More electoral maps 2

We can now be certain that Bill C-20 (the Fair Representation Act) will pass unamended this month. It was reported out of Committee, unamended, Nov. 30. The NDP Committee members were Joe Comartin, Chris Charlton, Alexandrine Latendresse and Philip Toone, with David Christopherson often replacing Philip Toone. The one Liberal, Marc Garneau, presented amendments to keep to 308 MPs, but it was not clear how this could be done.

Yesterday, the government imposed time allocation. Debate on the Act had begun Tuesday Dec. 6.

Bruce Hyer asked Stephane Dion

Dion replied "I am ready to have this discussion . . ." but not, apparently, today.

Guy Caron has foreseen what may happen to his riding:

Michael Chong thinks it will not happen in Ontario (but I think he is too optimistic):

Bruce Hyer tried again with Kevin Lamoureux (who did not answer either):

Libby Davies gave it another try:

Pat Martin, bless him, talked about the real world:

Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims:

Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=Hansard&Doc=61&Parl=41&Ses=1&Language=E&Mode=1#SOB-5175450

I assume the debate will be given one more day next week. The House adjourns Dec. 16.

By the way, I don't want to lose the handy link to these amazing maps showing the results in every poll in Canada:

http://www.the506.com/elxnmaps/can2011/

No, Kevin Lamoureux doens't want to answer anything where he is afraid it will make him look bad, but he doesn't have any trouble asking other people questions. And to think that he won Winnipeg North, ugh!

Wilf, I have no idea. Wish I had an answer.

Remarkably, the total population of Winnipeg plus East St. Paul, West St. Paul and Headingley, is still exactly at eight Manitoba quotients. So the only changes will be adjustments within those eight seats.

We don't yet have 2011 populations. We have 2006 populations and 2011 voters on the voters list. Here they are:

Kildonan—St. Paul: 81,532; 63,866

Winnipeg North: 79,366; 51,894

Elmwood—Transcona: 78,700; 59,154

Saint Boniface: 84,473; 65,604

Winnipeg Centre: 81,017; 54,364

Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia: 81,469; 62,609

Winnipeg South Centre: 78,286; 58,075

Winnipeg South: 84,424; 64,144

Average: 81,158; 59,964

I don't know why Winnipeg Centre was at the average in 2006 and well below in 2011. Is it losing people? Or does it have an unusually high proportion of non-citizens and/or children? In 2006 Winnipeg Centre had 11.4% non-citizens, while Kildonan-St. Paul had 4.0% non-citizens. That's part of the answer, but not all of it, so I think Winnipeg Centre must still be losing population share compared to Kildonan-St. Paul. We may not find out for sure until February. Similarly, Winnipeg North was slightly below average in 2006 but well below average in 2011; why?

As to Elmwood-Transcona, it may not change.

Highlights from Friday's debate in the House:

Mr. Andrew Cash:

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1#Int-5255913

I don't understand what you think is so terrible about this guy.  I haven't met him yet, but is he the most evil MP in Canada or something?  He must be liked locally to have won in an NDP stronghold.  And he obviously must have attracted some NDP supporters to win there.

Just be glad you aren't stuck in a Conservative riding like I am right now.

What?

Here is my Christmas present for electoral map fans.

Where will Ontario’s 15 new seats in Parliament be? This will be determined by a Boundaries Commission to be set up in Feburary. But since there is so much interest, I have spent some time on the answer.

First, how many seats will be available for southern Ontario, after the North is dealt with?

Last time, in the 2004 Boundaries Commission Report after the 2001 census, the North (north of the French River) had enough people for 7.74 “quotients.” The Commission decided they could not give them more than nine ridings. This time, with 8.4% fewer people and a quotient 2.7% higher, that area has only 6.91 quotients.

But with Ontario getting more MPs, how can a Commission explain the North losing an MP? Conservative MP Michael Chong said in the House debate “the bill would ensure that rural Ontario continues to have the number of seats it has presently, while, at the same time, adding new seats to the rapidly growing urban regions of our province. One of the challenges with the bill that the Liberals have proposed is that, while it would add some new seats to the rapidly growing regions of urban Ontario, it would take seats away from rural Ontario and add them to urban Ontario. Our bill would not do that.” House debates are not binding on the Commission, but this comment does reflect the likely approach of most Commissioners.

There is a simple solution, since the Ontario government now defines the North as including Parry Sound. Adding Parry Sound, it is possible for the North to keep nine MPs without breaking any rules, as detailed below.

So I think the new 15 seats will be:

Peel-Halton gets 5 more seats (3.8 in Peel, 1.2 in Halton)

York Region gets 2 more (2.9 mathematically, considering they now share one MP with Simcoe, and will have to share one with Durham)

Toronto 2 more (1.6 mathematically, but they won't have an MP shared with Pickering)

Durham 1 more (0.9 mathematically; they won't have to share an MP with Scarborough East but will with York.)

Ottawa—Prescott & Russell 1 more (1.2 mathematically, since they won't have to share an MP with Lanark)

Hamilton 1 more shared with Brant; and Niagara will no longer have to share one with Hamilton)

Kingston to Peterborough 1 more (due to growth in Kingston and Frontenac, Napanee won't have to share an MP with Lanark anymore, and the urban area of Belleville-Quinte West will have their own MP)

Waterloo—Wellington—Dufferin 1 more (0.7 mathematically, but they won't have to share an MP with Perth anymore)

Windsor--Essex 1 more (0.7 mathematically), a new MP in suburban Windsor, by giving Essex-Kent-Lambton an extra half riding and London-Middlesex the other half, so they no longer have a riding straddling the regions' boundary.

