Electoral Maps 5

411 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wilf Day

edmundoconnor wrote:

Waterdown–Glanbrook is going to be an absolute pain to campaign in. Ugliest boundary winner, I'd say.

After Haliburton--Uxbridge, the second ugliest is the proposed LANARK—FRONTENAC—HASTINGS which would stretch a three-hour drive from Carleton Place to Bancroft, combining Lanark with part of Hastings for the first time since Confederation, uniting 52% of Lanark - Frontenac - Lennox and Addington with 29% of Prince Edward—Hastings and the 12,385 in Mississippi Mills.

Third prize goes to the Commission’s proposed district of KAWARTHA LAKES—PORT HOPE—COBOURG. This surprising proposal would put Lindsay in the same district as Port Hope and Cobourg. These communities have never been in the same electoral district since Confederation, and have little community of interest. This would combine 40% of the present Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock with 36% of the present Northumberland—Quinte West and 13% of the present Durham district. It’s interesting that this would, in effect, be one of Ontario’s new ridings (with no incumbent), yet it looks as if few really want it as proposed.

Robo wrote:
Why is Clarington, a municipality of 84,000, split in three when it could easily be split in two? It would take a major redrawing to keep all of Clarington in one riding -- the easternmost part of Clarington seems like it will be in a riding with Port Hope and Cobourg. But it is easy to keep westernmost Clarington in one riding instead of two.

If "Oshawa Centre" (maybe "Oshawa South") was comprised of all of Oshawa south of Rossland (or maybe everything in Oshawa south of Taunton Rd and west of Harmony Rd), the the parts of Clarington split between two ridings could be united into "Oshawa-Bowmanville". For both of these ridings, the logic of community interest would be superior.

No doubt some Clarington residents will object to Courtice being split in half, and will suggest that the 68,298 residents proposed to be split between two Oshawa-centred districts should be kept together in a CLARINGTON-OSHAWA configuration, rather than Clarington’s Wards 1, 2 and 3 all being split.

toaster wrote:
I think Carol Hughes resides in Kapuskasing, but I could be wrong. Wonder if she'll move to Algoma-Manitoulin-Killarney, even though it becomes a much more anglophone riding.

Carol was, when elected, a resident of Elliot Lake for 26 years. No doubt she will stay in Algoma—Manitoulin—Killarney.

adma wrote:

Though speaking of York Region, one thing that absolutely doesn't ring true with me is the riding with the presently proposed name "Oak Ridges"--sure, it technically straddles the Oak Ridges Moraine; however, the actual community which gave the Moraine its name is within Aurora-Richmond Hill, and its presence has defined previous ridings with the "Oak Ridges" name. To shift the name westward is geographically illiterate--a name like "King-Maple" (or something more euphonious) would be more fitting...

Someone has suggested "King--Maple--Wonderland."

Lord Palmerston

Stockholm wrote:
I don't think that would work, west of Yonge there is just a thin sliver between Yonge and university before you hit Trinity-Spadina, it would not balance. Here is a better idea, move the northern boundary of TC north to Bloor St. From Yonge to Patliament, then at Parlianment have the boundary go south to Carlton so that the ritzy part of Cabbagetown east of Parliament can be united with Rosedale and Davisville. n the name of "community of interest" why not put all the rich areas into one riding!

Right now the proposed TC has a population of 99,860 according to the 2011 census.  Mount Pleasant has a population of 99,695.

Adding up all census tracts in the area between Queen's Park/University/York St. and the Don River south of Bloor (excluding the Toronto Islands) I get a population of 121,399.  That is too much for one riding. 

In the area between University, Sherbourne, College/Carlton and Bloor there is a population of 30,527 - some of which goes to TC and some to Mount Pleasant.  121,399 - 99,860 = 21,539.   Actually since the northern boundary east of Parliament is actually Rosedale Valley not Bloor (it juts south of Bloor after Parliament) I think it's fair to estimate that 21,000 live between Bloor and Wellesley, Queen's Park Crescent and Sherbourne (there can't be more than 500 in that Rosedale-to-Cabbagetown transition zone).

Removing say, 3500 from "prime Cabbagetown" still leaves a population of 118,000 in TC if the northern boundary is at Bloor.  That would leave Mount Pleasant too underpopulated.

Putting 11,000 in "Bay-Cloverhill" into Mount Pleasant would still leave it a bit underpopulated - though territory could be taken out of Eglinton-Lawrence at the NW corner of Yonge and Eglinton, say from Yonge to Avenue Rd., Eglinton to Briar Hill.

