Canada: new apportionment formula?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 01:56:01 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Canada: new apportionment formula?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Canada: new apportionment formula?  (Read 2420 times)
Linus Van Pelt
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,144


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 02, 2010, 10:36:32 AM »

The Conservative government in Canada has introduced legislation to ensure equal representation for each province in the House of Commons, as opposed to the current system which has various grandfathering provisions that benefit slower-growing provinces at the expense of faster-growing provinces.

The media line seems to be that this would add 14 for Ontario, 4 for Alberta and 5 for B.C., though in typical media-innumerate fashion no-one seems to say whether this is what would have happened at the last reapportionment with the new formula or whether it's using projections for the 2011 census which will be the one before the legislation would take effect.

The Bloc will oppose; hopefully at least one (which is all that's needed) of the Liberals and NDP will support it, though this is no guarantee given the universal Canadian tendency for regional pandering.

PEI's 4 seats remain, since that's from a separate constitutional provision, as do the single member for each territory and the allowance that large northern districts within provinces can be a bit lower in population that the provincial average.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/01/seat-distribution-house-commons.html
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2010, 11:57:00 AM »

Surely it's in the interests of the NDP to support; most of their seats are in BC or Ontario (and extra seats in Alberta would shore them up in Edmonton-Strathcona). The Liberals would probably oppose though, given their weakness in BC and strength in Quebec and the Atlantic. The NDP has been pretty big on electoral reform generally, too.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 02, 2010, 12:28:53 PM »

I'd be pretty surprised if the NDP didn't support this.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2010, 01:06:53 PM »

If this formula provides a better representation of the population by increasing the number of seats, then it's fine.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2010, 12:47:17 AM »

FWIW, the optimal size of Parliament under the cube root rule is about 324 (for a population of about 34 million).  The new formula supposedly puts Parliament at about 338 seats, 14 seats over its optimal size under the cube root rule.  The old formula would put Parliament at about 315 seats (+/- a couple) - about 9 seats under the optimal size.  There are currently 308 seats in Parliament.

Every province other than Ontario, Alberta and B.C. benefit from the various grandfather clauses.  In 2001, the provinces of Atlantic Canada benefited more from the Senatorial Clause, which requires that each province have at least as many MPs as Senators.  In 2001, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and two Atlantic Canadian provinces (Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, IIRC) benefited from the grandfather clause that requires each province to have the same number of MPs as it did in 1985.  The new proposal would create a more equitable representation of Ontario, Alberta and B.C.  

The Bloc is opposes the bill because dilutes Quebec's strength.   The Liberals are in a tricky position - they might annoy some folks in Ontario if they oppose the bill.  Most of the new Ontario ridings would likely be in the 905 belt - usually a Liberal-Conservative battleground area.  The NDP seems to have nothing to lose from having more seats to potentially pick up in B.C. and urban Ontario.  

If it passes, the Conservatives may be able to get to a majority without making further inroads in Quebec.
Logged
DL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,403
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2010, 10:41:44 AM »

A new electoral map based on this bill will not come into effect for quite a long time. First the 2011 census has to take place. Then the results have to analysed, then Parliament has to strike redistribution commissions in each province full of demographers and experts who will take their sweet time in proposing new electoral boundaries. Then there will be hearings from coast to coast where everyone picks apart those boundaries and makes the case for changes, then parliament has to approve the new electoral map. I would conservatively estimate that the earliest a new map with the new seat distribution will come into effect will be late 2014 - if not later. It won't be in effect in the next election and it might not even be in effect for the election after the next one. 
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.214 seconds with 11 queries.