Saanich Gulf Islands Part 3

30 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brian White
Saanich Gulf Islands Part 3

 

Brian White

I read some of this stuff in focus magazine, etc
(Before the recorded phone calls went out a provincial NDP mla had called on ndp supporters to vote Penn).
Just a note that the recorded voices on the phone calls for people to vote for west NDP (who had withdrawn) were both male and female) so it was a bigger scam than I originally thought. The caller id was spoofed (not illegal in canada) to make it seem that it was coming from NDP headquarters.
And it (the spoofing) might have been done from out of country!
Most speculation is that the spoof calls came from Conservatives. RCMP do not seem to want to investigate it. Elections canada not really saying if they are investigating or not. Also, this riding had the highest voter % turnout in canada and in losing Penn got more votes than several elected liberals in BC. keith Martin, hedy fry, etc.
Perhaps someone would like to tabulate winning and losing vote numbers from across Canada? Who got in with the lowest number of votes,(Top 10) across Canada and who lost with the highest numbers (top 10 across canada).
Brian

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Given the vast range in the number of electors in different ridings, it would be a pointless exercise. The combined votes of all the candidates in Nunavut wouldn't have elected an MP in most of the rest of the country.

On the other matter:

1) The possibility of illegal activity should be investigated.

2) If people chose to vote for a withdrawn New Democrat or for the Green rather than the Liberal, they have every right to do that whether you like it or not.

3) Whether Briony Penn got more votes or fewer votes than winners in other ridings is irrelevant. She got fewer votes than Gary Lunn, so she lost.

4) Time to concede defeat.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]Perhaps someone would like to tabulate winning and losing vote numbers from across Canada? Who lost with the highest numbers (top 10 across canada)?[/b]


quote:

Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]Given the vast range in the number of electors in different ridings, it would be a pointless exercise.[/b]

Maybe, but I was curious, and my spreadsheet let me check quickly. The answer, of course, starts mostly with the suburban ridings that have grown the most since the 2001 census on which the last redistribution was based, but Saanich-Gulf Islands is right up there:

Oak Ridges-Markham, Liberal lost with 31,483
Saanich-Gulf Islands, Liberal lost with 25,366
Halton, Liberal lost with 25,136
Ottawa-Orleans, Liberal lost with 23,549
Mississauga-Erindale, Liberal lost with 23,466
Nanaimo-Cowichan, Conservative lost with 22,844
Kitchener-Waterloo, Liberal lost with 21,813
North Vancouver, Liberal lost with 21,551
Brampton West (before recount), Conservative lost with 21,516
Thornhill, Liberal lost with 21,448

Brian White

quote:


Originally posted by Malcolm:
[b]Given the vast range in the number of electors in different ridings, it would be a pointless exercise. [/b]

There should not be a "vast range" in the number of electors from riding to riding.
There is a notion in Canada that country people are somehow more important than people who live in cities and they somehow deserve more representation. Try put that to a referendum! Pretty easy to sort it out!
Might be something for the ndp to use to get people riled up!
People SHOULD get riled up if it takes less votes to elect people in some ridings than in others.
Something is wrong. When taken to its most extreme in England it used to be called "rotten boroughs".
You will find that a hell of a lot of these almost rotten ridings in Canada elect conservatives. This is one reason that the cons need so few votes on average to get a seat.
I was pretty surprised that the big losers were all liberals! I thought it would be a mixed bag.
I am not sure why malcolm feels he has to defend the conservatives but whatever. Some people want to be pawns.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]
There should not be a "vast range" in the number of electors from riding to riding.[/b]

It's because provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan have "grandfathered" numbers of MPs. This helps the NDP in Manitoba and the Conservatives in Saskatchewan.

But the real scandal is that 53.8% of the vote in Saskatchewan lets Conservative voters elect 13 MPs, 25.5% lets New Democrat voters elect no MPs, 14.9% lets Liberal voters elect one MP, and 5.5% lets Green Party voters elect no MP. Should be 7 Con, 4 NDP, 2 Lib, 1 Green.

