Pure Rep By Pop

[Riverwind]

The constitution requires minimum seat levels for the slower growing provinces. This means that the faster growing provinces always end up with fewer seats than they deserve. However, there is a work around: increase the number of MPs to 400-500. This would maintain the current minimum seat levels but allow for pure rep by pop.

I am curious which people would prefer (yes I realize it is a lesser of two evils question).

Are there any residents of Ontario that find the under representation preferable to 400+ MPs?

I did not include 'get rid of the minimum seat levels' as an option because that is impossible given the current political environment.

You can find more background to this question here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=271640

Edited November 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[Vancouver King]

Under the current proposal the House would go to 330 and if McGuinty was granted his additional 10 seats that totals 340 MPs, no province loses seats and, at least temporarily, the fast growth regions have something approximating rep by pop. Why do we need 500 MPs?

[Riverwind]

Under the current proposal the House would go to 330 and if McGuinty was granted his additional 10 seats that totals 340 MPs, no province loses seats and, at least temporarily, the fast growth regions have something approximating rep by pop. Why do we need 500 MPs?

Adding 10 seats to Ontario's total will reduce the representation for the other provinces (i.e. Quebec would then be under represented for its population). You can fix the problem by adding a few seats to Quebec's total but that then causes the representation for BC and Alberta to drop. You solve that by adding more to BC and Alberta's total. Unfortunately, now you have to add a few more seats to Ontario to bring it up to rep by pop levels. You can repeat this process a few times until you end up with 400+ seats. At this point the rep by pop error will be less that 1% for every province. You would have add more than a 1000 seats if you wanted perfect rep by pop.

400-500 is a rough guess. There is a mathematical formula than can be used to calculate the number of seats for each province that would minimize the difference between pure and actual rep by pop.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

Reformers debated this 20 years ago! It was part of their proposal for a Triple E Senate - Equal, Elected and Effective.

Most western style democracies run a two House system as part of the checks and balances necessary to have good government. They have a Commons or Congress based on "rep by pop" and then a second or "Upper" House that is based on regions.

Such as the American Senate where tiny Rhode Island gets as many senators as California or New York.

We constantly hear talking heads in the media telling us that provinces won't accept changes to the Commons because of population demographics. If we had a real Senate that would protect regional interests from proposed Commons Bills that favour the more populated provinces and screw the ones with less people then we wouldn't have these worries.

Instead we have an Upper House where old Liberal bagmen and hacks can snooze out their days with a great salary until they die. Even better, if the Liberals lose an election they can still block any Tory Commons Bills in the Senate.

In effect, unelected parasites that have no obligation to represent the will of the people can act as an arm of a party that was rejected at the polls.

No wonder the Liberals are always against Senate reform. No wonder Harper is at the point where he says that if we can't finally do something then let's just axe the damn thing! We'd still have an unequal system with no protection for regions but at least we'd save the money!

[mikedavid00]

I am curious which people would prefer (yes I realize it is a lesser of two evils question).

I agree that they are both evils.

Obvsiouly, I am not for any more seats in to Ontario and BC. In 20 years you would slowely start to see the Parliment become a place where racism (the true term) is practiced on a daily basis and I prefer not to move in that direction with my country. I don't want to slip into second world status becuase religion and culture takes over our house of commons.

[mikedavid00]

Under the current proposal the House would go to 330 and if McGuinty was granted his additional 10 seats that totals 340 MPs, no province loses seats and, at least temporarily, the fast growth regions have something approximating rep by pop. Why do we need 500 MPs?

The fast growth regions are also visibly minority, Liberal voting voters.

That statement is factual.

If you want more seats in fast growth areas, they are just going to be Liberal seats.

And no, Calgary is not fast growth as pointed out by stats can last month. Not even close to Brampton and other immigrant hot beds.

[jdobbin]

Under the current proposal the House would go to 330 and if McGuinty was granted his additional 10 seats that totals 340 MPs, no province loses seats and, at least temporarily, the fast growth regions have something approximating rep by pop. Why do we need 500 MPs?

