Redistribution of Federal Electoral Districts 2012

[canadian1]

I understand the number of ridings were based on 2011 population estimates, not the 2011 Census Data as before.

Using Census Data
Ontario wil get 116 seats not 121
Alberta 33 not 34
BC 40 not 41
Quebec and the other provinces will remain the same.

1st Column Census Number, 2nd Column 2011 Estimates

Newfoundland and Labrador   514,536   510,578
Prince Edward Island    140,204   145,855
Nova Scotia       921,727   945,437
New Brunswick   751,171   755,455
Quebec †   7,903,001   7,979,663
Ontario †   12,851,821   13,372,996
Manitoba †   1,208,268   1,250,574
Saskatchewan †   1,033,381   1,057,884
Alberta †   3,645,257   3,779,353
British Columbia †   4,400,057   4,573,321

The number of seats per province is still the same as it was before. The new statute provides that the allocation of ridings among provinces is governed by the population estimates, while the allocation of ridings within provinces is governed by the census data. Therefore, the number of ridings for each province is as follows (accompanied by each provincial average)--

ON- 121/106,213
QC- 78/101,321
BC- 42/104,763
AB- 34/107,213
MB- 14/86,305
SK- 14/73,813
NS- 11/83,793
NB- 10/75,117
NL- 7/73,505
PEI- 4/35,051

For once, I actually appreciate the legislative efforts of the Conservative government. This state of affairs, in my opinion, is much more equitable than it would have been without the recent legal changes. It is very weird, however, to be using two different sets of numbers at different points in the redistricting process.

When it comes to the appointment of the actual commissions, I'm worried-- this government doesn't have a very good track record when it comes to appointing qualified and non-partisan candidates to quasi-judicial bodies. This is certainly a big concern in provinces like Saskatchewan (not that I think the rurban ridings are as pernicious an evil as most people here feel).

[canadian1]

I think it makes a lot of sense. There are actually no road or marine transportation links along the south coast of Newfoundland, so the Random-Burin-St. George's riding really had to go. (It linked far-flung communities with little or no connection apart from the fishing industry, and the whole south coast is very underpopulated). The new vertical slices contain much better road connections from what I see. The Avalon peninsula is handled sensibly, compensating for growth in St. John's East.

My one disagreement is the vastly underpopulated Labrador riding, but it's been that way since the 80's. It is strange that the largest riding by population (Long Range Mountains, 19% above average) is geographically so large, but I can't see any way to reduce its population that wouldn't create headaches. Its population is also in sharp decline, so that should even out.

Long Range Mountains is a good name in my opinion--what's so strange about it? On the other hand, Bay d'Espoir-Central-Notre Dame is way too cumbersome a name for me. I'd prefer Gander-Grand Falls like it used to be (the south coast doesn't have that many people).

All in all a good report.

[canadian1]

Ok, well Avalon has become a safe Conservative seat. The area it lost along Trinity Bay is quite Liberal and the area it gains is NDP now, but without Jack Harris on the ballot will vote Tory
 

I'm not so sure it's safe--western Conception Bay South votes Liberal in Avalon, so some of those "Harris Tory" voters you mention may actually be "Scott Andrews Tories" as well (assuming CBS is fairly demographically/politically consistent). Still, you're right about Trinity Bay. Adding it to traditionally-Tory Placentia and Conception Bay South was the only reason the Grits could win in this region, and Manning has to be the favourite if he deigns to run again.

The two other St. John's seats don't change all that much and should stick with their Dipper incumbents. Ditto for the Libs in rural Newfoundland (minus the "not much change" part).

Labrador is interesting, but not because of boundary changes (there weren't any).

To the point about the highway--at least there is a highway! The RBSG riding became obsolete the moment they scrapped much of the ferry service all along the south coast (to the Burin peninsula). I'm simply not convinced that Stephenville and Clarenville, connected by no direct highways or boats, ought to be in the same riding any longer given the large geographical disparity between the two. Vertical slices have the twin advantages of compactness and convenience for voters and their representatives.