Cueball Cueball's picture

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]
There should not be a "vast range" in the number of electors from riding to riding.
There is a notion in Canada that country people are somehow more important than people who live in cities and they somehow deserve more representation. Try put that to a referendum! Pretty easy to sort it out!
Might be something for the ndp to use to get people riled up!
People SHOULD get riled up if it takes less votes to elect people in some ridings than in others.
Something is wrong. When taken to its most extreme in England it used to be called "rotten boroughs".
You will find that a hell of a lot of these almost rotten ridings in Canada elect conservatives. This is one reason that the cons need so few votes on average to get a seat.
I was pretty surprised that the big losers were all liberals! I thought it would be a mixed bag.
I am not sure why malcolm feels he has to defend the conservatives but whatever. Some people want to be pawns.[/b]

I would rather the NDP's energy went into electoral reform with PP rather than rejigging or gerrymandering the geographical electoral boundaries.

scott scott's picture

I assume you mean PR. I agree that PR should be the focus but rep by pop is an important principle. The constitutional protection of seat numbers in certain provinces makes it harder to design a federal PR system. I think it could be dealt with by incresing the size of the house so the no one actually LOSES seats.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by scott:
[b]I assume you mean PR. I agree that PR should be the focus but rep by pop is an important principle. The constitutional protection of seat numbers in certain provinces makes it harder to design a federal PR system. I think it could be dealt with by incresing the size of the house so the no one actually LOSES seats.[/b]

Interesting point, which makes me rethink my support of PR actually. All we westerners need is more central easterners deciding our fate! Would we not basically have even less voice than we do now?

scott scott's picture

No. It would be the opposite. Strict rep by pop wold benefit the West. The constitution basically guarantees that some eastern provinces such as PEI can never have less seats than they currently have. [url=http://www.elections.ca/SCRIPTs/fedrep/federal_e/red/representation_e.ht... Canada - Representation[/url] Faster growing provinces such as BC are always playing catch up as apportioning of new seats always lags behind population growth.

Adding a top up layer of proportionally allocated seats as I suggested above could satisfy rep by pop and maintain the current seats in the maritimes and Quebec.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]
But the real scandal is that 53.8% of the vote in Saskatchewan lets Conservative voters elect 13 MPs, 25.5% lets New Democrat voters elect no MPs, 14.9% lets Liberal voters elect one MP, and 5.5% lets Green Party voters elect no MP. Should be 7 Con, 4 NDP, 2 Lib, 1 Green.[/b]

But that is the way the seats are set up. There is not a single urban seat in the provinces largest city of Saskatoon. The city is divided in thirds and towns ranging for hundreds of kilometres outside the city are added to each third. I would really like someone to figure out the polls that are inside Saskatoon to see who the people in that city support. I suspect that a race for two urban seats in Saskatoon would give the NDP at least one seat. Strangely when this carving up of ridings in Saskatchewan under the liberals happened Goodale's seat was hardly affected.

janfromthebruce

quote:


Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b] But that is the way the seats are set up. There is not a single urban seat in the provinces largest city of Saskatoon. The city is divided in thirds and towns ranging for hundreds of kilometres outside the city are added to each third. I would really like someone to figure out the polls that are inside Saskatoon to see who the people in that city support. I suspect that a race for two urban seats in Saskatoon would give the NDP at least one seat. Strangely when this carving up of ridings in Saskatchewan under the liberals happened Goodale's seat was hardly affected.[/b]

gerrymandering - it was designed that way so well to have a certain outcome.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by scott:
[b]No. It would be the opposite. Strict rep by pop wold benefit the West...Adding a top up layer of proportionally allocated seats as I suggested above could satisfy rep by pop and maintain the current seats in the maritimes and Quebec.[/b]

I do not get how it could, when Central Canada has the most population. It means they would instantly get more seats than they already have.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yes sir it is indeed. They tried to attach some of North Vancouver to Burnaby Douglas but they backed off because no one form any political party wanted a riding that was on both sides of the inlet.

As for the large rural ridings I have mixed feelings. While a vote is worth a vote in principal there is also the principal that every Canadian deserves somewhat comparable service from their MP. When the ridings get way too huge geographically it is very hard for an MP to provide good constituency level service for the people who need help making sense of federal programs and how to access them.

Brian White

We have phones and internet and cars, and social services. You do not need to swap spit with your political rep to be "served" by them.
It is pure baloney that rural votes are worth more than urban votes. My vote should have the same power to elect someone whether I vote ndp, conservative, green or liberal. And it should have the same power to elect regardless of where I live in Canada, urban or rural, and ontario or alberta. Clearly it does not.
Basically you are saying that if johnie has a big enough farm he can have his own personal MP.
If ridings have vastly different numbers of people in them the system screws the people in the densely populated ridings because they are not properly represented. And folks, thats ndp people a lot of the time.
And like I said, that could be cleared up by a referendum. If the NDP were balzy enough to propose one, they would get more votes.

quote:

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]
As for the large rural ridings I have mixed feelings. While a vote is worth a vote in principal there is also the principal that every Canadian deserves somewhat comparable service from their MP. When the ridings get way too huge geographically it is very hard for an MP to provide good constituency level service for the people who need help making sense of federal programs and how to access them.[/b]

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]
I am not sure why malcolm feels he has to defend the conservatives but whatever. Some people want to be pawns.[/b]

I have never defended Conservatives, but whatever, Some people prefer to be liars.

