Ontario to get 21 more seats in House of Commons

I'm trying to think through what Harper's game is. 

I know this mollifies McGuinty but, seriously, if I'm losing my job, or my pension's about to vanish, do I really give a tinker's damn how many seats Ontario has? Praise from a Premier's good but McGuinty's such a non-entity. This won't win him any votes.

More likely, is that Harper's overall electoral game plan has shifted. He now thinks Ontario is where he gets his majority and he doesn't give a shit about Quebec anymore. C'est possible?

Ontario has always campaigned for rep-by-pop. The next question is, when will Ontario MPs (especially Liberals) start speaking up for Ontario interests?

More seats for the NDP to win.

The H of C. needs to cap the size of the H of C like the House of representatives has and make redistributions based on an absolute number. Problem is  logistically that Quebec is guaranteed 75 seats and no province can have fewer seats in the House than it has in the Senate.

Well the original plan was to add 22 more seats to the House with Ontario getting 10.  Though not stated in any article I've seen, this would seem to suggest that the House will be expanding by 33 seats now.

Again, not part of any article I've seen, that would be 21 more in Ontario and probably 6 in BC and 5 in Alberta.

At some point there will not be  enough room on the floor of the House.

They could put in benches like they have in the UK and cram lots more MPs in there

I guess when you can declare yourself the PM it doesn't matter how many seats are in the House or where they come from.

It's easy to see why this would appeal to Harper: the more seats added in Ontario, the more room there is for gerrymandering....

As pointed out, Quebec is guaranteed a set number of seats (1976 base) but it is not only Quebec that is guaranteed "X" number of seats, all provinces are governed both by the senatorial clause and one stating that they will never have fewer seats than they did in 1976 (I don't mean to belabour this point, but I think Caissa's remarks did not clearly identify that is not only Quebec that has seats guaranteed in excess of those governed by the senatorial clause).

There is a very good table giving a breakdown of average seat population in a wikipedia article LINKED HERE -- Quebec is almost bang-on as to the number of seats they would have if we had rep by pop... it is the Territories, Atlantic Canada and MB & SK that really skew the figures (and since the Territories only have a single seat each, they should be excluded from any calculation).

I agree with Caissa that the real problem is that, although working with a bicameral structure, neither the House nor the Senate fairly represents the distribution of the population. The Americans, frankly, handle this better with their bicameral system... one chamber (Senate) based on the equality of states, the other (House) based (with a fairer basement) on respecting the principle of rep by pop. Until such time as the less populous provinces are willing to abandon at least one of the historical priviliges that underpin the senatorial clause and the 1976 base figures, we are going to have an extremely skewed Parliament. Ignoring the principle that underlies the virtues of rep by pop is a great way of generating populist resentment against any consitutional change that would be required by any major changes to the electoral system (including PR).

Of course if the Senate is abolished (which I am all in favour of) the debate would be quite different. But until such time as that happens it is quite clear that the principles behind by rep by pop are not considered as important as pandering to regional interests and historical curiousities.   

----------------------------------------------------------

Whom the hive does not cherish it eats.

As a Yank, I can tell you...no.  No.  NO!  HELLLLLL NOOOOO!!!!!!!

The size limit on the U.S. House of Representatives is reactionary, punishing urban states by reducing the number of their representatives even though their population hasn't actually declined(in most cases, it just grew more slowly than states in the Lynching and Incest Belt) and betraying the House's duty to offer representation by population.

To move closer to true democracy, the U.S. House(in addition to switching to election by pr)needs to remove the artificial size limit, so that equal representation by population can be restored.

The size limit gave us, for much of the Twentieth Century, government of, by and for the Confederacy.  It would end up giving you guys government of, by and for Alberta, which would be the same thing.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly

Although even there, they can't fit all of them in the chamber at the same time.  The old House of Commons was too small, and when they built a new one after the old one was destroyed in the war, they decided(I think Churchill insisted on it, for some reason)that it be KEPT too small. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly

Giving Ontario the extra seats it wants also reduces the proportion of seats allocated to Quebec and makes the 40 or 50 seats habitually won by the BQ less of an obstacle to getting a majority.

Bingo mycroft, there is nothing harper won't do to get a majority including stacking the deck by changing seats, last time this happened was malroney passing the hst in 93 when he used a little known clause that allowed the senate to be expanded by7 seats to pass legislation. With adding 31 seats and moving the ridings into straight line that radiate from urban to suburban he can lose 5-10 seats to urban votes while the suburban ones created will get him 21 thus all thing being equal a 339 seta house with harper having 165-170 seats is a majority. With little to no change in a vote. This could come back and bite them in the ass if people actually demanded the media to tell the truth about lies the cons tell. 

