Ontario redistribution - my 170 seat proposal

[Hatman 🍁]

Let me know if there are visibility issues.

Before the next election, Ontario's riding boundaries will likely change. Probably to match the new federal riding boundaries. The problem is that Northern Ontario's ridings are based on the 1996 federal boundaries, while the rest of the province is based on the 2004 boundaries. In 2004, Northern Ontario lost a seat, but the provincial government didn't want to do that, so kept the Northern Ontario boundaries the same. If this happens again, these boundaries could exist for nearly 30 years!

For my proposal, I have increased the number of ridings in Southern Ontario to match the population average of the 11 Northern Ontario seats. This gives us 170. Northern Ontario doesn't lose any seats, while population equality is achieved.

Each riding is within 10% of the provincial quota of 75,599 (68,039-83,159). Interestingly, this is a similar riding size to Ontario's pre-1999 ridings. In many cases, I've gone with similar boundaries and similar names to that map.

Of course, I'd like to improve upon this map, so if anyone has any changes they'd like me to make to boundaries or names, please let me know. I can provide more details about each riding's population, and exact boundaries if necessary.

[King of Kensington]

I'm having "visibility issues."

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm having "visibility issues."

Try this link: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R8X01VWFrpU/U8BVdkOnKKI/AAAAAAAACQg/OA9p9g4OPF8/s1600/ontario+170+seat+proposal+-+labelled+blank.png

[canadian1]

Breathtaking! I share your apparent fondness for resurrecting old riding boundaries (and names--I'm delighted to see St. Andrew-St. Patrick making a comeback). I'm truly sorry  that such a large legislature would never fly politically--I have always believed Dalton Camp had the right idea back in the 70s.

In my view, the population inequality in Ontario's current riding map is constitutionally intolerable. My number one beef with the Wynne government was that they didn't try to adopt the (admittedly imperfect) new federal boundaries so voters in the June election could have at least roughly equal votes. But this solution, if by some miracle it were to be adopted, would be the best possible outcome. Congrats for undertaking all this work; a slightly more detailed map, though perhaps technically infeasible for you, would be even better!

[MaxQue]

Breathtaking! I share your apparent fondness for resurrecting old riding boundaries (and names--I'm delighted to see St. Andrew-St. Patrick making a comeback). I'm truly sorry  that such a large legislature would never fly politically--I have always believed Dalton Camp had the right idea back in the 70s.

In my view, the population inequality in Ontario's current riding map is constitutionally intolerable. My number one beef with the Wynne government was that they didn't try to adopt the (admittedly imperfect) new federal boundaries so voters in the June election could have at least roughly equal votes. But this solution, if by some miracle it were to be adopted, would be the best possible outcome. Congrats for undertaking all this work; a slightly more detailed map, though perhaps technically infeasible for you, would be even better!

It wouldn't have been legal and possibly not constitutionnal. A delay must be allowed to parties to do the needed changes to their internal organisation (riding associations, changing the riding of every member...). Usually, laws provide a 6 to 9 months period to do that.

[Hatman 🍁]

Breathtaking! I share your apparent fondness for resurrecting old riding boundaries (and names--I'm delighted to see St. Andrew-St. Patrick making a comeback). I'm truly sorry  that such a large legislature would never fly politically--I have always believed Dalton Camp had the right idea back in the 70s.

In my view, the population inequality in Ontario's current riding map is constitutionally intolerable. My number one beef with the Wynne government was that they didn't try to adopt the (admittedly imperfect) new federal boundaries so voters in the June election could have at least roughly equal votes. But this solution, if by some miracle it were to be adopted, would be the best possible outcome. Congrats for undertaking all this work; a slightly more detailed map, though perhaps technically infeasible for you, would be even better!

Thanks.

