Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts 2012
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 01, 2024, 01:29:41 PM
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)
  Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts 2012
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 49
Author Topic: Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts 2012  (Read 179099 times)
Benj
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 979


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #925 on: May 05, 2013, 08:29:19 AM »

You kind of have to split up Prince George so that the rural seats aren't too huge. PG isn't dissimilar from the area around it anyways.

I don't mind huge, sprawling rural ridings. I think it would still be geographically smaller (and more unified) than Skeena-Bulkley Valley anyway. But I get your point.
Logged
Krago
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,087
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #926 on: May 05, 2013, 09:10:19 AM »


Much better. My only complaint is that you have split up the community of Springdale, and decided to call one riding Brampton-Springdale, a riding that only contains part of Springdale and is not a true successor to the current riding of Brampton-Springdale. A better name would perhaps be "Brampton-Gore-Sprindgdale".

You're absolutely right.  I can't imagine how anyone could name a riding 'Springdale' that only includes part of the community.

Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,032
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #927 on: May 05, 2013, 02:20:22 PM »


Much better. My only complaint is that you have split up the community of Springdale, and decided to call one riding Brampton-Springdale, a riding that only contains part of Springdale and is not a true successor to the current riding of Brampton-Springdale. A better name would perhaps be "Brampton-Gore-Sprindgdale".

You're absolutely right.  I can't imagine how anyone could name a riding 'Springdale' that only includes part of the community.


Touche. But at least with my map, my Brampton-Springdale is more similar to the current one than yours. And besides, my name suggestion for your riding still included the "Springdale" name. I just added "Gore" to it.
Logged
Krago
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,087
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #928 on: May 05, 2013, 09:18:49 PM »

Please let me know which option you prefer:

(1)  Alternative Brampton/Malton Option1

(2)  Alternative Brampton/Malton Option2

(3)  My original Brampton/Malton Scenario (Part of the 11-seat proposal)
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,032
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #929 on: May 05, 2013, 10:32:18 PM »

#1.
Logged
Krago
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,087
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #930 on: May 07, 2013, 07:05:42 AM »

The New Brunswick Commission has accepted all four recommendations from the Standing Committee.

Addendum -- Disposition of Objections 
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,032
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #931 on: May 07, 2013, 09:51:40 AM »

The New Brunswick Commission has accepted all four recommendations from the Standing Committee.

Addendum -- Disposition of Objections 

2 riding name changes from the current map:

Miramichi becomes Miramichi-Grand Lake
Saint John becomes Saint John-Rothesay
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,643
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #932 on: May 07, 2013, 02:20:23 PM »

Only a few objections made in Quebec, and most were related to names, including the infamous Saint-Léonard--Villeray which include none of Villeray.
Logged
Krago
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,087
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #933 on: May 08, 2013, 12:16:24 PM »
« Edited: May 08, 2013, 01:22:40 PM by Krago »

I listened to the presentations of Olivia Chow and Bob Rae to the House Committee yesterday.  (Hear it here.)  

Olivia was flogging the idea of splitting St. Paul's in half and creating a new Forest Hill-Rosedale seat, but that plan was dead on arrival.  

Bob was recommending the sensible plan of extending Toronto Centre south to the Gardiner, rather than using Front St and dividing the St. Lawrence neighbourhood.  However, his changes would add a net 5,515 people to Toronto Centre, and push Fort York-Spadina below the magical 25% deviation from the provincial quotient.  (The lower limit is 79,661 and Rae's new FYS would have only 76,965 people).  I seriously doubt the Commission would go along with it - Downtown Toronto is NOT Kenora.
Logged
lilTommy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,821


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #934 on: May 08, 2013, 02:13:22 PM »

I listened to the presentations of Olivia Chow and Bob Rae to the House Committee yesterday.  (Hear it here.)  

Olivia was flogging the idea of splitting St. Paul's in half and creating a new Forest Hill-Rosedale seat, but that plan was dead on arrival.  

