Canada redistribution 2013

[minionofmidas]

If the Grandfather clause were removed, it would take away a grand total of 2 seats from the Atlantic, due to the Senatorial Clause (which is in the Constitution) It would end up taking away between 6 and 8 from MB and SK.

Constitutions can be changed...

[MaxQue]

If the Grandfather clause were removed, it would take away a grand total of 2 seats from the Atlantic, due to the Senatorial Clause (which is in the Constitution) It would end up taking away between 6 and 8 from MB and SK.

Constitutions can be changed...

To change that part of the Constitution, it takes the approval of 7 seven provincial legisatures representing at least 50% of the population.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If the Grandfather clause were removed, it would take away a grand total of 2 seats from the Atlantic, due to the Senatorial Clause (which is in the Constitution) It would end up taking away between 6 and 8 from MB and SK.

Constitutions can be changed...

To change that part of the Constitution, it takes the approval of 7 seven provincial legisatures representing at least 50% of the population.

Yeah, and considering that only 3 provinces would benefit from a fair apportionment, that won't happen.

[MaxQue]

If the Grandfather clause were removed, it would take away a grand total of 2 seats from the Atlantic, due to the Senatorial Clause (which is in the Constitution) It would end up taking away between 6 and 8 from MB and SK.

Constitutions can be changed...

To change that part of the Constitution, it takes the approval of 7 seven provincial legisatures representing at least 50% of the population.

Yeah, and considering that only 3 provinces would benefit from a fair apportionment, that won't happen.

Well, that fits with the Canadian tradition than urban ridings are more populated than rural ones.
Which is logic, a MP can't deal with 90 mayors and a district which take 4 hours to cross.
While the urban MP has usually only a mayor and can cross in district in 20-30 minutes.

If districts are too big, it is impossible to follow them well. And I often heard the argument than mayors of big cities have much more clout and access to the government than mayors of small villages.

It is that way, and it won't change.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The only thing that matters is fairly representing the canadian population. The same number of people should have the same number of MPs, period. There is no excuse to deviate from that.

If you feel some ridings are too big, just raise the overall size of the House.

[MaxQue]

The only thing that matters is fairly representing the canadian population. The same number of people should have the same number of MPs, period. There is no excuse to deviate from that.

If you feel some ridings are too big, just raise the overall size of the House.

Well, I agree with the principle, but the reality on the ground makes that impossible.

It is the same number of people ± 15%, in the law (with exception, like Labrador, territories, ABJNE...), and nobody ever contested it, I think.

Ontario government also decided to use different population numbers for Northern and Southern Ontario, last time. Their motivation was than those areas are losing population are losing population for economic reasons. Those areas will never improve economically if we lower their representation, since they will have less power.

In my opinion, economically, areas that are losing population needs more help from government than areas that are growing. Those areas are going well, they need less help.

Should we wait until we have to import all our food from China because all farms are closed because people moved in the booming cities and suburbs?

It is demographic socialism. Taking from the booming areas to give to the depressed, demographically negative areas.

In any case, that won't change, either.
At least, our borders are fair, in Canada, unlike France.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

If the Grandfather clause were removed, it would take away a grand total of 2 seats from the Atlantic, due to the Senatorial Clause (which is in the Constitution) It would end up taking away between 6 and 8 from MB and SK.

Constitutions can be changed...

In order to have the Senatorial clause changed, PEI would need to consent. PEI was the one who took the federal government court in 1915 in the first place, and got that clause inserted into the Constitution as a result.

[minionofmidas]

I think you posted an article on how to get them to do that, over in the dippy thread...

Or you base all provinces' seat tallies on being proportional to PEI's.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I think you posted an article on how to get them to do that, over in the dippy thread...

Or you base all provinces' seat tallies on being proportional to PEI's.

I've done the math for that somewhere on my website. It'd result in Ontario having over a thousand seats IIRC.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Provincial numbers.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The only thing that matters is fairly representing the canadian population. The same number of people should have the same number of MPs, period. There is no excuse to deviate from that.

If you feel some ridings are too big, just raise the overall size of the House.

Well, I agree with the principle, but the reality on the ground makes that impossible.

It is the same number of people ± 15%, in the law (with exception, like Labrador, territories, ABJNE...), and nobody ever contested it, I think.

Ontario government also decided to use different population numbers for Northern and Southern Ontario, last time. Their motivation was than those areas are losing population are losing population for economic reasons. Those areas will never improve economically if we lower their representation, since they will have less power.

In my opinion, economically, areas that are losing population needs more help from government than areas that are growing. Those areas are going well, they need less help.

Should we wait until we have to import all our food from China because all farms are closed because people moved in the booming cities and suburbs?

It is demographic socialism. Taking from the booming areas to give to the depressed, demographically negative areas.

In any case, that won't change, either.
At least, our borders are fair, in Canada, unlike France.

Don't get me started on French apportionments... Did you know the apportionment used in 2007 was based from numbers of 1982 ? No, there's no typo error : a quarter century before. Joke country is a joke.

But no, there's no "demographic socialism". I'm 1000% liberal on this issue. One man, one vote is not negociable.

[minionofmidas]

Provincial numbers.

Wait, why would you give 27 seats to PEI? I was talking about giving 4 seats to PEI, and proportional figures elsewhere. That should come out to something like 390 or so seats in Ontario, I think.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Those are provincial numbers. PEI has 27 seats provincially. I dont have the federal table anymore.

[minionofmidas]

'kay, I've no idea what formula Canada uses to attribute seats, but here's St Lague with the 4th PEI seat the last to be distributed based on Census 2006.

19407.28571

Newfie 13
N.Sc. 24
NB 19
PEI 4
Que 194
Onto 313 (so, fewer than I guesstimated!)
Man 30
Sas 25
Alta 85
B.C. 106

and as luck would have it, one each per territory. 816 overall. Very large for a parliament, but not absurdly large.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Nunavut has 19 members provincially, work it out for that to laugh!

BTW my calculations were in excel, with decimals turned off

[Hatman 🍁]

Elelctoral districts are by the very nature arbitrary, so there is no need to keep every district the same size exactly, as long as they are similar. What's more important is having the districts make sense- not breaking up communities, having natural borders, etc (in my opinion). FPTP is not a very democratic system, and creating equally sized districts isn't going to help any, unless they were created with the intention of making the results match the popular vote. And since that would make some pretty weird districts, we might as well try and highlight the only plus for FPTP, and that is the MP represents a community of interest.

[Chancellor of the Duchy of Little Lever and Darcy Lever]

FPTP is not a very democratic system, and creating equally sized districts isn't going to help any, unless they were created with the intention of making the results match the popular vote. And since that would make some pretty weird districts, we might as well try and highlight the only plus for FPTP, and that is the MP represents a community of interest.

^^^

See the USA for what happens when you go down the road of having equally sized districts.

[minionofmidas]

Elelctoral districts are by the very nature arbitrary, so there is no need to keep every district the same size exactly, as long as they are similar. What's more important is having the districts make sense- not breaking up communities, having natural borders, etc (in my opinion). FPTP is not a very democratic system, and creating equally sized districts isn't going to help any, unless they were created with the intention of making the results match the popular vote. And since that would make some pretty weird districts, we might as well try and highlight the only plus for FPTP, and that is the MP represents a community of interest.

Exactly.

Also, (constituency-sized) communities are not penalized for low turnout.

[Nichlemn]

Poll and discussion of malapportionment.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Poll and discussion of malapportionment.

I will not comment on your poll because it makes the same biases that others do when discussing the issue.