I think you are correct that this is the choice that raises the least ire. Ontario's population has grown by leaps and bounds and deserves better representation than what is being offered. I haven't heard B.C. and Alberta complaints that Ontario shouldn't get the seats they are asking for.

Edited November 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

I think you are correct that this is the choice that raises the least ire. Ontario's population has grown by leaps and bounds and deserves better representation than what is being offered. I haven't B.C. and Alberta complaints that Ontario shouldn't get the seats they are asking for.

BC and Alberta are quite adamate that they get the representation that they deserve. Giving more to Ontario takes that representation away from BC and Alberta. Of course you could take that representation away from Quebec instead of BC and Alberta but you would have Quebec nationalists howling about Quebec is under-represented.

Another factor to consider: this change requires a constitutional change which means Quebec has a political veto even if not legally required. I don't think any federal government would risk the political fallout of forcing Quebec to accept a formula where Quebec is under represented. This means that adding 10 seats to the Ontario total would require that additional seats be added to the Quebec total. This would have the effect of making the bad situation for BC and Alberta even worse.

The Harper proposal is not perfect but it at least ensures that BC, Alberta and Ontario all gain something even if short changes Ontario by the largest amount. More importantly, the Harper proposal better than the status quo for Ontario.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

BC and Alberta are quite adamate that they get the representation that they deserve. Giving more to Ontario takes that representation away from BC and Alberta. Of course you could take that representation away from Quebec instead of BC and Alberta but you would have Quebec nationalists howling about Quebec is under-represented.

Another factor to consider: this change requires a constitutional change which means Quebec has a political veto even if not legally required. I don't think any federal government would risk the political fallout of forcing Quebec to accept a formula where Quebec is under represented. This means that adding 10 seats to the Ontario total would require that additional seats be added to the Quebec total. This would have the effect of making the bad situation for BC and Alberta even worse.

The Harper proposal is not perfect but it at least ensures that BC, Alberta and Ontario all gain something even if short changes Ontario by the largest amount. More importantly, the Harper proposal better than the status quo for Ontario.

Do you have a citation that giving Ontario 10 more seats is opposed by B.C., Alberta or Quebec? I haven't read anything in that regards.

I think trying to keep Ontario's seat count down suits the Tories since it is more likely to benefit the Tories than other parties. The Opposition should vote it down.

[Keepitsimple]

Reformers debated this 20 years ago! It was part of their proposal for a Triple E Senate - Equal, Elected and Effective.

Most western style democracies run a two House system as part of the checks and balances necessary to have good government. They have a Commons or Congress based on "rep by pop" and then a second or "Upper" House that is based on regions.

Such as the American Senate where tiny Rhode Island gets as many senators as California or New York.

We constantly hear talking heads in the media telling us that provinces won't accept changes to the Commons because of population demographics. If we had a real Senate that would protect regional interests from proposed Commons Bills that favour the more populated provinces and screw the ones with less people then we wouldn't have these worries.

Instead we have an Upper House where old Liberal bagmen and hacks can snooze out their days with a great salary until they die. Even better, if the Liberals lose an election they can still block any Tory Commons Bills in the Senate.

In effect, unelected parasites that have no obligation to represent the will of the people can act as an arm of a party that was rejected at the polls.

No wonder the Liberals are always against Senate reform. No wonder Harper is at the point where he says that if we can't finally do something then let's just axe the damn thing! We'd still have an unequal system with no protection for regions but at least we'd save the money!

Bang on Wild Bill. To take it further, McGuinty, who is the source of the whining - has not taken any steps towards rep by pop in his own province of Ontario. And why not? Because it would be unfair - that's why. It would mean that the GTA would be running the province as the majority of provincial seats would be located within the boundaries of the GTA.