Bob was recommending the sensible plan of extending Toronto Centre south to the Gardiner, rather than using Front St and dividing the St. Lawrence neighbourhood.  However, his changes would add a net 5,515 people to Toronto Centre, and push Fort York-Spadina below the magical 25% deviation from the provincial quotient.  (The lower limit is 79,661 and Rae's new FYS would have only 76,965 people).  I seriously doubt the Commission would go along with it - Downtown Toronto is NOT Kenora.

Really Olivia? a Rosedale-Mount Pleasant riding would make more sense (so splitting St.Paul's along say Yonge street would be a good idea). Frankly anything might be better then the University-Rosedale riding, which "looks" blatantly like a gerrymandered Liberal riding.

Hmmm but unlike Kenora FYS is and will be a fast growing riding, and could make up the difference in 10yrs for sure, would be at quotient by the next redistribution for sure though.
Logged
Wilfred Day
Rookie
**
Posts: 154
Canada
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #935 on: May 09, 2013, 02:51:27 AM »

That was a remarkable performance Dean Del Mastro put on Tuesday on Parliament Hill, on the new federal riding boundaries.

First, he gave a huge song and dance about Otonabee-South Monaghan and Asphodel-Norwood not wanting to share a riding with Northumberland.

Then he advocated that they be in a Northumberland-South Peterborough riding, and that Havelock-Belmont-Methuen join them as well. Some members of the parliamentary committee were confused. What are you proposing, they asked, your first idea or your second idea? The second one, he clarified.

Why? To make up the numbers so the former Clarke Township can be in Durham riding, rather than in Northumberland-Pine Ridge as the Boundaries Commission has decided.

Why? So that Durham riding can transfer a lot of people in North Oshawa to the Oshawa riding, bumping it all the way up to 24.5% over quotient, almost at the legal maximum of 25%.

Why? To stuff as many Conservative voters as possible into the new Oshawa riding, for fear the NDP might win it in 2015.

I hope the good folks in Havelock, Norwood, and Otonabee-South Monaghan appreciate the sacrifice Dean Del Mastro has made on their behalf, to save Canada from an NDP candidate winning in Oshawa.

Of course, they could have had a say on this issue, if Del Mastro and the other four Conservative MPs supporting this plan had proposed it at the public hearings last fall. No, last fall Durham Region said they had too many people for five ridings, and wanted six.  Now, too late for anyone to object, five Conservative MPs propose shoe-horning them all into five over-sized ridings.

Will the Commission buy this? Stay tuned.

The five MPs propose:
Northumberland—South Peterborough: 97,712 (8.0% under quotient)
Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock: 108,975 (2.6% over quotient)
Peterborough: 111,953 (5.4% over quotient)
Durham: 123,660 (16.43% over quotient) (up from Commission's 115,395): Clarington 84,548, Scugog 21,569, Scugog Island IR 93, 17,450 in Oshawa.
Oshawa: 132,157 (up 6,386 from Commission's 125,771): 24.43% over quotient.
Quotient: 106,213
Logged
Krago
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,087
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #936 on: May 09, 2013, 11:57:21 AM »

The area being proposed to be added to Oshawa riding (Conlin to Taunton, Whitby border to Ritson) voted Cons 57%, NDP 30%, Lib 9%, Green 4% in the last federal election.

I used to live in that area thirty years ago.  There was a tank (military, not septic) on the NE corner of Simcoe and Glovers.
Logged
Krago
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,087
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #937 on: May 10, 2013, 08:21:01 AM »
« Edited: May 10, 2013, 08:57:49 AM by Krago »

An interesting comparison:
  • Mississauga - 6 seats - 713,443 pop. - 118,907 avg.
  • Scarborough - 6 seats - 625,698 pop. - 104,283 avg.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,032
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #938 on: May 10, 2013, 10:17:28 AM »

An interesting comparison:
  • Mississauga - 6 seats - 713,443 pop. - 118,907 avg.
  • Scarborough - 6 seats - 625,698 pop. - 104,283 avg.