I can provide for more detailed maps, if there's anywhere in particular you're interested in. I'm also interested in suggestions on changes to my map where I've "got it wrong". If anyone has any... (maybe I did a perfect job! )

[canadian1]

I'd like to see a more detailed view of the ridings in Toronto, just so I can tell which streets you're using as boundaries. Ottawa would be great as well.

[Hatman 🍁]

Here's Toronto:

[Hatman 🍁]

Here's Ottawa:

[Linus Van Pelt]

Interesting map; nice work. I do have a couple of suggestions in Toronto.

First, I would swap some territory between High Park-Swansea and York South, with the area south of Magwood Park and St. Mark's Road going to High Park and the area north of the tracks in the Junction going to York South. I realize the old city of York had this southern tail, but the areas around the Old Mill and Baby Point are high-income with prewar housing, so the boundary is somewhat mismatched to the character of the area.

Second, I find the ridings of York Mills and Don Valley a bit awkward; both have high-income, mostly white areas in the west and diverse suburbia in the east. Does the population balance work out if you instead draw a north-south boundary along Leslie and then along the railway track where Leslie stops?

[Hatman 🍁]

Here is a summary of the York South / High Park-Swansea change:
Thanks, Linus.

Whenever someone makes a proposal, I will assess it, and make the change if I feel it is reasonable.

First proposed change:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Population of affected areas shown on the map. Red = original proposal; purple = new proposed boundaries.

York South:
Original population: 73,755
New population: 73,445

High Park-Swansea
Original population: 74,149
New population: 74,459

The population of both ridings do not change much in terms of population, and remain well within the 10% average variance. The proposed change makes for a more sensible boundary. The change is approved by the boundary commission. No names need to change for either riding.

[Hatman 🍁]

Second, I find the ridings of York Mills and Don Valley a bit awkward; both have high-income, mostly white areas in the west and diverse suburbia in the east. Does the population balance work out if you instead draw a north-south boundary along Leslie and then along the railway track where Leslie stops?

Proposal #2 is rejected based on population:

The western half (Don Valley West ?) would have a population of 48,716 (-35.6% bellow average). And the eastern half (Don Valley East or Don Mills ?) would have a population of 105,909 (+40.1% above average).

You'll have to move the border further east.

[lilTommy]

Here is a summary of the York South / High Park-Swansea change:
Thanks, Linus.

Whenever someone makes a proposal, I will assess it, and make the change if I feel it is reasonable.

First proposed change:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Population of affected areas shown on the map. Red = original proposal; purple = new proposed boundaries.

York South:
Original population: 73,755
New population: 73,445

High Park-Swansea
Original population: 74,149
New population: 74,459

The population of both ridings do not change much in terms of population, and remain well within the 10% average variance. The proposed change makes for a more sensible boundary. The change is approved by the boundary commission. No names need to change for either riding.

Politically speaking, this makes the new riding less NDP and possibly moves High Park-Swansea to the Liberals (this is assuming the NDP won it, which i'm not sure, the NDP did well in the junction, east of Runnymede North of Bloor and East of Parkside. North of the trackswhich is now being cut off were NDP polls).

Can you now, based on off the last election, indicate which party would have won which seats?

OK, my recommendation for change: what would a N-S alignment look like for Toronto's St.Andrew-St.Patrick and Fort York ridings? basically following an older riding map design pre-85 style and looking more like the municipal wards. (this might be much more work then i think so its ok if its denied)
BTW... I really think this is some amazing work Hatman!

[Hatman 🍁]

Sorry but...

Proposal number #3 is rejected

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A north south split could only be done on Spadina, which I don't think has much historical precedent. Fort York did not exist before 1985, and the western boundary of St. Andrew-St. Patrick was I believe was Bathurst, which is the present municipal ward boundary. The area west of the ward boundary (Fort York-Niagara ?) has a population of 33,132 which is -56.2% under the quotient. The remaining territory has a population of 120,096, which is 58.9% over the quotient.