Simcoe—Muskoka has growth worth 0.5 MP, accommodated by Muskoka not having to share an MP with Parry Sound anymore.

Total 15.5 mathematically, but there are only 15 new seats. The North loses 0.4 seats. Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry loses 0.1.

How do I calculate this?

We have some handy 2011 population estimates by districts and counties from the Ontario government:

http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/projections/table6.html

The results are shown below, with the exact quotients in brackets. Note that all my southern ridings are within 10% of quotient, although the Commission is allowed to deviate by up to 25%.

I have tried to follow districts and counties as much as possible, and District School Boards such as the Near North Board (Parry Sound—Nipissing). I have eliminated 13 boundary-straddling ridings, but created five new ones, sorry.

Toronto has 24.98 “quotients.” But no major region can get its quotients rounded up, after the North gets an extra 1.7 seats. Besides, the Commission will follow the census, with under-reported figures, and the under-reporting will likely be worse in Toronto. So Toronto will get 24 seats.

Toronto 24 (24.98) (note these 24 ridings will be only 4% over quotient.)

York—Durham 15 (15.30), including a Durham North—Georgina alignment.

Peel—Halton 17 (17.06), including a Halton Hills--Brampton Mount Pleasant.

Hamilton—Brant 6 (6.13), including an Ancaster-Dundas—Brant North.

Niagara Region 4 (4.04)

Haldimand-Norfolk 1 (1.01)

Waterloo—Wellington—Dufferin 7 (7.32) (4.6% over quotient, details below)

Oxford 1 (0.97)

London-Middlesex—Elgin—Perth-Huron 6 (6.22)

Windsor-Essex—Chatham-Kent—Lambton 6 (5.82) (details below)

Simcoe—Muskoka—Grey-Bruce 6 (6.23) (details below)

Peterborough—Kawartha Lakes-Haliburton—Northumberland 3 (2.88) (details below)

Hastings-Prince-Edward—Lennox & Addington 2 (1.85)

Kingston-Frontenac—Lanark 2 (2.00)

Leeds & Grenville 1 (0.93)

Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry 1 (1.03)

Renfrew 1 (0.93)

Ottawa—Prescott & Russell 9 (9.02)

Here are details of the more difficult areas where ridings will have to straddle the boundaries of counties, regional municipalities or districts, showing what amount of a “quotient” each riding has. I acknowledge the help of Krago's projections of local populations:

North 9:

Sudbury 0.85

Nickel Belt--Timiskaming (includes West Nipissing and Temagami) 0.81

Parry Sound-Nipissing (North Bay and east) 0.99

Cochrane 0.78

Sudbury-Algoma-Manitoulin (includes Bruce Mines) 0.82

Sault Ste. Marie (includes Michipicoten (Wawa) and Dubreuilville) 0.86

Thunder Bay – Superior (includes White River and Hornepayne) 0.76

Thunder Bay – Fort Frances 0.76

Kenora – West Rainy River 0.64 (recognized as exceptional already by the last Commission)

Waterloo—Wellington—Dufferin 7:

Kitchener—Waterloo 1.05

Kitchener—Wilmot 1.05

Kitchener—Hespeler—Puslinch 1.05

Cambridge 1.07 (still includes North Dumfries)

Waterloo—Wellington (N.W. Waterloo, Elmira, Mount Forest) 1.01

Guelph 1.07

Dufferin—Wellington (includes Fergus) 1.02

Windsor-Essex—Chatham-Kent--Lambton 6:

Windsor East 0.98

Windsor West 0.98

Essex Northwest 1.01

Essex—Kent 0.92

Chatham-Kent--Lambton 0.92

Sarnia—Lambton 1.01

Simcoe—Muskoka—Grey-Bruce 6:

Simcoe South 1.06

Barrie 1.10

Barrie-Midland 1.10

Muskoka—Simcoe North 1.08

Grey North--Simcoe West 1.09

Bruce--Grey--Huron 1.10

Peterborough—Kawartha Lakes-Haliburton—Northumberland 3:

Peterborough 1.01

Northumberland—Peterborough 0.94

Kawartha Lakes-Haliburton 0.93

And BC!

(double post)

Would BC, at least those MP's from the rural areas not pull a "Northern Ontario" and try and demand that these large ridings not get any larger? Do we know if the Boundary commission will free these seats? is that even a consideration. It would be the same defence thats used to keep the smaller provinces with the same amount of representation they have now. Using a Frozen Model that would mean some seats in BC, ON and PQ would not be able to have any redistribution... and might make the attempt to redistribute SK into Urban/Rural seats more difficult (but since they are guranteed 14 i think its less a concern).

Each province has its own Boundaries Commission. In my prediction for Ontario, above, I said what I think the Ontario Commission will do, consistent with the last one ten years ago. But I may be guessing wrong. As you can see, I suggested they would be unable to "freeze" the nine northern seats, but would compromise by adding Parry Sound to the North, and letting the North have 1.7 more MPs than their population calls for. The other 121 Ontario seats must therefore have, on average, 1.4% more people than the Ontario quotient; not a serious injustice.

