Canadian Redistribution - Federal, Provincial, Municipal

[Krago]

I have added Hatman's suggestions to my Alberta Google map.

https://goo.gl/DcCPF0

[136or142]

I have added Hatman's suggestions to my Alberta Google map.

https://goo.gl/DcCPF0

Those northern ridings would be huge!

[lilTommy]

I have added Hatman's suggestions to my Alberta Google map.

https://goo.gl/DcCPF0

Those northern ridings would be huge!

I don't think that's any different from any other Provinces Northern ridings, like in SK or MAN. Even then Peace River, as it is here only has 40K, the smallest population.

Does the Alberta Electoral commission "protect" or allow for greater variances in the North? (like ON where they had set a minimum and now are adding more due to their size)

[Njall]

I have added Hatman's suggestions to my Alberta Google map.

https://goo.gl/DcCPF0

Those northern ridings would be huge!

I don't think that's any different from any other Provinces Northern ridings, like in SK or MAN. Even then Peace River, as it is here only has 40K, the smallest population.

Does the Alberta Electoral commission "protect" or allow for greater variances in the North? (like ON where they had set a minimum and now are adding more due to their size)

The Northern ridings aren't protected. There is, however, a provision for greater variances that isn't specifically enacted for the North, although both ridings that currently exist under this provision happen to be remote Northern ridings. Essentially, under normal circumstances, ridings in Alberta must be within 25% above or below the provincial average. However, up to 4 ridings can be designated as being allowed to have a population as low as 50% below the provincial average. To be eligible for this designation, the riding in question must meet at least 3 of the following criteria:

1. The riding's area must exceed 20,000 square kilometres
2. The nearest boundary point of the riding along the most direct highway must be at least 150 km from the Legislature Building
3. No town can exist in the riding with a population greater than 8,000
4. The riding must contain a First Nations reserve or Metis settlement
5. A portion of the riding boundary must be coterminous with the boundary of Alberta

As mentioned, two ridings currently have populations below 25% of the provincial average under this designation. They are: Dunvegan-Central Peace-Notley and Lesser Slave Lake.

It's important to keep in mind that some of the Northern ridings can be deceptively big, and have much of their population within a decently-sized urban area. For example, two of the ridings that appear to be among the largest are Fort McMurray-Conklin and Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo, but 90%+ of each riding's population is within Fort McMurray itself. A similar concept applies to Grande Prairie-Smoky and Grande Prairie-Wapiti, although the rural areas of each are more populated.

I should note that it's somewhat likely that this boundaries commission may recommend that all four greater variances designations be used this time around. In reading the transcripts from the public hearings so far, it's been suggested that that designation be pre-emptively applied to the ridings of West Yellowhead and Drumheller-Stettler. Neither riding is below the -25% point yet, but they're getting close to the mark, and it's felt amongst local residents and politicians that the ridings can't feasibly grow much more.

[Krago]

In reading the transcripts from the public hearings so far, it's been suggested that that designation be pre-emptively applied to the ridings of West Yellowhead and Drumheller-Stettler. Neither riding is below the -25% point yet, but they're getting close to the mark, and it's felt amongst local residents and politicians that the ridings can't feasibly grow much more.

That's the sort of thing that local residents and politicians say at every boundaries hearing in every jurisdiction everywhere at all times, past present and future.  That being said, I think my solution to growing those two electoral divisions isn't too bad.

Any other comments about my maps?  I like Hatman's suggestion to use the North Saskatchewan River across the entire city of Edmonton, even though it would require splitting four existing ridings in half and rearranging them.  Which option do you prefer for Calgary-Klein/Mountain View?

Rep-by-pop was popular among Alberta's NDs when it involved taking away die-hard Tory strongholds in southern Alberta to add new seats to Edmonton.  Now that it results in replacing NDP ridings in Northern Alberta with suburban Calgary seats, they have mixed feelings.

[Njall]

In reading the transcripts from the public hearings so far, it's been suggested that that designation be pre-emptively applied to the ridings of West Yellowhead and Drumheller-Stettler. Neither riding is below the -25% point yet, but they're getting close to the mark, and it's felt amongst local residents and politicians that the ridings can't feasibly grow much more.

That's the sort of thing that local residents and politicians say at every boundaries hearing in every jurisdiction everywhere at all times, past present and future.  That being said, I think my solution to growing those two electoral divisions isn't too bad.