McGuinty refers to the Big Four in Quebec, Alberta, BC, and Ontario. With Ontario having over 100 seats and Alberta and BC combined having far less than that, there really is no "Big Four" - there's just a huge province whining about the little guys. As for Quebec, they are guaranteed 75 seats in our constitution - but since their population is not growing, they won't be eligible for more seats anytime soon. To top it off, under the current formula, Ontario would only get 4 new seats - under the revised formula, they get 10.

His whining is more about supporting his Federal Liberal cousins in trying to make the Conservatives look bad at every opportunity. As for his contention that the Conservatives should have formally consulted the Provinces.....well, that worked really well with the Equalization Formula, didn't it? Over almost two years, the provinces could not reach any consensus over how to do it - so the feds had to unilaterally choose a method. It would have been the same with this issue but the CFonservatives chose not to waste another two years. They had some back channel discussions with the provinces and went ahead with a very balanced proposal.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[Riverwind]

Do you have a citation that giving Ontario 10 more seats is opposed by B.C., Alberta or Quebec? I haven't read anything in that regards.

Here is a citation that indicates cutting Quebec's share of commons below its rep by pop level would have serious political fallout:

Until yesterday, Stéphane Dion's Liberals, who hold nearly half of Ontario's 106 seats, had mostly tuned out Mr. McGuinty's complaint as well. It was clear they were afraid of upsetting Quebec, where the idea of adding any extra seats elsewhere in the country has met with hostility.

...

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe has lamented that Alberta and British Columbia will now have more combined seats than his province.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home

You won't find any complaints from BC or Alberta at this time because the Conservative government has resisted Ontario's demands. If the government caved you would hear howls from the west.

It should be a pragmatic decision for Ontario - the proposal is better than the status quo and anything better than the proposal is a political non-starter in the rest of the counrty.

Aside: it looks like McGinty's complaints will result in everyone being forced to live with the status quo. This is worst possible outcome for BC, Alberta and Ontario.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[Leafless]

Bang on Wild Bill. To take it further, McGuinty, who is the source of the whining - has not taken any steps towards rep by pop in his own province of Ontario. And why not? Because it would be unfair - that's why. It would mean that the GTA would be running the province as the majority of provincial seats would be located within the boundaries of the GTA.

McGuinty refers to the Big Four in Quebec, Alberta, BC, and Ontario. With Ontario having over 100 seats and Alberta and BC combined having far less than that, there really is no "Big Four" - there's just a huge province whining about the little guys.

No it is not.

It has 26 seats more than Quebec's guaranteed 75 seats.

As for Quebec, they are guaranteed 75 seats in our constitution - but since their population is not growing, they won't be eligible for more seats anytime soon. To top it off, under the current formula, Ontario would only get 4 new seats - under the revised formula, they get 10.

When they should be getting 21 more seats.

"What we're talking about here is achieving the Quebec standard," McGuinty said yesterday. "Canadians living in Quebec are entitled to one MP for every 105,000 Canadians found within that province; B.C.'s now going to grow to that standard; Alberta's now going to grow to that standard.

"But Ontario will be left with an injustice; we'll only be entitled to one MP for every 115,000 Ontarians," he said.

The feds have introduced legislation to address the need for more seats in B.C., Alberta and Ontario to better reflect their growing populations.

Ontario is entitled to 21 more seats but will get only 10 under the proposed legislation.

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2007/...675440-sun.html

[jdobbin]

Here is a citation that indicates cutting Quebec's share of commons below its rep by pop level would have serious political fallout:

You won't find any complaints from BC or Alberta at this time because the Conservative government has resisted Ontario's demands. If the government caved you would here howls from the west.

It should be a pragmatic decision for Ontario - the proposal is better than the status quo and anything better than the proposal is a political non-starter in the rest of the counrty.

Aside: it looks like McGinty's complaints will result in everyone being forced to live with the status quo. This is worst possible outcome for BC, Alberta and Ontario.

Alberta and B.C. get near proportional representation and Ontario doesn't. Their argument that their population should be better reflected in the House of Commons is the same one that Ontario makes. I don't hear any howling to limit Ontario just for the sake of limiting Ontario.

