Electoral Maps 5

Lord Palmerston wrote:

OK but there are no student residences on the north side of Bloor.

Well, there's Tartu + various frat and sorority houses.  But yes, I agree that it's pretty marginal relative to U of T proper.

Oh, and re all the cries of doom re redistribution and all those added notionally-Tory seats: let's remember that the psychology of redistribution might wind up playing into the post-Orange Crush hands of the NDP--otherwise you might as well write off any chance of a non-Con in any 905 seat that isn't Bramalea-Gore...

308 has for the first time posted a projection based on the 338-seat proposed map.

What's been said upthread about BC holds quite true - the idea that even though the redistribution appears to create 6 new Conservative seats and also hand them 2 NDP seats, a lot of Con/NDP races become much closer. So instead of CON/NDP/LIB/GRN 29/10/2/1 based on 2011 results, Grenier projects 17/21/3/1 from BC polling numbers (can we bet that the new Liberal seat is Vancouver-Granville?).

Interesting how the overall Atlantic vote has the NDP leading the Cons by almost 7 points, but the seat projection still has the Cons winning one more than the NDP. And the third-place Liberals get even more than either the Cons or NDP. Woo hoo democracy? 

Anyway it shows 160 Con seats, short of the 169 required for a majority. LIB+CON would equal 172.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2012/09/august-2012-federal-polling-averages.html

Lots more BUT the federal party does not have that kind of support. Dix is facing an incompetent fool who is being guided by has been hacks. The big news is that the solid 40 to 45% of the electorate that votes for the right is breaking into two parts and the swing voters are all going to Dix.

If the BC Liberals collapse it is hard to say whether the NDP or Cons will pick up the bulk of those votes. Liberals federally also often vote Liberal provincially which means they support the free market fundamentalism offered up by both Campbell and Harper. A collapse of the BC Liberals while led by Clark, a federal Liberal, might also lead to a further erosion of the federal Liberals and that is a very double edged sword for the NDP.  If the federal Liberal brand hangs on to its progressive voters and sheds its right wing to the Cons the NDP will lose seats around the province.

There are various "gradations" of Liberals in BC, I find,at least from a Vancouver perspective. I know people who fall into each of the following camps:
- Support Vision Vancouver and COPE, vote for federal Liberals only in Van Centre / Quadra / South, and otherwise support the NDP & BCNDP most of the time. (I voted for Hedy Fry in 2008, full disclosure, and for Libby Davies in 2011)
- Support Vision Vancouver, federal Liberals and the BCNDP - identify as Liberals who draw the line at getting into bed with Conservatives, hence BCNDP instead.
- Support Vision Vancouver (and all of the people in it who have NDP links!), federal Liberals and the BC Liberals - identify as centrist or even progressive but have a laundry list of reasons why they can't stomach the NDP.
- (increasingly rarer breed) Support the NPA, federal Liberals and BC Liberals
- Support the NPA, federal Conservatives and BC Liberals
- (oddly enough) Support Vision Vancouver, federal Conservatives and BC Liberals
(I have never met anyone who supports the BC Conservatives.)
But as you can see, all this partial overlap makes for strange bedfellows when people from one level of politics show up at an event for another.

That riding was the only one not to be continous in all of Canada. In addition, the number of people who live in the affected area is either at or near 0. 

Has anyone considered population transfers?

There's a hearing at SFU downtown in Vancouver Monday night. I think I'm going to drop in. Anyone else?

Stockholm wrote:

I can see why he would want that...Murray would much rather run in Mount Pleasant which is designed to be a safe Liberal seat - but he would not want to be seen to be fleeing a riding that contains the gay village - so this way he would be able to have his cake and eat it too! Also, if they moved the boundary of Mount Pleasant south to College it would mean that Toronto Centre would have to take more of the condo belt from Trinity-Spadina, which in turn would mean that T-S would have to regain the Annex and Seaton Village, which in turn would mean St. Paul would have to regain some territory east of Yonge...this is a BAD idea from an NDP perspective since it takes St. Paul from being a good NDP prospect back to being  safe Liberal seat - while doing nothing to make TC or TS any safer or more winnable. I want the NDP to win 3 out of 4 seats from TS, SP, MP and TC...this change would make it 2 out of 4. The NDP should oppose this proposal every step of the way!

Indeed, it would be bad.  I think the Toronto map is great overall.  The old gerrymandered "Rosedale" that dates back to the 1930s (also reflected in the former provincial riding of "St. George-St. David") is gone. University Ave./Avenue Rd. is a good solid boundary as is Bloor.  St. Paul's had stretched to far east since the 90s.  It makes sense to have the eastern half of St. Paul's united with northern TC.  This is the closest the federal map has gotten to the "block ridings" in the 1972 city council maps that progressives had fought for.

