other 46% is in the Quebec City region.

And in the Bas-Saint-Laurent--Gaspésie--Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which rates 2.90 ridings, they give them the two largest ridings in the province: 10.3% over quotient and 11.0% over quotient, leaving Elzéar-Bernier comprising 69,845 people in Bas-Saint-Laurent and 41,394 at the east end of Chaudière - Appalaches, another oversize riding 9.8% over quotient. This leaves Bloc MP Jean-François Fortin running against NDP MP Philip Toone.

(Born in L'Islet, Joseph-Elzéar Bernier was a famous ship captain and explorer. In 1909, he erected a plaque on Melville Island, asserting Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic.)

Now for the good news: as I expected, a new riding of Lévis looks very winnable for the NDP.

 

Stockholm

I don't see the changes in Montreal as being so bad. Outremont loses some good territory but the small section it gains from Mount Royal is in very working class multicultural Snowdon... The NDP actually won some polls in that area while being a distant third in the riding as a whole. Realistically, unless the bottom falls out of the NDP in Quebec in 2015, Outremont is now such a supersafe NDP seat that even losing mile end hardly matters. I'm not sure that the new Westmount riding "Wilder Penfield" is any worse for the NDP than it was before...it loses downtown Montreal which was a bit of a mixed bag last election with the Liberals winning a lot of high end condos et..., but the riding gains a huge chunk of NDG that voted solidly NDP last year.

ghoris

Arrgh. The awful practice of naming ridings after people has spread from Laval to the entire province. I get naming a riding after a person in those rare cases where there is no obvious geographical choice and there is a desire to avoid fifty-letter-long-riding-names-with-all-those-annoying-hyphens, but at least in places like Alberta where they have names like Edmonton-Manning, Calgary-Klein, Edmonton-Decore or Calgary-Lougheed, you can at least tell what city the riding is in. Quick - who can tell me where the new Gilles-Villeneuve riding is? Or Anne-Hebert? Or Alfred-Dubuc? How about Maurice-Richard? Idola-Saint-Jean? George-Etienne-Cartier? Denis-Benjamin-Viger? (Incidentally, the latter four are all in Montreal - so much for the "they're all anglophones" statement above.)

Am I being obtuse in my thinking that riding names should give us at least some clue as to where they are geographically located?

Pages

Topic locked