And Duceppe's lament aside, I don't hear too much from Quebec quarters on representation. They might be unhappy with any changes in seat count but I don't see it reflected in polls. Otherwise the Tories would be sliding there.

In the end, it is better for the Liberals to support Ontario in this than Quebec.

Edited November 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[Riverwind]

I don't hear any howling to limit Ontario just for the sake of limiting Ontario.

You don't appear to be listening. I have explained numerous times how you can't just 10 seats to Ontario without taking something away from other provinces. If you take something away then you will hear howling. This should be obvious to anyone familar with Canadian politics.

People in BC and Alberta may sympathize with Ontario's argument but want the current system fixed and would be more upset if Ontario's complaints end up killing the reform package (which is what will happen at this point). As I said: Ontario is better off with the reforms than with the status quo.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

You don't appear to be listening. I have explained numerous times how you can't just 10 seats to Ontario without taking something away from other provinces. If you take something away then you will hear howling. This should be obvious to anyone familar with Canadian politics.

The howling is already starting with Ontario over the unfairness. I think the Opposition should make a big deal of it and keep the pressure on. Ontario is being told to be pragmatic about things. They are. They asked for 10 more MPs rather than 21.

Van Loan is not going to win public support in Ontario on this. In the end, this gigantic province can't be ignored so that the Tories can add more friendly seats in the west at Ontario's expense and then be told they are "small" for not accepting this.

Ontario is not better off. It is institutionalizing the unfairness that started with Mulroney trying to rig the system in 1985.

Edited November 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[fellowtraveller]

Sometimes I wonder if the people of BC and Alberta would be best served by quietly packing up their toys and leaving the current federation.

They are badly unrepresented in the Senate, which is not so bad in that it is a joke.

But surely they have every right to be disturbed at being greatly underrepresented in the Commons?

[Renegade]

It should be a pragmatic decision for Ontario - the proposal is better than the status quo and anything better than the proposal is a political non-starter in the rest of the counrty.

Far better for Ontario to refuse to accept an unfair proposal than to accept one just because it is better than the status quo. Do you think BC and Alberta would accept a few more seats but still be underrepresented just because it is better than the status quo? If they would, fine, switch some of that seat allocation to Ontario. If not, why should Ontario settle for a position that BC and Alberta would not adopt?

[Riverwind]

Do you think BC and Alberta would accept a few more seats but still be underrepresented just because it is better than the status quo? If they would, fine, switch some of that seat allocation to Ontario. If not, why should Ontario settle for a position that BC and Alberta would not adopt?

The proposal on the table provides the same 'correction' for all three provinces (i.e. the difference between their theoretical and actual rep goes down by the same percentage). Taking seats from BC and Alberta and giving them to Ontario would actually cause the gap to increase for BC and Alberta. IOW - there is huge a difference between asking Ontario to accept less of an improvement than it would like and asking BC and Alberta to accept less than they have now.

Increasing the number of MPs to 400+ would eliminate these trade offs but I did assume that such a move would be roundly rejected by the electorate. This non-scientific poll suggests that option is not as appalling to as many people as I thought.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[Renegade]

The proposal on the table provides the same 'correction' for all three provinces (i.e. the difference between their theoretical and actual rep goes down by the same percentage). Taking seats from BC and Alberta and giving them to Ontario would actually cause the gap to increase for BC and Alberta. IOW - there is huge a difference between asking Ontario to accept less of an improvement than it would like and asking BC and Alberta to accept less than they have now.

Increasing the number of MPs to 400+ would eliminate these trade offs but I did assume that such a move would be roundly rejected by the electorate. This non-scientific poll suggests that option is not as appalling to as many people as I thought.

Yes it provides the same "correction" but it doesn't bring them up to the same level of "unfairness". By your own admission Ontario started off further off behind.

Ontario is short changed by about 5% under the current system and BC and Alberta are short changed by about 1.5%. The new formula gives each province a correction of about 0.5-0.7%.