I don't think they realize the game they play could in fact result in a sea of red in ontario again. He will now play footsy with us knowing that is the only way to a majority, look at the autodeal that is ONLY to pander to the decent paid suburban soccor/hockey moms and dads that drive from bedroom communities like KW once was to their jobs in oakville.

The rejigging of seats we had down here was very interesting to say the least. The libs thought they could score all the seats(and did for a little while) by pushing bedroom communities tied to the county seat into the  2 remaining city seats while eliminating an NDP stronghold altogether(we lost one seat). We won a bi-election very closely(paul martin sr seat) and when Herb Grey stepped down we won the western seat. They thought it would have consolidate the libs power in the area, but we are not so much a liberla stronghold as we appretiated what PM sr and herb grey had done for our coummunity in the past. Without their name brand it was up for anyone. They lost the county seat as well with the liberal brand falling off the shelf and eugene whallins daughter not being anything but a junior minister. But that went to the cons as we split the vote in the last 3 elections.

______________________________________________________________________________________ "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." Noam Chomsky

Whatever Harper says about seats right now, it will still take a year or more before it goes into effect... Elections Canada receives the final numbers, and then they embark on defining new boundaries. If an election is called before all the boundary consultations are over, the old boundaries stick.

Given where the new seats are likely to be, perhaps not.  (OTOH the carving-out required might make some existing NDP seats even stronger than ever...)

"It's easy to see why this would appeal to Harper: the more seats added in Ontario, the more room there is for gerrymandering...."

Actually gerrymandering is not much of a problem in Canada. Redistribution is done by an independent apolitical commission of demographers and social scientists and it can only be done every ten years after the census. These extra seats won't be allocated until after the 2011 census is published and after the commission recommends new boundaries, hearings and amendments take place and it is passed by the House - meaning that we won't have a new electoral map until about 2013 at the earliest.

I cannot argue against it. It is a fundamental of democracy that everyone's vote should be as equal as possible. If Ontario has 37% of the population of Canada then we should get 37% of the seats. Period.

I think you meant you cannot argue against it?

I agree, I once read a new yorker where they had a thing about gerrymandering. They split up a riding so that one part looked like a spikey star jutting into another riding to get just enough votes to win for one side. The other party would have an overwhelming win for one seat while the mander party would get 4 tight wins. The us partys see that as a birthright. Thankfully canada has not yet gone there.  In harpers dreams perhaps but not just yet.

Gerrymandering is cheating. Down south they cannot tell the difference anymore. 

There is some room for partisan political influence I believe. As for your last point, giving more seats to the more populous provinces is the only way to come close. Taking away seats from some provinces would require constitutional changes that are not likely to be attempted, let alone achieved.

And while not precisely "gerrymandering", keep in mind the current federal political situation and representation in Saskatchewan thanks to a little past political lobbying...

Since the seats most likely will be in urban areas and given the fact that the liberals dominate urban ridings. I think that any additional seats actually helps the Libs more than the cons.

Northern Ontario was in grave danger of losing seats at the next redistribution. This new number will not give the North any new seats, but will save those it now has.

As noted above, this will not take effect before 2013, more likely 2014. Meanwhile, Quebec will be incensed; more evidence Harper has written it off.

His timing was interesting; given the long time delay, why announce his change of position now? One reason is to put the Liberals on the hot seat; will they agree or not? A no-win choice.

Aren't suburban seats more likely? In any case, since these will be open seats (ie no incumbents) the Tories, if they are competitive overall, will have a better shot at winning these new seats than in taking seats currently held by Liberals. Even if the Tories win only the same proportion of new Ontario seats as they currently have overall if the new configuration of the House of Commons had been in place in the last election they would either be much close to a majority or possibly have a majority (someone with some mathematical skills might want to apply the current breakdown of Ontario seats to the proposed expanded size and see what the result would be)

Echoing Mycroft: "While new seats will be added to the Liberal bedrock in the City of Toronto, the area with the largest overall growth with be the 905 region, particularly the outer GTA where the population has been booming and the Conservative messages of competent management and lower taxes have found a receptive audience.

The real bonus for the Conservatives is this: new seats do not have an incumbent to defeat. While incumbency is not the massive advantage it is in the U.S. Congress, it still is a noticeable edge to run the sitting member rather than an outsider. Introducing 21 open seats in Ontario may be enough to get the Conservatives over the top.

All of this adds up to optimistic new electoral mathematics for the federal Conservatives: Ontario + 21 more seats = majority."