The principle reason there are wide variances in riding populations has to do with the fact that constituencies are not permitted to cross provincial / territorial boundaries. Thus, Nunavut, for example, will always be miniscule in population compared to nearly any constituency in the South.

Similarly, the "Senate Floor" (meaning no province may have fewer MPs than Senators) means that PEI seats will always be quite small.

I can see how this disparity upsets you though - especially the way it has led to generations of domination by Northerners and Spudislanders. Their dreadful hegemony must be very oppressive to you poor folk on Vancouver Island, suffering under the depredation of the Muckluk's and the Gumboot's heel.

The other pressure on riding sizes has to do with the way in which suburban seats (as Wilf rightly points out) tend to grow at a faster rate than the general population. This could be mitigated (though not eliminated) if we did a redistribution after every election, but since the census is decennial, this is not practical.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]We have phones and internet and cars, and social services. You do not need to swap spit with your political rep to be "served" by them.[/b]

Nonsense having huge ridings prohibits adequate representation and information sharing.

quote:

[b]It is pure baloney that rural votes are worth more than urban votes. [/b]

It is pure baloney that urban votes are worth more than rural votes. Especially given the means for urbanites to be urbanites comes from the rural demographics. And that we have more voices in urban centres controlling things than we do rural!

quote:

[b]My vote should have the same power to elect someone whether I vote ndp, conservative, green or liberal. And it should have the same power to elect regardless of where I live in Canada, urban or rural, and ontario or alberta. Clearly it does not.[/b]

Get over it your one vote is not worth anymore than anyone else's 1 vote.

quote:

[b] Basically you are saying that if johnie has a big enough farm he can have his own personal MP.[/b]

Not 1 person said that.

quote:

[b]And like I said, that could be cleared up by a referendum. If the NDP were balzy enough to propose one, they would get more votes. [/b]

Setting aside the nonsensical sexist commentary, the NDP have long been front and centre pushing for PR, so please do stop attempting to make it appear that they aren't.

[ 04 November 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

Stockholm

I kind of like the Australian system where they do a redistribution after every single election to make sure that each and every riding has exactly the same number of eligible voters - the only exception being that riding boundaries cannot cross state lines. Why not have pure rep by pop.

I also don't understand these crazy arguments that they needed to create these mixed urban/rural seats in Saskatchewan because otherwise some rural seats would be too big. There are plenty of ridings in the territories and northern Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, BC etc... that are wayyyy bigger than any of the purely rural seats in Sask. would ever be.

Next redistribution, the NDP in Sask. has got to get its act together and push for the creation of purely urban seats in Regina and Saskatoon and an end to the current gerrymandering.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]I also don't understand these crazy arguments that they needed to create these mixed urban/rural seats in Saskatchewan because otherwise some rural seats would be too big.[/b]

Actually, another argument against the mixed ridings is that mixed rural / urban seats tend to be far more urban than rural in terms of population - meaning that the concerns of the urban voters inevitably dominate. All the more so in today's climate, where the rural vote tends not to be "in play."

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]We have phones and internet and cars, and social services. You do not need to swap spit with your political rep to be "served" by them.
[/b]

Your definition of service to constituents is totally different than mine. I take stories from people about their problems dealing with various institutions etcetera everyday I don't think I can get the same information dung a cell phone call. Human interaction is IMO a very important part of clear communication.