Alternatively T-S could be shifted a bit eastward (maybe to Bay St.?) and still be well within reasonable population bounds. 

Stockholm

OK, here is another idea, if the point is to avoid splitting the "gay village" into two ridings, you don't really need to go all the way up to Bloor, why not have the boundary between TC and MP move up just from Wellesley to Isabella between Sherbourne and Yonge - that would not shift all that many people and you could easily compensate MP by giving it a bit of St. Paul that is east of Avenue and east of diagonal Chaplin Cresent OR have MP take from TC everything east of Parliament and north of Carlton.

Lord Palmerston

"Queer liberal" has also raised his concern (although at a population of 120,000 it is impossible to put everything south of Bloor between Queen's Park/University and the Don in one riding):

queerliberal wrote:
Dear Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario,

 I am writing to express my concerns as a resident of the current riding of Toronto Centre and a member of the LGBT community. 
As you may know, the current Toronto Centre riding contains the largest concentration of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered) citizens than any other riding in Canada. The centre of this community is the Church & Wellesley neighbourhood in the heart of the current riding. What's become popularly known as 'The Village' stretches from Church & Wellesley north up to approximately Bloor Street, and extends south to approximately Carlton Street. Heading west, one could say Bay Street or University Avenue is the unofficial westerly border of the 'Village', while Sherbourne is likely the unofficial easterly border of the community. 
Of course, many LGBT people live in Toronto outside of these boundaries, including myself. I'm an owner of a condo on Shuter Street near Church Street. 
But without a doubt, the heart and centre of Toronto's LGBT is the Church & Wellesley intersection. I think if you did any sort of research into this issue, you'd find most Torontonians would agree with this. 
That's why I was dismayed to see your new riding boundary proposals for Ontario, which include creating the new riding of Mount Pleasant, carved out of mostly the northern half of the current riding of Toronto Centre. The new riding of Toronto Centre instead runs south of Bloor, east of Sherbourne, and south of Wellesley Street to Queen's Park. Mount Pleasant runs mostly north of this same new line. 
In putting part of the southerly border between these two new ridings right down Wellesley Street, you have in fact proposed to cut Toronto's LGBT community, aka 'The Village' right in half. By any reasonable standard, this line seems arbitrary. It would unnecessarily divide up Toronto's LGBT village into two, diluting the voting power of the community into two ridings. I fail to see what the renters in apartment buildings or coops or condo owners who live near Church and Dundonald or Gloucester or Isabella or Jarvis have in common with the millionaires who live in mansions in Rosedale or other rich neighbourhoods north of St. Clair East. In fact, with this new configuration, voters in the small sliver bordered by Wellesley/Sherbourne/Bloor East/Queen's Park Crescent will be forever overwhelmed by the tens of thousands of wealthier, heterosexual voters who will make up the vast majority of this new riding of Mount Pleasant. 
Furthermore, the voting power of the LGBT community now contained within the new riding of Toronto Centre will also be diluted by the majority to the south. However, I would at least agree that the income and other demographics of the new Toronto Centre riding are more in sync. In fact, I would argue that the small sliver of the gay village you are now proposing to include in Mount Pleasant has much more in common with the new proposed Toronto Centre riding. 
I believe it is a mistake to put the border of these two new ridings down Wellesley Street and effectively divide one of Toronto's most vibrant and important communities in half. I would suggest that a better dividing line would be right down Bloor Street, leaving those communities of similar income and interest together in the new Toronto Centre riding to the south. 
I worry the proposed border down Wellesley Street looks like a deliberate attempt to water down Toronto's downtown gay vote. I strongly urge your Commission to reconsider this border and place it north instead to run directly down Bloor Street between the two new ridings.

 

http://queer-liberal.blogspot.ca/2012/08/electoral-riding-commission-thr...

 

Lord Palmerston

Yes, it doesn't have to go up to Bloor.

Make Charles St. the north/south boundary (it's the most "major" thoroughfare between Bloor and Wellesley) between TC and MP along its whole run - from Queen's Park Crescent until Jarvis.  The Bloor-Yorkville BIA considers Charles its southern boundary and that way the Windsor Arms hotel and the Manulife building and 1 St. Thomas are united with Yorkville proper.  

The Bay-Cloverhill neighborhood is sort of a transition zone anyway, a bit U of T, a bit "gay village", a bit Yorkville.