The last Quebec Commission refused to give much consideration to their two potential extraordinary seats, so they may not have a problem this time, except in the Lower St. Lawrence where Guy Caron's seat could vanish.

BC had a huge problem in the last provincial redistribution. The Commission refused to give special consideration for the low-density areas, so the legislature (with all-party support) passed an amendment to the Act and told them to add six MLAs and try again; which worked. However, the BC federal Boundaries Commission will have to work with 42 seats. If they get the message from the provincial experience, they will say "with BC getting more MPs, how can we explain the Kootenays or the North having even larger ridings? If low density areas continue to have the seats they have presently, while we add six new seats to the rapidly growing urban regions of BC, will there be much objection?" That depends, in part, on whether there was much objection in BC to the provincial decision to add six MLAs in order to prevent low-growth areas losing seats. Was there?

I said above:

Actually, with some careful work by the Boundaries Commission, I now think it is possible to still have nine MPs from Northern Ontario (if you add Parry Sound) and to still have an MP from Goderich and smaller centres like the present Huron-Bruce, the most rural riding in Ontario. (At first I didn't see how to do it.) So I think Chong is right: rural Ontario will not lose seats.

I did not think they got to the closed vs open list part. Maybe I confused what the assembly recommended with the actual question that wound up on the referendum ballot.

But that was the killer where I worked at the time, and was exploited very effectively by the pro-FPTP forces. Had the question on the ballot been MMPR with Open lists, I believe it might have stood a far better chance of passing. By being vague on it, the No forces were able to make it into whatever they liked. The party list idea was the death of MMPR (notwithstanding that the Liberal leader appointed more candidates, and re-appointed more incumbents that the leader of any other party, which in my view boils down to more or less the same thing).

It's amazing that OPEN-LIST MMP has been by far the most popular choice of electoral reform supporters and yet wasn't offered as a choice on the electoral reform referendum ballots in PEI, BC, and Ontario.

On the brighter side, New Zealand just voted to keep MMP and will likely fine tune it and move from their closed-list version to an open-list version.

 MMP now confirmed for future generations

 We've voted to hang on to MMP-now it's time to fine-tune it

One advantage of having not yet implemented electoral reform in Canada is that we can learn from the experience of having MMP in places such as New Zealand, Scotland, Wales, and Germany.

Looking at the New Zealand experience, the best version of open-list MMP for Canada might be one that does not allow candidates to run on both the constituency and list sides of the ballot. It seems like New Zealanders don't like having MP's lose at the constituency level and backing into Parliament via a list.

Another interesting wrinkle mentioned in the article above is the possibility of ranking candidates on the list side. Presumably an open-list MMP system could have poreferential balloting on both the list and constituency sides. This would eliminate vote splitting but make for a less simple system.

Ummm...thread drift, don't you think?

Will there be a map of the possible new ridings in Quebec too?

If Guy Caron is correct about rural Quebec losing a few ridings to the suburban Montreal area, where will the 3 new ridings be created, in addition to the redistributed ones?

After the next election, if the NDP is in a position to do so, setting up an electoral reform commission that embraces public opinion and then recommends a specific fair voting electoral system withn the first year of a government's mandate would likely be the best way to go. The NDP could then pass the legislation required to insure that the election in 2019 would use a form of fair voting.

This is one reason why it's advantageous to have at least 25% of MMP seats derived from the list side. If list members represent less then 20% of overall members, vote-splitting would still be a big problem. An "MMP-light" system with less then 20% list representation would benefit from preferential voting to eliminate the problems of vote-splitting but the better way to go would be to have the list members represent at least 25% or more preferably 33% or more.

Vote-splitting is probably the aspect of FPTP that currently disturbs Canadians the most. That voting for your favorite party can preversely help elect your least favorite party is the aspect of FPTP that that probably causes the most consternation during FPTP elections.

As I thought, the six new seats will be four in the Lower Mainland, one on Vancouver Island, and one in the Interior, using BC Stats projections for 2011 populations.

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/popstart.asp

The North and the Kootenays can, in my opinion, remain unchanged. Growth in Kelowna (which is now too big for a single riding) and Kamloops requires a new riding. In fact, the new Interior riding can even lead to a minor improvement in the BC Southern Interior riding, moving Princeton and Keremeos into Okanagan South-Central.

Here's what I get for the North (all unchanged) and Interior, showing the population as a decimal of the "electoral quotient."

Skeena - Bulkley Valley 0.94

Prince George - Peace River 1.0

Cariboo - Prince George 1.0

Kamloops 0.98 (the Kamloops Local Health District including Kamloops City, minus Logan Lake, Monte Lake and Pritchard)

Shuswap--Thompson--Cariboo total 0.95 (Columbia-Shuswap including Salmon Arm, but still leaving Revelstoke & Golden to Kootenay-Columbia as today. Add Enderby and Armstrong - Spallumcheen Local Health Areas. And then it takes in all of Thompson-Nicola outside the Kamloops seat including Merrit, plus the 100 Mile House Area, and the Lillooet LHA).

(I wonder where Cathy McLeod would like to seek re-election? She lives in Kamloops, but back in 1999 she was Mayor of Pemberton and might feel more at home in the more rural riding than in the urban Kamloops riding where the NDP would have a good chance.)

Okanagan North - Lake Country 0.94 (North Okanagan including Vernon but not Enderby and Armstrong - Spallumcheen; and in Central Okanagan, Lake Country and about 15,000 people off the north end of Kelowna.)