I just spoke with someone in Olivia Chow's office today.  Initially they were opposed to the Annex/Seaton Village being taken out of T-S.  Now they are planning on "conusuting" residents north of Bloor about the proposed boundary change.  But presumably there's going to be coordination among the NDP in Toronto, and I think they'll come to realize this map is better.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

What would you say are the boundaries for DTES?  I've heard different definitions - sometimes including Strathcona, Chinatown and Gastown.

My definition of the DTES includes Gastown, Victory Square, all of Chinatown, the area northeast of Main & Hastings as far east as Campbell, and the properties that front onto the south side of that stretch of Hastings. It doesn't include Strathcona or any of the port lands owned by the Port of Vancouver.

What's your thought on moving all or part of this area, and possibly some of strathcona, into Van Centre?

As a long time resident of Toronto Centre I agree with Lord Palmerston that the proposed boundaries for downtown Toronto are about as good as it can get for the NDP. 

TC (or Rosedale, St George-St David or St David before that) has always been cruel to the NDP who have never won the seat, federally or provincially since CCF days. Strong support south of Bloor hs always been swamped by Rosedale which has been only a quarter of the popuation but perhaps a third of the vote because of higher turnout.

And there is almot no community of interest  between Rosedale and the rest of the riding. Bloor St is a huge cultural and economic divide. I live in Cabbagetown and almost never go to Rosedale except to drive trough it. I am sure the opposite pertains for residents of Rosedale.

On the new boundaries, TC would have voted NDP by about 1%. Without Bob Rae running again (a considerable likelihood IMO) it should be an easy pickup next time. The new Mt Pleasant combines Rosedale with the wealthier eastern section of St Paul's . The new St Paul's in consequencs shifts west and south and would have voted NDP by about 3%. If an aging Caroline Bennett does not run again (or chooses Mt Pleasant) this is another likley gain for the NDP.

I am concerned that Olivia Chow criticized the new map for moving the north Annex from Trinity-Spadina to St Paul's. This would not affect her margin but at the same time puts St Paul's in play. She shd back down on this for the benefit of the party.

Any regigging of the proposed map could well put TC and St P beyond reach for the NDP so we should be very careful of what we wish for.

The splitting of the gay village remains a valid concern. If it is combined back into TC then TC will be overpopulated and will have to shed ground either to Mt Pleasant or T-S. Does anyone have thoughts on what effects this might have?

Exactly nicky.  The eastern half of St. Paul's + the northern part of TC are quite similar in demographics and voting patterns and it makes sense to have them together.  Bloor St. is an ideal boundary between TC/Mt. P in terms of community of interest but yes it would leave TC overpopulated.  I think the best they can do is move the boundary down from Wellesley to College west of Yonge, and then up to maybe Charles or Isabella to take in the gay village.   

I have written to Olivia Chow expressing my concerns, you may want to do so as well.

(One minor thing: it's not the "north Annex" that's being shifted to St. Paul's, it's all of the Annex.  The Annex doesn't go south of Bloor.)  

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

Having looked at dissemination area populations (subsections of census tracts), I would back the following:

- Transfer the area between Wellesley and College (pop. 3500) west of Yonge into Mt. Pleasant.

- Transfer the area between Isabella and Wellesley (pop. 7000) between Yonge and Sherbourne into TC. 

This leaves TC at approximately 103,000 and Mt. P. at 96,000.

nicky wrote:

 

I am concerned that Olivia Chow criticized the new map for moving the north Annex from Trinity-Spadina to St Paul's. This would not affect her margin but at the same time puts St Paul's in play. She shd back down on this for the benefit of the party.

This made me cringe.  If we heard this from a Conservative MP but then went back on his word for the "benefit of the party" we would be yelling and screaming and calling for an inquiry.  I believe it is more important for democracy that we keep like-minded communities together than to gerrmander, just because it happens to be in our favour.  Now I'm not saying I disagree with the new ridings, I believe they have been set up quite well actually, besides the divide of the gay community, which should be fixed.

Lord Palmerston wrote:

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

Unfortunately, sure they can divide St Jamestown. The Commission's initial proposals already have divided as cohesive, if not more cohesive, communities.

For example, look at Thorncliffe Park. The Commission has proposed that most of Thorncliffe Park Drive -- a street with lots of people in lots of highrises, but nevertheless a single street -- is in the inelegently named Toronto North, but a few thousand people on that street are in Don Valley East. If the Ontario Commission saw fit to split a single street, there is no reason to automatically preclude St Jamestown being split.

The municipality of Clarington, immeidately east of Oshawa, is split in three parts. Sometimes muncipalties have to be split in two due to their populations and those of neighbouring muncipalities. It would have been easy to make a proposal here to leave Clarington split onlt twice.

Given the initial proposal from the Ontario Commission, one should not presume that almost anything cannot be done, unfrotunately. That is why people coming forward to make proposals about their communities is important.

Does the Commission also take into consideration future growth?

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

Wilf Day wrote:

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

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

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

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

Report from the New Westminster meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

Centrist wrote:

theleftyinvestor wrote:

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

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

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

kropotkin1951 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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