Any other comments about my maps?  I like Hatman's suggestion to use the North Saskatchewan River across the entire city of Edmonton, even though it would require splitting four existing ridings in half and rearranging them.  Which option do you prefer for Calgary-Klein/Mountain View?

Rep-by-pop was popular among Alberta's NDs when it involved taking away die-hard Tory strongholds in southern Alberta to add new seats to Edmonton.  Now that it results in replacing NDP ridings in Northern Alberta with suburban Calgary seats, they have mixed feelings.

The suggestion of using the river for those ridings in Southwest Edmonton is certainly an interesting one. At first glance I wasn't a super big fan, as I tend to favour fewer deviations from existing boundaries where possible. Upon further reflection, using the river as a boundary started to make more sense,in part because (if I recall correctly) the river is also the main boundary indicator in that area for federal and municipal districts. I just wish that it wasn't as much of a tradeoff between either crossing the river or crossing the Anthony Henday.

Aside from that, my only comment pertaining to Edmonton is that I would have preferred to see part of St. Albert continue to be adjoined to Edmonton instead of Sturgeon County.

Calgary-wise, the second iteration of Mountain View and Klein is definitely more aesthetically-pleasing. Either way though, Klein would be an awkward constituency to represent. I tend not to like ridings that cross Deerfoot, at least in the north. Anyone who's lived in Calgary could attest to the fact that Bridgeland and Renfew are very different creatures than communities like Vista Heights and Southview. But anything to address that would require less-strict adherence to the average population.

Other notes for Calgary:

• I tend to not like splitting communities between ridings. I understand why Southwood and Monterey Park as split like they are, but it doesn't make sense in my mind to split part of Panorama Hills off from the rest of the Northern Hills area
• The name 'Calgary-Foothills' actually has more attachment to the area that you have labelled as 'Calgary-Kwong.' As an alternative to what you currently have labelled as 'Calgary-Foothills,' I would suggest 'Calgary-Symons Valley,' as the five communities north of Stoney Trail are covered by the Symons Valley Area Structure Plan, and the two major roadways in the area have the Symons Valley label
• I'm still not a fan of Calgary-based urban-rural hybrid ridings. Again, I understand why you essentially have to use one, but Cranston, Chaparral, Walden, and Legacy have very little in common with the M.D. of Foothills. Further, I'd say that Cranston has much more in common with the other communities to the east of the Bow River than with Chaparral, Walden, and Legacy to the west
• I like the inclusion of Inglewood, Ramsay, and the East Village with the rest of Downtown; I forget whether that had happened or not on your earlier map

Aside from those it looks pretty good, and I'm not sure what you could fix while staying within the population numbers that you're shooting for.

[Hatman 🍁]

Yeah, my problem with Calgary-Klein was that it crossed the Deerfoot. Krago's fix did not address that issue. I know fixing the problem would create a domino effect in other ridings, but I think it would be nice to see what it would look like.

[Krago]

I have added three more alternative ridings to my map.

https://goo.gl/DcCPF0

Two seats (Calgary-Mackay and Calgary-Northern Hills) have equal populations, no communities are divided, and they aren't any more bizarre-looking than the existing Calgary-Mackay-Nose Hill.

The numbers don't let me use Deerfoot Trail as a boundary all the way from the Bow River north to the city limits, but I did manage to rescue the Southview community by adding it to Calgary-Forest Lawn.  Calgary-Mountain View used to extend east to Barlow Trail, so this is like the good 'ol days.  MAKE MOUNTAIN VIEW GREAT AGAIN!

I've returned the name Calgary-Foothills to the riding that covers most of the current electoral division.  The new seat of Calgary-De Winton has been re-christened Calgary-Kwong, so that Normie can hang out with his old football buddy Peter Lougheed.


P.S. Which configuration do you prefer for the three seats in the Fort Saskatchewan-Lac La Biche-Lloydminster triangle?  Regular or extra-crispy?

[Hatman 🍁]

The new Calgary split in the north makes the baby Jesus cry

[Njall]

I have added three more alternative ridings to my map.

https://goo.gl/DcCPF0

Two seats (Calgary-Mackay and Calgary-Northern Hills) have equal populations, no communities are divided, and they aren't any more bizarre-looking than the existing Calgary-Mackay-Nose Hill.