(Again, would Colin Mayes prefer to run here since he now lives in Vernon, or would he rather run in Shuswap--Thompson--Cariboo since he used to be Mayor of Salmon Arm? Then again, he'll be 67 in 2015 and may retire after nine years in office.)

Kelowna 0.98 (most of Kelowna)

Okanagan South-Central 1.00 (West Kelowna, Peachland, etc., plus Okanagan-Similkameen including Penticton but excluding Oliver and Osoyoos which stay with Southern Interior.)

Southern Interior 0.91

Kootenay-Columbia 0.82. This is the one riding with greater than 10% deviance, but it's not even close to the 25% limit. It keeps its present boundaries because, with six new seats, it will do no harm, and no one is shortchanged.

The Lower Mainland has 25.496 quotients, and will get 25 seats, up from 21.

I don't want to be the one who redraws the Lower Mainland map. Overall, it's easy:

The areas running from Burnaby to Mission have 6.1 quotients and get 6 seats, up from 5.

The Delta-Surrey-Langley-Abbotsford belt has 7.9 quotients and gets 8 seats, up from 6.4 (due to Delta - Richmond East being 40% in Delta).

The Vancouver-Richmond-North Shore region has 10.5 quotients and gets 10 seats, up from 8.6. They average 5% over quotient, not a problem.

Chilliwack/Kent/Hope etc. have 0.97 quotients and stay as one seat.

The first problem will be, that the North Shore including everything up to Powell River, which now has two seats, rates 2.6. Do we have a riding running across the Lions Gate Bridge?

But then Vancouver has 6.09 quotients. Six seats, instead of the present five? But what about that 0.4 seat running across Burrard Inlet? Add Richmond's 1.82 quotients, and the ten seats will cross both borders.

One area looks easier. Surrey/White Rock has 4.5 quotients, up from 4 seats. Langley has 1.23, Abbotsford has 1.3. So a new seat straddles Surrey and Langley. Fine by me.

Now, Vancouver Island is pretty simple.

The Capital Region has 3.4 quotients, and now has 3 seats.

Nanaimo-Cowichan and Nanaimo-Alberni have 2.5 quotients, and now have 2 seats.

So the new seat straddles Langford and Duncan.

Vancouver Island North now has 1.1 quotients. Likely have to shift 7,000 or 10,000 people south of Courtenay into Nanaimo-Alberni.

Now, B.C. babblers, tell me where I've missed something.

Possible North Shore/Sunshine Coast solution: split the area across three seats, with variances ranging from -15% to -10%.  Over the life of the representation order, population growth will fix the negative variances to some degree.

Yes, Burnaby-Seymour was there in 1968 to 1979, and North Vancouver-Burnaby was there from 1976 to 1987. Okay, that's much better. Here's what I get.

The belt from Coast Garibaldi (everything up to Powell River), the North Shore and Burnaby-New Westminster all the way to Maple Ridge now has 6.7 ridings, which become 8:

Coast Garibaldi-West Vancouver 1.05

North Vancouver-West Vancouver 1.07

Burnaby-North Vancouver 1.07

Burnaby Centre 1.07

New Westminster-Burnaby 1.07

Coquitlam--Port Moody 1.03

Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam 1.03

Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows-Mission West (the west 30% of Mission) 1.00

Chilliwack - Fraser Cascade (0.97) loses Lillooet etc., but is otherwise the same.

The Delta-Surrey-Langley-Abbotsford-Mission belt gets 8 seats, also up from 6.7 (due to Delta - Richmond East being 40% in Delta and Mission being 30% of Maple Ridge). Something like this:

Abbotsford East--Mission 1.02

Abbotsford West--Langley 1.03

Langley--Cloverdale 1.03

South Surrey-White Rock 1.03

Newton 1.03

Fleetwood - Port Kells 1.03

Surrey North 1.03

Delta--South Westminster 1.03

Finally, Vancouver--Richmond gets 8 seats, up from 6.6. It deserves only 7.916, close enough. That's either 6 for Vancouver and 2 for Richmond, which deserves only 1.825, or maybe we add 10,000 people from South Vancouver into Richmond North to make it fairer.

I have still kept all ridings within 10% of the quotient (average population), except Kootenay--Columbia. So two Richmond ridings each with 91% of quotient would be acceptable, although pushing it. Most critics of over-representation and under-representation want to stay within 10%, and in the last round most Commissions managed to do so in the great majority of ridings. (Those purists who think we can stay within 5% should try it sometime, while keeping some cohesion with community boundaries. Forget it.)

So, BC babblers, what do you think?

Sure. Delta has three communities: Ladner (29,000?), Tsawassen (21,000?), and North Delta (51,000?). We could add Ladner to Richmond, making 2.09 quotients: two ridings with 1.045 each. Fine by me.

But I tried to avoid splitting smaller municipalities. Most of them in the Lower Mainland are larger than one riding, except five:

Delta 0.926

Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows (which share a school board) 0.882

New Westminster 0.621

West Vancouver (including Bowen Island and Lions Bay) 0.484

Mission 0.398

I had no choice with West Van. Squamish-Lillooet, Sunshine Coast and Powell River have 0.802 between them. I have to add in part of West Van.

Coquitlam/Port Coquitlam/Port Moody etc. have 2.058, perfect for two ridings. That leaves Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows needing some of Mission, like today’s ridings which already split Mission, so I did that.