[canadian1]

These proposals are way too cautious. It's really what Americans might call a "least-change map"; there was no attempt to change the structure of the current ridings. A shame, really, because there are several alternative arrangements that might work better.

The Fredericton riding looks quite bizarre with territory being removed in a piecemeal way. Better to leave all of those split parishes to the east in the same riding. It's also worth bearing in mind that Fredericton is growing quite quickly.

The decision re Miramichi strikes me as a bow to political correctness. The notion that any riding in New Brunswick could possibly deserve "extraordinary" status is risible, and the "community of interest" along the southeastern shoreline isn't strong enough to justify having two adjacent ridings with such wildly divergent populations. I would venture to say that the only reason this was done was to avoid inflaming linguistic tensions amongst the public, which is too weak a rationale for this decision. It's especially weird in light of the fact that you would only have to move approximately 3000 people to comply with the statute--3000 people who were, between 1997 and 2004, constituents of the Miramichi riding.

Remember that last time, when the court intervened, the new Miramichi riding it created was still within the 25% variance (22% below)--that's why the commission's decision to enlarge it northwards was deemed unreasonable. This is the first time Miramichi has been deemed  an "extraordinary circumstance", and I don't think it qualifies for that status.

On the topic of names, I hate "Tobique-Saint John River Valley"; it's way too long. Why not just "Saint John River"? I also don't understand why "Fundy Royal" is changing to "Fundy-Quispamsis", as the current riding includes most of Quispamsis. ("Fundy Royal" should, however, have a dash, as it used to).

Why is the town of Riverview still split in two? I don't see a compelling reason why it shouldn't all be in the same riding (with Moncton). The split was only done last time for population reasons, which no longer apply due to the removal of Dieppe.

In the last commission's final report, there was a dissent regarding Saint John. One of the members wanted to split Saint John in two and make two rurban ridings and one rural one. I'm not a fan of rurban ridings in general, but I think New Brunswick Southwest is a geographically incoherent constituency. At the end of the day, the suggestion made in that dissent strikes me as more workable than this.

Overall, not a very ballsy performance; the commission comes across as timid and afraid to make bold suggestions. It's worth remembering that the more significant the proposed changes, the greater variety of public input you'll get. I'll be surprised if this report generates much public interest.

[canadian1]

DL--I don't see the big problem with the Vancouver boundaries--could you specify?

I agree with Foucaulf that the city of Delta is too fragmented to form a cohesive riding, but I'm not convinced I see a strong alternative. Keeping the existing division between north and south creates excess people that have to be jammed into ridings in Richmond and Surrey, throwing everything else off-kilter and probably causing other ridings to cross municipal boundaries. That still might be preferable--I'll defer to BCers on that score.

I'm not a fan of the way this map divides up the Kootenay region (which I happen to know relatively well). The West Kootenay is being carved up in an arbitrary manner that isn't likely to be popular with residents. It's also true that the addition of Penticton will badly weaken the NDP in that riding--perhaps fatally. On the other hand, the transfer of Nelson may give that party a chance at taking Kootenay-Columbia, which is largely NDP turf provincially already.

I thought the Island was handled very well. Anybody see anything weird there?

The Fraser Valley has become chaotic, with Port Coquitlam and Maple Ridge being jammed together, a new constituency crossing the river, and the Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon riding moving north into the Cariboo. That's a difficult area to redistrict, though.

As for Burnaby-Seymour, it's really a necessity. A few months ago, the Babble website featured one user's attempt to redistrict the province without crossing the Burrard Inlet. The results weren't pretty; he ended up with a riding joining little bits of Powell River and central Vancouver Island, along with a number of other anomalies that were certainly more significant than the relatively minor inconvenience of joining Burnaby and North Vancouver.

Nanaimo-Alberni should be renamed Parksville-Alberni, as it no longer includes all that much of Nanaimo itself. WVSCSTSC is way too long a name and must be scrapped. "Vancouver Quadra" has always been a puzzling name; does anyone know what it refers to? (Quadra Island is miles away).

Besides that, I don't see much to criticize.