You can come up with a lot of those, for sure. Northern Ontario has a similar population to Mississauga and has 9 seats, so...
Logged
Wilfred Day
Rookie
**
Posts: 154
Canada
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #939 on: May 11, 2013, 10:11:50 PM »
« Edited: May 12, 2013, 01:24:01 AM by Wilfred Day »

An interesting comparison:
  • Mississauga - 6 seats - 713,443 pop. - 118,907 avg.
  • Scarborough - 6 seats - 625,698 pop. - 104,283 avg.
Windsor-Essex - 3 seats - 354,978 pop. - 118,326 avg.
London - 3 seats - 356,833 pop. - 118,944 avg.

And in between:
Chatham-Kent—Leamington 111,866
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex 105,919
Sarnia—Lambton 106,293
Elgin—Middlesex—London 110,109

Total - 10 seats - 1,145,998 - divided by quota of 106,213 - 10.79 quotas. This is the region that got robbed.
Logged
Krago
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,087
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #940 on: May 12, 2013, 11:02:17 PM »

The Tory members in Niagara Region complained about the huge population imbalance between Niagara West (86,533) and Niagara Falls (128,357).  Their plan was to go back to the Commissions' original proposal to link Fort Erie with Welland, and include Thorold with Niagara West.

There is another alternative that would reduce the imbalance without touching Niagara Centre.  There are 12,229 people that live in St. Catharines riding (from the January report) west of Twelve Mile Creek/Martindale Pond, and an additional 15,400 population in Niagara-on-the-Lake.  By moving St. Catharines riding eastward, this would leave the populations as:
  • Niagara West:  86,533 + 12,229 = 98,762
  • St. Catharines:  110,596 - 12,229 + 15,400 = 113,767
  • Niagara Falls: 128,357 - 15,400 = 112,957
Logged
Krago
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,087
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #941 on: May 13, 2013, 04:00:28 PM »

The Northern Ontario hearing was unusual.

Charlie Angus and Jay Aspin were in complete agreement on returning the riding boundary around Temiskaming Shores to the existing position.  I guess when you win your seat by 18 votes, riding boundaries REALLY matter.

Brian Hayes and Carol Hughes sounded as if they were opposed to each other, but actually supported maintaining the current border between their two ridings.  However, Hughes recognized that the Commission is firmly opposed to making Algoma--Manitoulin--Kapuskasing an exceptional riding, whereas Hayes felt that a recommendation from the Standing Committee would change the Commissioners' minds.  The key problem is that nobody wants to be part of AMK: not Bruce Mines, not Hilton Beach, not Lively, not Manitouwadge, and not even Hearst and Kapuskasing (until Hughes slapped them back into line.)

The Tory MPs took great delight in attacking Hughes and Angus over the 'inappropriate involvement' mentioned in the Ontario Commission's Report.  This was probably in retaliation for Craig Scott's constant harping over accusations of bias and gerrymandering levelled by Conservative and Liberal MPs against some Commissions, in particular the Saskatchewan MPs and Jimmy Karygiannis.
Logged
Krago
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,087
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #942 on: May 13, 2013, 04:06:38 PM »

Some Quebec MPs suggested changes to ridings south of Quebec City, specifically to keep Maxime Bernier's Beauce fiefdom exactly how he likes it.  Here is an alternative plan that does a better job in balancing the populations while notionally flipping one seat (Lévis--Lotbinière-Nord) from the Conservatives to the NDP.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,643
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #943 on: May 13, 2013, 05:47:34 PM »

Well, I don't like Maxime Bernier, but he is right. Beauce is Beauce and they are VERY regionalist. Don't try to split them.

And Saint-Lambert-de-Lauzon is usually considered as a Lévis suburb, not a part of Beauce.

And the idea of putting Les Etchemins with the east is wierd. Land division and roads are perpendicular to the St. Lawrence in that area, so it's quite non-sensical to propose that. Anyways, Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup is big enough.

For other quebec proposals, I don't now Ahuntsic and Cartierville enough to comment, Mattawan is obviously going into Joliette and Suroît is a really fine name.