But I’d rather not split Delta, or Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows, or New Westminster, without a good reason.

Richmond was, in 2006, 44% Chinese and only 8% South Asian. Like Vancouver which was 29% Chinese and only 6% South Asian. Delta, however, was 15% South Asian and only 6% Chinese. More like Surrey which was 27% South Asian and only 5% Chinese.

Do Delta’s Chinese-origin population live mostly in Ladner, while the South Asians live mostly in North Delta? Is this a good reason for splitting Delta and putting Ladner with Richmond? Leaving Tsawassen with North Delta, although they barely even touch?

I know the problem. But over the years, when the North Shore has had a fraction of a riding, the only solution has been Burnaby. The other option is the Lions Gate Bridge riding which you said was even worse. Do you have another solution? Giving 283,292 people three whole ridings is just not an option in my mind, average 13.5% below quotient.

I will admit I wasn't thinking specifically along ethnic lines and I don't know what the distributions are. But in terms of geography, North Delta tends to be attached to services in Surrey, and South Delta (Ladner & Tsawwassen) tends to be attached to services in Richmond. For example at the info line I work for, when someone calls from Delta for social assistance, we explain to the caller that there is no office in Delta, but clients in North Delta can go to the Surrey office and clients in South Delta can go to the Richmond office. The caller is typically okay with this. So for a Delta resident, being lumped together with either Surrey or Richmond is just, well, the suburb next door, or the suburb they pass through when commuting into the city. There are more transit connections between Surrey-North Delta and Richmond-South Delta than there are between the two halves of Delta. But for a Vancouver resident, being joined with Richmond seems unusual.

Mind you, geographically it would be odd to excise Ladner without taking Tsawwassen along for the ride too, but that would take us over quotient. Perhaps some sort of Richmond West-South Delta riding that adds up to one quotient, then a Richmond East riding for the remainder of the city. North Delta can continue to be grouped with Newton or whatever makes sense.

Okay, so if Squamish-Lillooet, Sunshine Coast and Powell River have 0.802 between them, and West Van/Bowen/Lions is 0.484, and the total of the existing North Shore ridings adds up to 2.6, then there's about 1.314 left for North Vancouver right?

So is there any way we can do:

- 1 quotient's worth of North Vancouver

- The rest of North Vancouver, plus West Van/Bowen/Lions, plus *some additional fraction* of the existing West Van - Sunshine Coast - Sea to Sky riding adding up to a full quotient

- The remaining .6 or so, pushed out to other ridings not in the Lower Mainland? The far-flung areas in WV-SC-StS don't really need to stay attached to West Van. I remember at the federal NDP convention I was an usher and someone indicated they were a delegate from WV-SC-StS, so I said, I haven't seen anyone from that riding but I can show you some tables with other ridings in Greater Vancouver. She took great offense, being from the Sunshine Coast, that I would lump her in with the Vancouver area.

Hmm. It's a puzzling quandary. In theory, if the island wasn't so perfect, I'd suggest adding it to VI north, subtracting some of the island part of the riding, and renaming the riding to something like Coast-North Island. 

Obviously there is no perfect solution and the boundary commission will have to come up with something. I wouldn't be surprised if a Burnaby-NV riding is the one they come up with, since it has existed before and it survived previous commissions. 

It's not unheard of for a riding to reach across the water for part of a city centre and otherwise include mostly the other side. There is a provincial riding that is mainly West Kelowna but reaches across the water to carve out a small chunk of the Kelowna city centre. So I suppose if we did a West Richmond-Ladner riding it would result in a strange shape for the riding that represents the rest of Delta (and it would mean Tsawwassen gets grouped in with a sliver of Surrey?) but it would still be a way to avoid a Richmond-Vancouver riding. I don't think a Richmond-Van riding has ever been done (but correct me if I'm wrong).

Interesting idea. The Squamish-Lillooet--Sunshine Coast--Powell River area has (including Lillooet) 92,041 people. If we add Ashcroft and Cache Creek (South Cariboo Local Health Area, 7,405 people) and the 100 Mile House area (14,793) that’s 1.047 quotients.

That means taking the Squamish-Lillooet--Sunshine Coast--Powell River area out of the Lower Mainland and into the Interior. Maybe it never belonged in the Lower Mainland, although it was part of a Lower Mainland federal riding. But now the Interior and North has 10.291 quotients. Keeping Skeena and Kootenay--Columbia unchanged gives that region a bonus of 0.243, so it rates 10.534 ridings. Growth in Kelowna and Kamloops meant, I thought, giving the Interior another riding on top of the 6 it has today. Adding a Squamish-Cariboo riding makes 8, plus the North’s 3, 11.

But I said keeping Skeena and Kootenay—Columbia unchanged was harmless, since it hurt no other region.

Look what we’ve done to the Lower Mainland. After losing the Squamish-Lillooet--Sunshine Coast--Powell River area, it has 24.694 quotients, but gets only 24 ridings, each an average of 2.9% over quotient.

I can live with that if you can. Can you?

Sorry, I'd rather give the North Shore two whole ridings. They will each be 10.3% below quotient, a little odd, but acceptable. Then Burnaby-New West-Maple Ridge-Mission has 6.073: six ridings 1.2% above quotient. North Delta–Surrey-Langley-Abbotsford has 7.518: seven ridings 7.4% above quotient, plus Chilliwack - Fraser Cascade makes 8. Vancouver-Richmond-South Delta has 8.342 quotients: eight ridings an average of 4.3% above quotient. Fine.

