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.

[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

[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! )

[Hatman 🍁]

Here's Toronto:

[Hatman 🍁]

Here's Ottawa:

[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.

[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.

[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...

[Hatman 🍁]

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

[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.

[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.

How close would York Mills have been?

Probably not that close. More polls in the eastern half of the riding.

I'm also thinking of how the Downsview redraw would push the "York Centre" portion further in an NDP direction, now that it's part of a more NDP-favourable seat.  OTOH I can see East York pushing *away* from the NDP, now that the Prue factor's gone and w/Tabuns likely to stay southward...

I'd say, Prue comes back to run in York East and wins.

[Hatman 🍁]

So in other words, there isn't really a possibility to pack rich Tories into a riding without serious gerrymandering.

To be fair, my map did inadvertently split up any would-be Tory regions. I suppose you could make a fair map that has a Tory district somewhere in that area.

[Hatman 🍁]

How does one draw ridings?

That's such a vague question, could you be more specific?

[Hatman 🍁]

How does one draw ridings?

That's such a vague question, could you be more specific?

I mean, is there like a Canadian version of DRA?

Oh, no. We have geosearch, but you got to do the maths and maps by hand. It also hasn't been working lately.

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm bumping this because the Wynne government has opted to continue to use the federal boundaries for the next provincial election, while maintaining the extra seat in the North: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/ontario-will-match-most-federal-riding-changes-gets-15-new-electoral-districts

I expected this of course, but I'm still disappointed. Northern Ontario's map will likely continue to be the same, which was last drawn in 1996.

[Hatman 🍁]

Why can't Ontario have its own boundaries?

[Hatman 🍁]

Large ridings kills a lot of the localism in politics. Plus small ridings are more likely to produce funky results

There's that too.

[Hatman 🍁]

This is ridiculous. Northern Ontario is already over represented, it even still has one more seat than in federal elections.

Maybe it's time for devolution!