How about if BC and Alberta got sufficient seats to keep them short-changed to about 1.5% and Ontario got sufficent to bring them up to being short-changed by 1.5%? We both know that BC and Alberta would never accept this.

[Riverwind]

How about if BC and Alberta got sufficient seats to keep them short-changed to about 1.5% and Ontario got sufficent to bring them up to being short-changed by 1.5%? We both know that BC and Alberta would never accept this.

The unfairness could be more evenly distributed amoung the three without causing any to lose something. However, the most Ontario could get would be an additional 3-4 seats at the expense of BC and Alberta. That would still leave Ont shortchanged by about 4%. Edited November 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[Renegade]

The unfairness could be more evenly distributed amoung the three without causing any to lose something. However, the most Ontario could get would be an additional 3-4 seats at the expense of BC and Alberta. That would still leave Ont shortchanged by about 4%.

I'm not sure what the threshold of unfairness which would be acceptable, however it is clear to me that the current proposal shoudl be rejected by Ontario. Perhaps one way to address the unfairness to Ontario is to incrementally add (or redistribute) a few seats each election toward the province who's representation is the most skewed out of balance.

[Riverwind]

I'm not sure what the threshold of unfairness which would be acceptable, however it is clear to me that the current proposal shoudl be rejected by Ontario. Perhaps one way to address the unfairness to Ontario is to incrementally add (or redistribute) a few seats each election toward the province who's representation is the most skewed out of balance.

Actually, this is the one virtue of the current proposal since it increases the number of seats over time. This reduces the effect of the minimum seat requirements and will eventually lead to true rep by pop. It will take about 60 years to reach the 400+ seats required to approximate rep by pop.

The current system entrenches the unfairness forever. That may be the most compelling reason for Ontario to accept the proposal even if it is unfair in the short term.

If McGinty was clever he would push to speed up the transition to true rep by pop instead of killing the proposal entirely.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Riverwind

[jennie]

Actually, this is the one virtue of the current proposal since it increases the number of seats over time. This reduces the effect of the minimum seat requirements and will eventually lead to true rep by pop. It will take about 60 years to reach the 400+ seats required to approximate rep by pop.

The current system entrenches the unfairness forever. That may be the most compelling reason for Ontario to accept the proposal even if it is unfair in the short term.

If McGinty was clever he would push to speed up the transition to true rep by pop instead of killing the proposal entirely.

Just curious, Riv:

Over/under representation means a deviation from "one person, one vote" in reality.

What is the bottom line in terms of what a person's vote is worth in each province, in each of these scenarios?

[mikedavid00]

Just curious, Riv:

Over/under representation means a deviation from "one person, one vote" in reality.

What is the bottom line in terms of what a person's vote is worth in each province, in each of these scenarios?

There is no perfect system.

It's certainly not perfect to have a dense cluster of people, namely immigrants, determine the economy of Alberata. That is just wrong. Electoral colleges are a must.

Quebec and Ontario both want Alberta's oil sands to get taxed to death due to general retardation and social welfare payments to the CBC.

Do you want them to have more power in order to do this?

Understand, all populations within dense clusters have the same needs. Immigrants in the GTA have the same needs as Immigrants in Vancouver and Montreal.

However, a farmer in Northern Ontario has different needs then a farmer in Saskatoon and need to be represented. Their needs are much, much more diverse than the inner citie wacko lefty, immigrant leeches of society who's only need is a loudspeaker and hand-out.

Do you want more Immigrant seats in the house? Because that's all you're going to get with 1 person 1 vote ideoligy.

Self Hatred.

[jdobbin]

The current system entrenches the unfairness forever. That may be the most compelling reason for Ontario to accept the proposal even if it is unfair in the short term.

If McGinty was clever he would push to speed up the transition to true rep by pop instead of killing the proposal entirely.

I don't see why Ontario has to lie back and think of Canada in this. If 400 seats makes it equitable, do it.