This means the Lower Mainland (not including Squamish-Lillooet--Sunshine Coast--Powell River) now has 20.44 MPs, not the 21 we commonly think. It will now have 24, an increase of 3.56. The Interior now has 6.56, and will have 8, an increase of 1.44. Is this okay?

If the North Shore gets two full ridings, is the population of Squamish, Whistler, Powell River , Sunshine Coat etc large enough to justify a separate riding?

Most of these places vote NDP so if an additional riding can be squeezed out here it may be a very good one for us. Of course this may be at a cost of underweighting the two North Shore ridings but we are unlikely to win there anyway. There used to be a riding called Coast Chilcotin which combined the coast with some of the Cariboo. We won it on occasion in the 70s.

Incidentally, thanks Wilf for the impressive work you have been doing on redistribution prospects.

This will get interesting as the official redistribution process proceeds. The Conservatives can be expected to take a page from their Republican cousins and do everything they can to influence the process.

On that point, can someone outline just how appointments are made to th Redistribution Commissions and how much scope the government may have to stack them with partisans?

Wilf, have you done Manitoba yet? Are things looking better in Winnipeg North? Man, I hate not having a real working man's representative here. All we have right now is a conservative leaning blue Lib, in faux red Lib clothing.

That's why I'd limit it to Coal Harbour and keep the West End south of Georgia Street (or Robson) and west of the border of Stanley Park out of such a riding. Coal Harbour, while geographically close to the West End is very distinct from it and I'd argue that demographically it has more in common with the north shore, at least economically, if not in the sense of urban form.

I was thinking more along the lines of a scenario you had mentioned a few posts up, where you had two ridings purely on the North Shore, with about 10% below the required quotient. So, in such a scenario if you added lets say 10K people from Vancouver Centre (I'm not sure what exactly the population of the Coal Harbour area from Geogria Street north, west to Granville street would be - but assuming there's at least 10K people there) then you could get the two ridings on the north shore a bit further above the 10% below quotient mark...more like 6-7% below quotient, which is more acceptable. Of course that would have a cascading effect on various other ridings in the province though. I think it's more acceptable than combing lower-middle class/working class Burnaby and upper-middle class North Vancouver.

Considering how polarized BC can be neighbourhood-to-neighbourhood... any partisan attempts to rig ridings in favour of Conservatives would probably also help the NDP at the expense of Liberals and Greens.

I would guess that, if anything, the first BC MP whose blood they'd be out to get is Elizabeth May. Even if Saanich-Gulf Islands has no particular reason to be realigned, a vengeful boundary commission could dismember her riding.

The 2003 Commission included a Saskatoon political science professor David Smith, and a Regina lawyer William Johnson who sounds respectable. Frederick William Johnson (his father, I think) was a Liberal candidate in 1960 and 1962, and ended up as Lieutenant Governor.

They first proposed six urban and eight rural seats, stating "The Commission is satisfied that despite the economic links between rural and urban populations, they nevertheless have differing communities of interest that must be addressed."

But then “the proposed urban and rural electoral districts were overwhelmingly rejected in the submissions made to the Commission. In light of that criticism the Commission reconsidered its Proposals and returned essentially to the existing electoral districts. . . . Saskatoon’s three new seats did not include the fast-growing suburban communities that are near it. . . . Rural depopulation is accommodated in mixed electoral districts as the population shifts to one of the two cities. According to one submission: "Saskatchewan may be unique in Canada in that our rural agricultural economy has more of an effect on our urban centres than it does in any other area." Thus, unlike many other provinces, Saskatchewan does not yet have large urban centres with voters whose interests are markedly different from those in rural areas.”

Did the people who liked the six urban seats fail to show up to say so? “The Commission has concerns that the submissions heard by it may not be representative of the residents of Saskatchewan as a whole because voters in agreement with a proposal tend not to make representations supporting it. However, the Commission is of the view that the hearing process mandated by the legislation should be respected and that its decision should not be inconsistent with the submissions that it heard.” If the coming Commission proposes something you like, show up and say so.

What will the new Commission do?

The problem is, no one publishes useful estimates of 2011 populations of Saskatchewan regions. But I did find something: the “Covered Population Report,” persons covered by health insurance, by health region, in 2011. I was suspicious at first, but all the other figures I looked at supported using the “covered population” figures:

http://population.health.gov.sk.ca/

I looked first at the Regional Health Authorities (RHAs), and also at the School Divisions (SDs) which are often similar to the RHAs.

Regina could easily be three seats. The area of the Regina Qu’Appelle RHA has about 3.4 quotients, but the Regina Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) has only 2.84 quotients. (Unfortunately for Moose Jaw, adding it in would make 3.3 quotients, sorry.) Four of the 11 school trustees in Prairie Valley SD, which surrounds Regina, come from the CMA. (On the other hand, three of them are from further east than today’s Regina - Qu'Appelle riding.) The RHA includes the same area as the Prairie Valley SD, and also includes Moosomin from Sun Country SD and Punnichy, Raymore, Holdfast and Imperial from Horizon SD.

So the CMA (about 221,000) plus the Qu’Appelle, McLean, Vibank and Sedley area (3,666 in 2006), Southey and Cuper area (3,654), and Milestone area (2,409) makes about 231,500, 2.99 quotients, three ridings as close to quotient as one can get.