If you would like to change the boundary to something else, let me know - but there has to be a community of interest argument.  Having a better north-south split on the lakefront is possible, but might require shifting neighbouring ridings as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too much work to do them all, but if you have any requests, I can look into it. High Park-Swansea definitely went Liberal. Looks like Parkdale probably went NDP.

[lilTommy]

Sorry but...

Proposal number #3 is rejected

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A north south split could only be done on Spadina, which I don't think has much historical precedent. Fort York did not exist before 1985, and the western boundary of St. Andrew-St. Patrick was I believe was Bathurst, which is the present municipal ward boundary. The area west of the ward boundary (Fort York-Niagara ?) has a population of 33,132 which is -56.2% under the quotient. The remaining territory has a population of 120,096, which is 58.9% over the quotient.

If you would like to change the boundary to something else, let me know - but there has to be a community of interest argument.  Having a better north-south split on the lakefront is possible, but might require shifting neighbouring ridings as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too much work to do them all, but if you have any requests, I can look into it. High Park-Swansea definitely went Liberal. Looks like Parkdale probably went NDP.

Thanks! I honestly have no idea how i would do a N-S split, and it would likely re-draw all of TO south of Midtown to accommodate it... curious as to how it would look.
Here's a though: move the western boundary of St. George-St. David to Bay, the Northern boundary will be Dupont, St.Andrew-St.Patrick western boundary would be Bathurst, the new Fort York-Trinity western boundary with Parkdale would shift to Ossington; This keeps Chinatown and Kensington in one riding. This bods back to the maps from the 60-70's I believe. But i think this makes Fort York-Trinity under quota?

OK; Just Toronto then party winners

[Hatman 🍁]

Thanks! I honestly have no idea how i would do a N-S split, and it would likely re-draw all of TO south of Midtown to accommodate it... curious as to how it would look.
Here's a though: move the western boundary of St. George-St. David to Bay, the Northern boundary will be Dupont, St.Andrew-St.Patrick western boundary would be Bathurst, the new Fort York-Trinity western boundary with Parkdale would shift to Ossington; This keeps Chinatown and Kensington in one riding. This bods back to the maps from the 60-70's I believe. But i think this makes Fort York-Trinity under quota?

OK; Just Toronto then party winners

I'm having trouble following here.

I can move St. George-St. David's western boundary to Bay Street. That would increase the riding's population to 111,827 though. Dupont ends at Avenue Road, and in any event moving the boundary northward would only make the riding even more over quota.

For St. Andrew-St. Patrick, moving the eastern border to Bay Street removed 29,447 people from the riding. Moving the western boundary east to Bathurst would lose 9,734 more people, leaving us with just 37,743 people.

Moving the northwestern boundary of Fort York to Ossington (Ossington ends and Queen, so the southwestern boundary remains at Dovercourt / Atlantic Ave.) adds 1,774 people to Fort York from Parkdale. This brings Parkdale down to 73,263 and Fort York up to 78,078. Both within the quotient. However, this change doesn't affect the Dundas St. boundary between Fort York and St. Andrew-St. Patrick which remains Dundas St, separating Kensington Market and Chinatown. Any reason why those communities need to be together?

As for riding winners, I can see what I can do...

[lilTommy]

Thanks! I honestly have no idea how i would do a N-S split, and it would likely re-draw all of TO south of Midtown to accommodate it... curious as to how it would look.
Here's a though: move the western boundary of St. George-St. David to Bay, the Northern boundary will be Dupont, St.Andrew-St.Patrick western boundary would be Bathurst, the new Fort York-Trinity western boundary with Parkdale would shift to Ossington; This keeps Chinatown and Kensington in one riding. This bods back to the maps from the 60-70's I believe. But i think this makes Fort York-Trinity under quota?

OK; Just Toronto then party winners

I'm having trouble following here.

I can move St. George-St. David's western boundary to Bay Street (or Yonge if SG-SD is too large). That would increase the riding's population to 111,827 though. Dupont ends at Avenue Road, and in any event moving the boundary northward would only make the riding even more over quota.