Brian White

A pretty basic way of finding out if an urban vote is worth more than a rural vote is to see how many people vote an urban riding and how many vote in a rural riding. If there are more voting in the urban riding, but they still get just 1 MP then, of course each rural votes is worth more.
Lets take figures out of the air. Suppose 75,000 people go to the polls in the urban riding and elect 1 MP and in the rural riding 50 000 people go to the polls and elect 1 mp. Whose vote is worth more, the urban voter or the rural voter?
It is not a trick question.
This became such a big issue in ireland about 40 years ago that it had to go to referendum.
The people voted in favour of all votes having equal power. I do not believe Canadians would be any different if it was put to a vote.
It is a basic fairness thing, not an urban rural thing.
Having rural ridings where minute populations get an MP is inbuilt gerrymandering.
The gerrymandering of ridings so that they take on strange shapes to defeat certain partys is a separate issue. A good STV or MMP Pro rep system makes gerrymandering of ridings redundant.

quote:


Originally posted by remind:
[b]It is pure baloney that urban votes are worth more than rural votes. Especially given the means for urbanites to be urbanites comes from the rural demographics. And that we have more voices in urban centres controlling things than we do rural!
[ 04 November 2008: Message edited by: remind ][/b]

Brian White

We do not agree on much but we are certainly in agreement on this one. Why not pure rep by pop?
I think the riding with most population in BC is mostly ethnic chineese. So one could argue racial discrimination as one of the reasons THAT riding is so big. (I cannot remember if it is a federal or a provincial riding)

quote:

Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]I kind of like the Australian system where they do a redistribution after every single election to make sure that each and every riding has exactly the same number of eligible voters - the only exception being that riding boundaries cannot cross state lines. Why not have pure rep by pop.
Next redistribution, the NDP in Sask. has got to get its act together and push for the creation of purely urban seats in Regina and Saskatoon and an end to the current gerrymandering.[/b]

scott scott's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Stockholm:
[b]I kind of like the Australian system where they do a redistribution after every single election to make sure that each and every riding has exactly the same number of eligible voters - the only exception being that riding boundaries cannot cross state lines. Why not have pure rep by pop.[/b]

I agree. We have that in BC, although it is only every 8 years and there are some wiggle room that allows some variation is size, but it has to be justified. I prefer that it would be closer to strictly rep by pop. Another overlooked factor is riding size. There should be a maximum riding size legislated so that the Electoral Boundaries Commission has the power to add seats to the legislature as the population increases so that the density of representation is not reduced.

quote:

[b]I also don't understand these crazy arguments that they needed to create these mixed urban/rural seats in Saskatchewan because otherwise some rural seats would be too big. There are plenty of ridings in the territories and northern Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, BC etc... that are wayyyy bigger than any of the purely rural seats in Sask. would ever be.[/b]

It makes more sense to draw riding boundaries based on commonality of interest. Prince George in BC was split like a big pie in the previous provincial redistribution, but now it is it's own riding. Much better. When public hearings are held on these matters you have to get out and make your views known. The last BC map was adjusted considerably after public input was taken into consideration after the first go around.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Brian White:
[b]This became such a big issue in ireland about 40 years ago that it had to go to referendum.
The people voted in favour of all votes having equal power. I do not believe Canadians would be any different if it was put to a vote.
It is a basic fairness thing, not an urban rural thing.
Having rural ridings where minute populations get an MP is inbuilt gerrymandering.[/b]

You just don't seem to understand the distances involved. Ireland is under 85,000 square kilometres. Vancouver Island North is over 52,000 kms/2. VIN in 2006 had about 84,000 electors and the population density was 2.2 per square kilometre. It includes the Regional Districts of Comox Valley, Strathcona, Mount Waddington and the southern half of Central Coast excluding Calvert Island and Hunter Island. These regional districts include the towns of Campbell River, Comox, Courtenay, Port Alice, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Alert Bay, Quadra Island, Denman Island and Hornby Island.

Vancouver Centre had about 92,000 electors and the riding was 16 kms/2. Its population density was over 7,700 per kms/2.

I doubt the people of Ireland would want to have a system where their MP lived at one end of the country and they lived at the other which is geographically similar to VIN.

Brian White

Perhaps you can explain how they do it in Australia then? As stockholm said, they have pure representation by poplation and lots of wide open spaces too.
In first past the post, imagine being a vocal NDP supporter in one of your thinly poplated ridings with a conservative MP and a comfortable conservative majority. You will get no attention at all. NADA, NOTHING. In STV and some of the list systems you have 4 or 5 people from different partys to turn to. And they will have cars and they will have phones and they will visit little mickey mouse towns every week trying to get re elected.
There is "relatively speaking" almost no competition in a single member riding and an mp's fate is tied to his or her party leader. So lots of them do not do much locally. Why bother if you may not get your just rewards?
STV is highly competitive and if the mp does a lot of work locally, they very often get re elected regardless of the leadership.
I have not yet had a political hopeful knock on my door in canada, I live in a city and I have been here 10 years! That would be unthinkable back in stv land. The NDP in BC went from government party to 2 seats in one election.
That cannot happen in STV. I do not think it can happen in MMP pro rep either.
Brian

quote:

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b] You just don't seem to understand the distances involved. Ireland is under 85,000 square kilometres. Vancouver Island North is over 52,000 kms/2. VIN in 2006 had about 84,000 electors and the population density was 2.2 per square kilometre. It includes the Regional Districts of Comox Valley, Strathcona, Mount Waddington and the southern half of Central Coast excluding Calvert Island and Hunter Island. These regional districts include the towns of Campbell River, Comox, Courtenay, Port Alice, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Alert Bay, Quadra Island, Denman Island and Hornby Island.