Saskatoon may well be either three or four urban ridings. The city itself, with 220,000 people, is about only 2.84 quotients. The parts of Corman Park now included in the provincial ridings of Saskatoon Southeast and Saskatoon Northwest would likely bring it up to three seats.

However, the CMA population is about 272,000, 3.5 quotients.

The Saskatoon RHA has about 4.1. So the Saskatoon region has four seats one way or the other. With only three urban seats, you would then have a fourth seat surrounding Saskatoon like a doughnut. That was one reason for the last Commission’s four pie slices, even more true today. Is it realistic for Saskatoon’s seats to exclude Martensville, Warman, Osler, Dalmeny, Hepburn, Langham, Borden, Asquith, Eagle Creek, Perdue, Montrose, Vanscoy, Delisle, Dundurn, Hanley, Clavet, Lost River, Allan, Colonsay, Vonda and Aberdeen? These add (in 2006 populations) another 7,600 on top of the CMA’s 272,000. We’re up to 3.62 quotients. To get to 4.1 (the whole RHA) add Rosthern, Duck Lake, Blaine Lake, Leask, Humboldt, Lanigan, Wynyard and Watrous.

What about the rest of southern Saskatchewan? Last time the Commission tried three ridings along the American border, including a Moose Jaw riding which ran as far north as Saskatoon. Today, a combination of Five Hills RHA (Moose Jaw), Cypress (Swift Current) and Heartland (Kindersley/Rosetown) still makes less than two quotients (about 1.8), even worse.

But Five Hills RHA plus Sun Country (Estevan) plus the left over bits of Regina Qu’Appelle RHA makes 1.92 quotients. Add a few border adjustments like Strasbourg, Bulyea, Nokomis, Ituna, Neudorf, etc. (4,145 people in 2006) makes 1.98 quotients.

So we have a Five Hills—Last Mountain riding centred on Moose Jaw that takes in Assiniboia and Gravelbourg, plus the area up to Strasbourg and Raymore (14,000) and the area down around to Radville (5,000), 0.96 quotients. Then Souris - Moose Mountain has only minor adjustments.

Then Cypress Hills – Grasslands is not much changed: Cypress RHA plus the Sun West School Division has 75,577 people, 0.99 quotient. That’s 75% of Heartland RHA, including Kindersley, Rosetown and Biggar.

Battlefords—Lloydminster is not much different than today: the other 25% of Heartland RHA (Unity, Wilkie, Kerrobert, Macklin, Luseland, Major, Cando, etc., about 12,000 people) goes with most of Prairie North RHA (North Battleford & Lloydminster), which will include Maymont and Hafford (now in Saskatoon –Wanuskewin). This leaves about 13,000 people around Meadow Lake to join Desnethé - Missinippi - Churchill River as they do today.

Desnethé - Missinippi - Churchill River then is largely unchanged: it includes the northern slice of Prince Albert Parkland RHA and the northern slice of Kelsey Trail RHA.

Finally, Yorkton-Melville has only minor adjustments from today.

Does anyone from Saskatchewan want to comment on the most reasonable way to deal with Saskatoon, or anything else?

I didn't mean to give the impression that the NDP could win Saskatoon-Doughnut. As you can see here, the NDP carried only about six polls in that hypothetical riding.

http://www.the506.com/elxnmaps/can2011/

No, the NDP probably wants Saskatoon to be three pure-urban and one doughnut. But is there any objective case for this?

Here's the 2003 map first proposed by the Commission:

http://www.elections.ca/scripts/fedrep/sask/sask_map_e.htm

And here's the poll-by-poll map again:

http://www.the506.com/elxnmaps/can2011/

Judge for yourself. It seems evident that the NDP would have won Saskatoon Meewasin, Saskatoon Idylwyld, and Regina Qu'Appelle, while Saskatoon Broadway, Regina Pasqua, and Regina Wascana would have been close.

By the way, it WASN'T gerrymandering. As noted above, the Commission tried to do a good job. The public submissions were almost all in the other direction.

Or more precisely, be more supportive of their choice, which they backed down on in the face of massive opposition.

We may find out. Depending on the make-up and inclinations of this year's Commission.

Ontario Ridings with more than 130,000 people, in order from largest to smallest, from 2011 Census Data.

228,997   Oak Ridges - Markham

204,146   Brampton West

203,437   Halton

196,068   Vaughan

192,020   Bramalea-Gore-Malton

160,663   Mississauga-Erindale

159,032   Nepean-Carleton

149,769   Carleton-Mississippi Mills

149,130   Brampton-Springdale

147,096   Mississauga-Brampton South

146,307   Whitby-Oshawa

140,456   Willowdale

140,265   Thornhill

139,039   Mississauga East-Cooksville

137,102   Brant

136,082   Cambridge

135,711   Barrie

135,102   Scarborough-Rouge River

134,530   Simcoe-Grey

133,181 Newmarket-Aurora

132,637   Mississauga-Streetsville

130,937   Kitchener-Conestoga

130,323   Toronto Centre

130,162   Kitchener -Waterloo

By comparison, Egmont in PEI has 34.598.  IE.  In the last election, Egmont votes were worth 6.6 times more than those in OR-M.

The electoral quotient being used for this re-distribution is 111,166.  The first obvious conclusion is that Oak Ridges—Markham is going to get split across at least two new ridings: it's got more than two quotients' worth of population.