The numbers don't let me use Deerfoot Trail as a boundary all the way from the Bow River north to the city limits, but I did manage to rescue the Southview community by adding it to Calgary-Forest Lawn.  Calgary-Mountain View used to extend east to Barlow Trail, so this is like the good 'ol days.  MAKE MOUNTAIN VIEW GREAT AGAIN!

I've returned the name Calgary-Foothills to the riding that covers most of the current electoral division.  The new seat of Calgary-De Winton has been re-christened Calgary-Kwong, so that Normie can hang out with his old football buddy Peter Lougheed.


P.S. Which configuration do you prefer for the three seats in the Fort Saskatchewan-Lac La Biche-Lloydminster triangle?  Regular or extra-crispy?

The new North Calgary split is, um...interesting But you're right, it's no odder than Calgary-Mackay-Nose Hill, which couldn't exist if it wasn't for such a "creative" use of industrial land.

For FS-LLB-Lloyd, I prefer the alternative to the original.

[Njall]

I was playing around with community population data from the 2016 Calgary Municipal Census, and I came up with a Calgary-specific redistricting proposal. For this proposal, I've assumed that Calgary will gain an additional riding (to end up with 26 in total). As much as possible, I've attempted to create these proposed ridings while keeping community boundaries intact, and I ended up only having to split two communities: Hidden Valley (which is bisected by Beddington Trail) and Richmond (which is bisected by Crowchild Trail).

Although I wasn't striving to perfectly equalize the populations in each district, I wanted to keep them within a reasonable deviation from the provincial and citywide mean populations. I believe that the populations all ended up being within plus/minus 10% of the citywide mean, which translates to a rough range of +12% to -7% from the provincial mean, since the average size of a Calgary district will be slightly larger than the average size of a district in Edmonton or rural Alberta.

I should also note that my population figures will be slightly off what the Commission would calculate if they adopted this map in its entirety. The Municipal Census was conducted around the same time as the Federal Census, and their citywide population numbers diverge slightly (there's about a 4,000 person difference between them). I also had to estimate based on dissemination block-level data from the federal census whenever a community was split between two ridings as to how much of the population went to each riding.

Anyways, here's the map: goo.gl/2emkYZ

[Krago]

Excellent map (or should I say, Freedom map?)

What about swapping Glamorgan for Bankview and Richmond?  It would follow the existing provincial boundaries more closely.

[Njall]

Excellent map (or should I say, Freedom map?)

What about swapping Glamorgan for Bankview and Richmond?  It would follow the existing provincial boundaries more closely.

That could certainly work, and it would barely impact the population balance between the two ridings. I shaped them the way that I did in part because I tend to think of Glamorgan having more in common with Glenbrook and Glendale, but if this were to be proposed in actuality I would certainly change it if community feedback suggested that Glamorgan, Richmond, and Bankview wanted to be included with their old ridings.

[Njall]

Quick update: the Electoral Boundaries Commission was in Calgary for public hearing today, so I decided to head on over and show them my proposal for Calgary. I wasn't registered to speak, but they let me present regardless, so we'll see where that goes. But at face value, they seemed pretty impressed. That is all.

[Krago]

I know you have all been waiting patiently for my PEI proposal.

Well, here it is:  https://goo.gl/TXSu6Z

All proposed electoral districts are within 10% of the provincial average (5,293), with the exception of Tignish-Miminegash.

[Krago]

Has anyone heard about a boundaries commission publishing sample maps before its initial report?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-electoral-boundaries-population-1.3997529

https://www.electoralboundaries.pe.ca/sample-maps

[Krago]

A bit off topic, but here's my plan to redraw the ward boundaries in my hometown - Guelph - using the 2016 Census figures.

City Council has already finalized the boundaries for the 2018 municipal election.

[Poirot]

Has anyone heard about a boundaries commission publishing sample maps before its initial report?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-electoral-boundaries-population-1.3997529

https://www.electoralboundaries.pe.ca/sample-maps

The maps are for discussion but they say the final map could look diffferent. Are they going to do another round of public hearings when they settle on a map.

[Krago]

Here’s my tale of woe.