For Timiskaming Shores, I already went there and it would be wierd to remove the surrounding farmland (canola, if I remember well) to put it in a rural, remote and mining area.
Logged
Wilfred Day
Rookie
**
Posts: 154
Canada
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #944 on: May 14, 2013, 02:45:22 PM »
« Edited: May 14, 2013, 02:47:03 PM by Wilfred Day »

The key problem is that nobody wants to be part of AMK: not Bruce Mines, not Hilton Beach, not Lively, not Manitouwadge, and not even Hearst and Kapuskasing (until Hughes slapped them back into line.)
The other underlying problem is the Sudbury region has 181,572 residents (2011 census), which is 1.71 quotas. Adding the francophone community of West Nipissing with 14,149 residents which is always part of Nickel Belt, you have 195,721 residents, 1.84 quotas. But the nine northern ridings (not counting Parry Sound--Muskoka) have only 740,752 residents (not counting a large number of uncounted reserves). Removing Kenora as exceptional, the other eight ridings have 684,775 residents, for a "northern quota" of 85,596. That gives Sudbury-Nickel Belt 2.29 "northern quotas." They needed to put about 24,500 Sudbury residents (bigger than Manitoulin's 13,048)into an Algoma--Sudbury West--Manitoulin riding. Since Manitoulin goes with Sudbury for almost all purposes (Social Services, School Board, Health Unit, Children's Aid, paramedics, you name it) this makes a lot of sense. But the Commission has made Sudbury 92,048, and Nickel Belt 90,962, not leaving enough for AMK. If you had 24,500 Sudbury residents, Manitoulin's 13,048, and Algoma's 27,001 outside the present Sault Ste. Marie riding, you have 64,549. You need another 15,111 to be within the 25% limit. Take 6,817 from Sault Ste. Marie as the Commission has. The Commission decided not to add Manitouwadge, Pic Mobert North, and area (2,597?) as the last Commission did. So it had to keep some of the west of Cochrane.

 
Logged
Krago
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,087
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #945 on: May 14, 2013, 03:14:42 PM »
« Edited: May 14, 2013, 03:30:18 PM by Krago »

Adding the francophone community of West Nipissing with 14,149 residents which is always part of Nickel Belt,  

... since 2004 federally and not since God Knows When provincially.
Logged
toaster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 357
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #946 on: May 15, 2013, 10:42:57 AM »

Algoma-Manitoulin-Kap is one of the most unique ridings in the country.  It's fascinating to me that communities do not want to belong to that riding.  Like Carol Hughes has said, if you want to be in a riding with a large urban centre, they will get most of the attention. 
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,643
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #947 on: May 15, 2013, 11:57:53 AM »

Algoma-Manitoulin-Kap is one of the most unique ridings in the country.  It's fascinating to me that communities do not want to belong to that riding.  Like Carol Hughes has said, if you want to be in a riding with a large urban centre, they will get most of the attention. 

Well, Kapuskasing is along another road (11) than the rest of the riding (17). Bruce Mines (have family there) prefer to be linked with nearby Sault Ste. Marie than with a vague rural area streching from distant Manitoulin Island to very distant Hearst.
Logged
toaster
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 357
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #948 on: May 17, 2013, 11:55:42 AM »

Algoma-Manitoulin-Kap is one of the most unique ridings in the country.  It's fascinating to me that communities do not want to belong to that riding.  Like Carol Hughes has said, if you want to be in a riding with a large urban centre, they will get most of the attention. 

Well, Kapuskasing is along another road (11) than the rest of the riding (17). Bruce Mines (have family there) prefer to be linked with nearby Sault Ste. Marie than with a vague rural area streching from distant Manitoulin Island to very distant Hearst.
But they are a rural community, and should be paired with the others to keep population numbers in line.  It's that small town mentality of being connected to a community to feel better about themselves.  "We're basically part of the Soo, which has 75k people", "We're not like those other rural towns, we're part of the Soo", or something along those lines.  The problem is the connection is not reciprocated.
Logged
Krago
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,087
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #949 on: May 23, 2013, 08:47:19 AM »

The Final Final Alberta Report is now out.  There are three minor boundary changes (Ponoka County, NE Calgary and Hillspring/Glenwood) and one name change: Edmonton Callingwood is renamed Edmonton West.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 [38] 39 40 41 42 43 ... 49  
« 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 0.07 seconds with 11 queries.