See post #31 above. The census figures are slightly different, but the new seats are still as I projected based on the Ontario estimated populations. I'll update my details tomorrow, but it all still works.

One very surprising thing is how many north-western Ontario reserves that were enumerated in 2006 did not co-operate this time; rising militancy, I assume:

Pikangikum #14 had 2,100 residents in 2006.

Fort Hope #64 had 1,144 residents in 2006.

Weagamow Lake #87 had 700 residents in 2006.

Poplar Hill had 457 residents in 2006.

Sachigo Lake #1 had 450 residents in 2006.

Webequie had 614 residents in 2006.

Wunnumin 1 had 487 residents in 2006.

Neskantaga had 265 residents in 2006.

Bearskin Lake had 459 residents in 2006.

Kasabonika Lake had 681 residents in 2006.

Kingfisher Lake #1 had 415 residents in 2006.

Wawakapewin (Long Dog Lake) had 21 residents in 2006.

Summer Beaver is not a reserve but did not get enumerated this time; it had 362 residents in 2006.

That's 8,155 people (based on 2006 figures) who will not be considered when the northwestern Ontario boundaries are set. Luckily Kenora was already treated as so exceptional that it may not matter.

But the census says Kenora has 55,977 people, down from 64,291 in 2006. That's why. In 2002 the last Boundaries Commission made them an exceptional riding, more than 25% below the normal population for a riding, because of their remote and heavily aboriginal population. What will this year's Commission do?

And why were they not enumerated?

Toronto will, in my opinion, have 24 ridings in the next election, compared to the 22.4 it has today. Since each will have an average of 108,961 people, we are looking at a whole new map, although a few ridings may not change, like Toronto-Danforth and Beaches--East York. Even Etobicoke, which rates 3.2 ridings, is likely to be redrawn.

The 338 seat H of C in 2015 will favour the Conservatives even more than the 308 seat H of C did in 2011:

Census data fuels dreams of perpetual Conservative majorities

The Conservatives 11 seat phony FPTP majority would be more like a 20 seat phony FPTP majority had we used revised boundaries in 2011. In 2015 the Conservatives might be able to get a phony FPTP majority with just 35% of the vote. In 2015, the NDP, Liberals, BQ, and Greens might once again run on similar platforms, represent almost 2/3rds of the voters but remain on the powerless side of the H of C.

Bramalea-Gore-Malton is indeed an interesting example.

Also, a lot of those Ontario blue ridings are pretty fickle. Even though a whopping 73 federal seats went Conservative in May, Hudak only managed to reap 37 of them provincially. A bunch of them went to McGuinty's Liberals instead.

Just think about it - being more appealing than Dalton McGuinty is not a very high bar to have to reach to turn some of those votes away from team blue.

Correct. Kenora is a special case, but not the whole region.

The population of Northern Ontario north of the French River is now 733,016, or about 741,901 with the uncounted reserves. That region currently has 9 electoral districts, with an average of 82,433 residents. If the current number of electoral districts were retained, their average population would be 22.4% below the provincial quotient, close to the maximum variance of 25 per cent, significant overrepresentation in this area. Kenora has been accepted as exceptional, but not the other districts. It is hard to see why an urban district like Greater Sudbury should be treated differently than southern Ontario. However, when Ontario is getting 15 new electoral districts, a reduction in representation for Northern Ontario will appear shocking. And the present Algoma - Manitoulin - Kapuskasing is already a geographic monster.

The solution is to follow the Ontario Government's definition of Northern Ontario, and include Parry Sound District but not Muskoka. This brings the population of Northern Ontario to 784,063 (with the uncounted reserves), 7.38 electoral quotients, or 9 electoral districts with an average population of 87,118, 18% below the provincial quotient. These can be accommodated without undue special treatment.

Sudbry (the city) actually gained in population (and the electoral district remained unchanged, while Nickel Belt actually grew 3.4%), maybe not as much as the GTA, but still, it shouldn't be penalized because it happens to be in a Province that is growing exponentially.  If Halifax was in Ontario, should it lose representation too just because Toronto out-grew it?  No.  We are lumping this region together, and making larger ridings, even for those who grew.  Why should Timmins and Sudbury, who saw population increases, lose representation because Thunder Bay (and virtually all of NW Ontario) lost population?

Re: Saskatchewan

John Courtney has an impressive résumé. The guy wrote multiple entire books on electoral districts. I can only hope that his focus on electoral politics will mean he truly wants to serve the public interest.

David Marit has been called up in front of various Commons committees to talk about rural issues. Does he have any inherent bias in this? He wants rural issues to be heard. Does it work in his favour to advocate for continuing to dilute urban voices in mixed ridings with rural areas, or will he favour assigning rural representation to separate districts?

FWIW, I showed the Quebec nominees to Thomas Mulcair at an event today, and he said he knows of both of them. He responded positively and called the choices "unimpeachable".

I also raised the topic of Saskatchewan with him, and he said that in fact, at the last boundary commission it was a contingent from the NDP that naively proposed carving up the cities. So we could well see a saner realignment of the boundaries next time.

It's imparitive that NDP supporters in Saskatchewan and elsewhere show up at the public hearings as the next election could be decided by just a few ridings going slightly one way or another.

Redistribution of the Federal Electoral Districts - Elections Canada

 Also NDP MP's should also be as proactive as possible.