Vancouver Centre had about 92,000 electors and the riding was 16 kms/2. Its population density was over 7,700 per kms/2.

I doubt the people of Ireland would want to have a system where their MP lived at one end of the country and they lived at the other which is geographically similar to VIN.[/b]


kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I don't know what you are on about with PR. Of course I support either STV or MMPR. I am not sure what that has to do with the difference between dealing with people's concerns in a riding where they all live within 10 kilometres of each other and one where they live within hundreds of kilometres of each other. The distance is related to people's ability to access their representive.

If we go to a PEI size ridings of 30 to 35 thousand then we are going to have to build a far bigger chamber for our MP's. And splitting up VIN into two or three ridings is a good idea. Having three to four MP's from what is now Vancouver Centre would also be in line with PEI. It would require at least tripling the House of Commons.

Brian White

With Pro rep, it is more competitive and the politicians cannot afford to sit on their lazy arses. They have to go out into the world and engage their voters.
So the politicians go to the people not the other way round. Even with larger distances you get better representation.
Imagine being a NDP voter in kamloops. You will never get any help from kroeger. With pro rep in the algimated bigger riding you will have someone else to help you as well as the no-help-for-you-ever bc lib.

quote:

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]I don't know what you are on about with PR. Of course I support either STV or MMPR. I am not sure what that has to do with the difference between dealing with people's concerns in a riding where they all live within 10 kilometres of each other and one where they live within hundreds of kilometres of each other. The distance is related to people's ability to access their representive.

If we go to a PEI size ridings of 30 to 35 thousand then we are going to have to build a far bigger chamber for our MP's. And splitting up VIN into two or three ridings is a good idea. Having three to four MP's from what is now Vancouver Centre would also be in line with PEI. It would require at least tripling the House of Commons.[/b]


scott scott's picture

quote:


Originally posted by remind:[b]

[Quoting me]No. It would be the opposite. Strict rep by pop would benefit the West...Adding a top up layer of proportionally allocated seats as I suggested above could satisfy rep by pop and maintain the current seats in the maritimes and Quebec.[/end quoting me]

I do not get how it could, when Central Canada has the most population. It means they would instantly get more seats than they already have.[/b]


Something is not being understood, and it’s probably my fault for mixing them up in my OP. There are two different things being discussed here.

One is rep by pop – making all seats have close to the same population, which currently they do not.

The other is proportionality – ensuring that the makeup of the house reflects the votes cast for the various parties, which currently it does not.

The majority of the population of Canada is in the East. There is not much we can do about that. They have the most seats and will still have the most seats under a rep by pop formula. They have more seats than they deserve because of historic locks and demographic changes. What I said above is that by ADDING seats to the house the seat count in the West could be raised to correct this inequity while maintaining the existing guarantees (such as PEI is guaranteed 4 seats).

To address the second point: adding seats makes the transition to pro rep easier. One of the reasons that the MMP proposal for Ontario was such a hard sell was due to Ontario provincial ridings being so much larger than most provincial ridings. This constrained the design process and created a fear that there would be a loss of regional representation (which was low to begin with). The average Ontario provincial riding population is about 115000 while in BC is only about 40000. If the Ontario CA has recommended ADDING a layer of compensatory seats the proposal would have been an easier sell because there would have been no loss of regional representation. The same thing goes federally. Either you add a compensatory layer to achieve proportionality or you choose a system such as the STV which achieves proportionality by having multiple member ridings but maintains existing density of representation.

[ 09 November 2008: Message edited by: scott ]

Stockholm

If we actually had strict rep by pop and every riding had exactly the same population - the Tories would be the big winners. They tend to carry a lot of those suburban and exurban ridings that are the most overpopulated.

The NDP actually does well in remote northern ridings with smaller populations - so we would have the most to lose if - say - all the territories were made into one gigantic riding.