I thnk its silly to speculate about who benefits from there being all these ridings with no incumbents etc... We are talking about a new map that will be in place in the election after the election after the next one!!  Who the hell knows which party will or won't have a lot of incumbents running at that time or which way the wind will be blowing. For all we know, between now and then, we could go into an economic meltdown and the Tories could have a 1993 style wipeout - or maybe not.

What we DO know is that the general trend is for the Tories to do well in rural ridings and exurban, heavily WASP ridings and when you add that many new seats in Ontario - it will probably not be those kinds of ridings, but more likely suburban seats that are increasingly full of immigrants etc...

There are other things to look out for in the next redist. in Saskatchewan the NDP could make representations for getting rid of those stupid "rurban" seats. Even if they survive, there has been so much population growtrh in Regina and Saskatoon and so much population loss in the rural areas, that they may start "tying the noose" more tightly around the cities and cut away at the 90% Tory rural areas etc...

Well, it seems good on the surface, but let's see how many of these new Ontario seats go to Conservative stronghold areas.

Much like the funding issue, Prime-Minister for life Harper is really just aiming to get more seats into the hands of Conservative friendly areas.

It's amazing that during an economic crisis, all Harper can think about is how to cement his grip on power.

I prefer when the house is sitting, he does all this shit while the house isn't in session, like summertime art funding etc. If you look at how much time he has been in the house compared to out, I think this is the least number of day in parliament/year  yet. The first year was bad becaue he got elected in january and didn't start governing till may then had recess for summer in mid june. However if you look at the regressive measures done while parliament wasn't in session it is probably greater than that which was passed(all of which had the sword of damacles hanging with everything being confidence motions) 

______________________________________________________________________________________ "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." Noam Chomsky

IF "Conservative stronghold areas" currently have too few seats for the number of people living in them, then i am sorry to say that they SHOULD get more seats. Within reason (ie: keeping a seat for Nunavut), every riding should have exactly the same popualtion. Rep by Pop!!

I want to see the Conservatives lose based on more people voting to defeat them - not because our electoral map fails to keep up with population changes.

21 more seats for Ontario and the increased numbers for BC and Alberta means that a majority can be formed with the West and Ontario.

As someone who wants to see a majority government, (whether Conservative, Liberal, NDP, or even Green), I am quite happy about this.

Considering that Ontario and the West do the vast bulk of the heavy lifting for this confederation, it is about time we had commensurate political power.

What exactly is "good" about majority government? In our antiquated system of government it just means an absolute dictatorship with no checks or balances of any kind for four years. I think we would be better off if we NEVER had another majority government again. Almost all the worst crap we have in Canada is stuff that got based by arrogant dictatorial majority governments.

What is good about majority governments is that we dont have to have elections all the time, and the politicians can actually manage the country instead of having to constantly campaign to do so.

Like many people, I am suffering from election fatigue. Since 2004 in my area, there have been 3 federal elections, a byelection, and a provincial general election. 5 elections in as many years is bloody ridiculous.

I am sure you would not accuse the NDP of being dictatorial if they formed a majority, and as I have said, it doesn't matter to me which Party (or even Democratic Coalition) that forms a majority, so long as we don't have to have an election for 4 or 5 years.

The other thing is that the various levels of government act as checks and balances on each other. Provinces can always make hay by campaigning against the Feds.

Even so, I am sure that if I argued that the sky was blue you would take issue with it. Nice. Guy.

Quote of the Day:

"If you want to know what God thinks about money, just consider who She gives it to..."

No, we have no checks and balances of any kind in Canada. When there is majority government, the Pm is an absolute dictator. Period. look at how Mulroney rammed though all his crap like the GST despite 90% opposition or how Harris in Ontario wantonly amalgamated municipalities and destroyed the whole education system - and there was NOTHINg anyone could do about it. In our system, 40% of the vote means 100% of the power.

 I'm sorry if you find it so tedious to have elections. You know people who oppose democracy altogther use the same arguments as to why we should never have elections at all and instead have a fascist (or Communist dictatorship). I mean think about how simple life was in Francoist Spain - never being bothered by partisan TV ads or having to cast a ballot and having the gov't be able to save all that money that gets spent on holding elections!!

 I agree that its bad to have perpetual elections, but the problem is NOT with minority government - its that our parties and politicians refuse to change the way they do things to grapple with the fact that minority gov't is not a fluke - its a common part of the system.  I have a few ideas for how we can avoid having elections all the time. Why not have fixed election dates but REAL fixed election dates. Make it IMPOSSIBLE for there ever to be an early election. If the government falls - then the GG MUST give the opposition a chance to government - anytime even if its two years into the term.   and if the opposition fails to form a government, then give the government a chance. That's how it works in many European countries - every possible combination of parties is given a chance to govern and early elections only ever happen as a last resort and after all the parties jointly tell the head of state that the country is ungovernable without new elections.  Funny how a system like that FORCES parries to cooperate instead of endless games of Russian roulette!