For St. Andrew-St. Patrick, moving the eastern border to Bay Street removed 29,447 people from the riding. Moving the western boundary east to Bathurst would lose 9,734 more people, leaving us with just 37,743 people.

Moving the northwestern boundary of Fort York to Ossington (Ossington ends and Queen, so the southwestern boundary remains at Dovercourt / Atlantic Ave.) adds 1,774 people to Fort York from Parkdale. This brings Parkdale down to 73,263 and Fort York up to 78,078. Both within the quotient. However, this change doesn't affect the Dundas St. boundary between Fort York and St. Andrew-St. Patrick which remains Dundas St, separating Kensington Market and Chinatown. Any reason why those communities need to be together?

As for riding winners, I can see what I can do...

Oh sorry, this would be my attempt at doing N_S orientation. So SA-SP would Have an eastern boundary of Bay(or Yonge if SG-SD is too large), Northern of Dupont to Avenue, then davenport follow to Bloor, Southern of the waterfront and Western as Bathurst?
Trinity-Fort York would be Eastern border Bathurst, Northern would be Dupont, Western boundary being Ossington (then as you have it) this is very similar to the wards.

[Hatman 🍁]

St. George-St. David with a western boundary of Yonge Street would still be too large, with a population of 91,011.

[King of Kensington]

Both within the quotient. However, this change doesn't affect the Dundas St. boundary between Fort York and St. Andrew-St. Patrick which remains Dundas St, separating Kensington Market and Chinatown. Any reason why those communities need to be together?

They're basically the same community.  Residentially Kensington is part of Chinatown.  Dundas isn't a north-south boundary between Kensington and Chinatown though, more of Chinatown is north of Dundas than south of it.

[lilTommy]

St. George-St. David with a western boundary of Yonge Street would still be too large, with a population of 91,011.

wow, SG-SD is dense!, ok keep it as is....

[lilTommy]

With some help from Hatman, I managed to draw out his TO ridings on the old Federal 2011 poll map. A much better result for the NDP had the city voted the way it had in 2011, 11 or 12 seats would have gone NDP

using http://www.election-atlas.ca/ont/ to see provincial party winner based on 2014 (polls are different) but the NDP would have won 3 maybe 4 - Riverdale, Parkdale, York East and maybe Scarborough Malvern. Yorkview is no longer a target as the NDPs best polling is now in Downsview.

[Hatman 🍁]

It's not noticeable on the federal map, but the Yorkview/Downsview border splits the NDP area up, actually. At least, how it voted provincially. I'll have to make a similar map with the provincial results...

FTR, the Yorkview-Downsview border follows the same border it did on the pre-1999 map.

Looks like on this map, York Mills and Wilson Heights would almost be safe Tory seats. Humber-Kingsway looks pretty Tory as well.

[Hatman 🍁]

Here it is on the provincial map:



Looks like the NDP would've won 3 seats, the Liberals would win the rest. Not sure about Scarborough-Malvern, though- but I speculate that it went Liberal.

[lilTommy]

Here it is on the provincial map:



Looks like the NDP would've won 3 seats, the Liberals would win the rest. Not sure about Scarborough-Malvern, though- but I speculate that it went Liberal.

Looks like Scarborough-Malvern would have been close, but I think your right, looks Liberal; Parkdale has less NDP strength then I thought. York Mills is pretty polarized as mentioned above, but would be one of the PC targets/best shots at a seat

If Yorkview and Downsview were re-drawn with an East-West alignment say along Sheppard, the Northern riding would be a much more favorable to the NDP... but were not gerrymandering

[King of Kensington]

Here it is on the provincial map:



Looks like the NDP would've won 3 seats, the Liberals would win the rest. Not sure about Scarborough-Malvern, though- but I speculate that it went Liberal.

How close would York Mills have been?