A month ago, I sent my lovely proposed PEI map to the Electoral Boundaries Commission.  I got back a nice e-mail from the Director of Communications, who thanked me for my work.  He mentioned that the Commission used provincial electors, not Census population counts, to do their maps, and said that he would love to see my map again based on 3,700 electors per riding.

So I asked him for the shapefiles of the provincial polling divisions from the 2015 general election.  He sent me a screen print of a district map with the number of electors per district.

I asked again for the shapefiles.  He said that he wasn’t authorized to do that, but sent me shapefiles from the 2003 general election that used completely different district boundaries.

I asked again for the shapefiles.  He ignored me for three weeks.

I finally tracked down the GIS guy from the PEI Dept. of Finance who sent me the correct shapefiles in about ten minutes.  So I went back to the Communications weasel and asked for the file of electors by polling division (so that I could attach them to the map).  He sent me the same screen print from a month before.

I realized that he would never give me the data I needed to calculate the number of electors per proposed riding on my map.  So I sent him the shapefiles for my proposed map and asked him for pass it along to their GIS technicians to calculate the numbers for me.  No response so far.


This would be a pretty typical example of dealing with petty bureaucracy except for one thing: this is the FIFTH time I’ve had to deal with this sh**t with a Boundaries Commission (or equivalent).  It seems that every time a province or city decides to change their ridings or wards and not use publicly-available Census figures, it is impossible to pry the raw numbers out of them.

•   When Alberta redrew its electoral divisions in 2010, the Commission decided to use 2009 municipal census data, rather than the 2006 Census population figures.  I requested the new data for my proposals and was informed that confidentiality agreements prohibited them from sharing the data with the general public.

•   A couple of years ago, Toronto decided to revised its ward boundaries and used 2026 projections as its population base.  When I contacted the Consultants, they referred me to the City.  A staffer in the Clerk’s office told me that the data was ‘preliminary’ and that the ‘final’ data would be released to the public a year later – after the ward review was completed.

•   Hamilton has spent the past year updating its ward boundaries.  It chose to use 2015 population estimates and 2026 projections that ‘Reflects permanent population including Census undercount of approximately 3.8% as well as non-permanent post-secondary student population.’  When I contacted City Hall for those numbers, I was given irrelevant information, then bounced between departments, and then finally ignored.

•   The new Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission has decided to use 2016 Census population figures for the most part.  However, it also includes an estimated count (not stated) for the unenumerated Saddle Lake reserve and reflects a population drop of 9,180 in Fort McMurray ‘based on a further Statistics Canada census conducted in the autumn of 2016.’  I emailed Statistics Canada and they didn’t know anything about this new census; they stood by their original May numbers.


If this was the United States, there would be phalanxes of lawyers ready to litigate every decimal point.  But since this is Canada, nobody cares.  I don’t have any proposed legislation in my back pocket.  I just wanted to vent.

A fellow geopsephologist with a similar story can be found here: http://labradore.blogspot.ca/2012/09/your-right-to-no.html

[Hatman 🍁]

It's almost as if they want to keep the public in the dark! Hmm...

[Clyde1998]

Is there any sort of Freedom of Information Act in Canada or your province that would allow you to request the information and threaten them with a court case if they refuse to give it to them?

[Krago]

The Consultants hired to draw Oshawa's ward boundaries released their proposed maps today, only a couple of hours before a public hearing scheduled to discuss them!

Here is the report.

And here is my favourite map:

[Hatman 🍁]

The Consultants hired to draw Oshawa's ward boundaries released their proposed maps today, only a couple of hours before a public hearing scheduled to discuss them!

Here is the report.

And here is my favourite map:

rofl. Whoever designed that map needs to be arrested for anti-democratic treason. It actually appears to be a gerrymander to ensure that left wing councillors aren't elected.

[Hatman 🍁]

PEI report is up: http://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/original/epeiEBC2017.pdf

[Krago]

I love this page!  https://www.electoralboundaries.pe.ca/new-electoral-map?platform=hootsuite

It has one of those before/after sliders (I don't know the technical term) so that you can compare the old boundaries with the new ones.  The problem is that the position of the province and the insets are completely different in the two versions, so you can't do an actual comparison.  What genius came up with that?

Also, the populations of the existing districts on page 8 of the report adds to 99,837 but the populations of the proposed districts (on page 21) adds to 100,005.  Sample map 1.1 has populations that add to 99,955, while sample map 3.1 adds to 99,904.