Because he wanted it restored to exactly the way it was. Nicely sentimental but a bit stupid in retrospect.

The fastest growth in Ontario has been the 905 belt which is a Liberal/Tory tossup.  The most heavily populated ridings in the country are ridings like Mississauga-Erindale, Brampton West and Oak Ridges. 

The NDP wouldn't come out well if more seats were added, but a fairer solution is abolition of FPTP not capping the number of seats.

It gets in the way of train schedules, all this democracy stuff. 

Harper's answer to "the west wants in".

What is the process in Nova Scotia? Does the ruling party arbitrarily design the electoral map and flagrantly gerrymander it - like the way it happens in the US - or is it an independent commission of demographers.

 I'm not saying that gerrymandering never happens at all - but sometimes completely neutral people can chnage electoral boundaries for valid reasons to do with keeping riding populations equal or respecting natural boundaries or municiapl or county lines - and it might coincidentally favour one party in a particular instance.

I remember in the last distribution the ridings of Danforth and Beaches-East York were going to be replaced by Beaches-Riverdale and East York ridings.  I think it was Dennis Mills who lobbied most heavily against it.

It is the worst kind of politicial elitism to demand that I should spend all this time considering who I should be governed by when I obviously have a life to live and work to do.

What if it makes no difference to me whether it is Harper, Ignatieff, Layton, or May who become Prime Minister? All these leaders have their pros and cons. Concepts of Democracy, Justice, Market Econometrics, Utilitarianism, and Environmentalism are more or less agreed upon across the political spectrum, and the differences and devils lie in the details. Ultimately I am the master of my own destiny and there is little a government is going to do to benefit me, no matter what its political stripe. It's not like manna is going to rain from heaven if someone is elected PM tomorrow.

One thing about a democracy is tolerance for a diversity of opinions. It is clear that certain members of this board have no tolerance for opinions other than their own. Those who want an election every year seem to be an elite political class who have very little respect for working people in this country who have other concerns, like how  to make ends meet in an economic downturn. While there is an election NOTHING GETS DONE TO BENEFIT ANY CLASS OF PEOPLE (except Elections Canada employees) . Where would be the stimulus package if we were in an election now?

The United States seems to manage on an election every 4 years, and so do many other countries.

As I said before I am suffering from election fatigue. I do not think I am the only one in this country who feels this way. I do not this this is an intolerant or ignorant viewpoint.

To call me anti-democratic for expressing a desire for stable government in this country is the worst form of intolerance and behaviour unbecoming of a participant in the democratic dialogue in this country.

Still, if some Party came up with a National Pharmacare program, I would vote for that, and probably even spend my free time canvassing for them in the next election.

Perhaps, this is a call for a Single Transferrable Vote where I can vote 1 2 3, and the winner is elected by a majority. Or maybe, it is a call for a run-off election with the same outcome. In either case, we would have a 'majority government' and hence a stable one.

Then we could get back to work.

I think the Conservatives like having elections because they think that eventually their financial advantage will get them a majority.  To them attack ads equal democracy and making Parliament dysfunctional is just part of a day's work.

An explanation is in order - especially given that your idea of stability seems to be to allow a powerful minority/plurality to ride roughshod over the values of the majority. 

Well, as I have said an STV or runoff election might guarantee a real majority. If an STV is good enough for a Conservative nomination and leadership contest, surely it is good enough for Canada as a whole.

I have also advocated for a 2-party system through a formalized Democratic Coalition in other places on this board. A 2-party system would mean a majority vote would mean a majority government even with our FPTP system.

Ultimately, there cannot be political stability if a minority gets to rule over a majority, as there will be too many complaints.

Nonethless, if there are 4 or even 5 parties running it is pretty well impossible for one to get over 50%, so it is reasonably assumed that a score somewhat to the north of 40% constitutes a 'majority mandate' which is reflected in the seat count.

In addition we have overlapping provincial governments which can act as a foil or a check on too much federal power.

Ummm....you are obviously confusing STV with PREFERENTIAL voting. STV is a form of proportional representation where there are multi-member ridings. It is used in Ireland and Malta and was almost passed into law in BC.

This is NOT the system the Tories (or the NDP) have used in nomination and leadership contests - that is the so-called Australian ballot where you rank all the candidates and it is like an instant run-off. I think this is prefereable to FPTP - but it does not guarantee majority government - it only means that in each individual riding, the winner has to get over 50%.