Re-Distribution of Seats

jdobbin · September 30, 2009

Seriously, I don't really care. They have been represented with more seats than the others as a percentage, now they'll have less. Boo hoo.

And that is why this bill won't go through.

The suck it up and don't be the small man of Confederation in a minority government will not get the legislation through.

Edited September 30, 2009 by jdobbin

jdobbin · September 30, 2009

Actually, Manitoba and Saskatchewan together have about 6 more than the warrant, not 8.

By most calculations, it is around four seats per province.

Molly · September 30, 2009

Voters/MP is a different tratio than people represented/MP.

The redistribution proposes that while Quebec MPs will represent the most voters, Alberta MPs will still represent more people.

Smallc · September 30, 2009

By most calculations, it is around four seats per province.

It can't be since the difference in populations between the two provinces is over 200K people. They can't both be off by the same number.

jdobbin · October 1, 2009

It can't be since the difference in populations between the two provinces is over 200K people. They can't both be off by the same number.

There is some leeway but by percentage, it works out to 7 or 8 seats.

Smallc · October 1, 2009

200K is a great deal of leeway. There's no way it can be 4 for each. It can be 3 and 4 or 2 and 4, but that's about it.

jdobbin · October 1, 2009

200K is a great deal of leeway. There's no way it can be 4 for each. It can be 3 and 4 or 2 and 4, but that's about it.

CBC was just talking about it in the last day and the people they had on figured at the very least 7 seats. The issue of Churchill always comes up because it has so much territory and so few people that it is almost like a Nunavut. Can you really make a riding even larger than what is so that it dwarfs even Nunavut?

However, based on population, figure 4 seats Saskatchewan and 3 for Manitoba.

When the old redistrubution numbers came up, the experts said for 330 seats, Quebec ought to have 77 seats instead of 75. With 342 seats, the gap will be even greater.

Maybe Manitoba should be the big man of Confederation and give Quebec a couple of seats. If not, I don't know why Quebec would agree to something even the Edmonton Journal says is hard to swallow.

Edited October 1, 2009 by jdobbin

punked · October 1, 2009

Lets not fight lets look at the actual numbers. Right now Manitoba has 79,970 people per seat, Saskatchewan has 69,924 people per seat. Our average under the current system is 97,456, and under the new system it would be 86,972. Ok stop fighting look at the numbers they would be pretty close to the average in the new system give or take.

Smallc · October 1, 2009

Maybe Manitoba should be the big man of Confederation and give Quebec a couple of seats.

Maybe you should read the Constitution. Our seat count is at the minimum amount it can be.

punked · October 1, 2009

Maybe you should read the Constitution. Our seat count is at the minimum amount it can be.

Not enough Liberal seats in Manitoba for Dobbins liking according to the newest polls though there is not enough Liberal seats in Quebec for Dobbin either though.

jdobbin · October 1, 2009

Maybe you should read the Constitution. Our seat count is at the minimum amount it can be.

I have read the Constitution. Stop acting out with your insulting tone.

I'm pointing out that the past Tory behaviour of calling provinces the small man of Confederation isn't going to cut the mustard.

You seem to think Quebec should suck it up with your highhanded "I don't care" attitude. Well, I can't see anyone in Quebec going for the change without a much more equitable approach.

ReeferMadness · October 1, 2009

The Tories tried this before. They wanted new seats in Alberta and B.C. while leaving Ontario to take it on the chin.

I'm not sure what you mean. According to what I've read, Ontario stands to gain up to 21 seats.

Is there not a condition where Quebec gets a minimum of 75 seats or 25% of the total - whichever is greater?

The 25% minimum was proposed in the Charlottetown accord but the accord was voted down.

According to the latest Stats-Can figures, and my own calculations, the average population per seat is 109,545 for all of Canada (33,739,859/308). Increasing parliament by 34 (21 Ontario, 7 BC, 6 Alberta) would change that figure to 97,514. It would also leave the four largest provinces in a narrow range of between 102,900 (Ontario) to 105,350 (Alberta) people per seat.

On the face of it, this seems like a reasonable proposal. However, when you factor in the political aspects, there are two issues:

1. Clearly, the reason the Conservatives are pushing this is that it will help them get their much-sought-after majority government.

2. Our current FPTP system exacerbates regional differences by suppressing minority regional expression. For example, you tend not to see Conservatives from downtown Toronto, Liberals in Alberta or NDP in Quebec. This issue could well hasten the demise of the country and Harper's proposal does nothing to address it.

Jerry J. Fortin · October 1, 2009

Just the idea of adding more representatives to slow down an already troubled process is problematic to me. How much does each representative cost us anyway? 120K, 150KK, its not just salaries but benefits as well as pensions, plus office staff, etc.

jdobbin · October 1, 2009

I'm not sure what you mean. According to what I've read, Ontario stands to gain up to 21 seats.

I was referring to the first time that Harper tried this. Ontario was not going to get equitable treatment.

That proposal died.

jdobbin · October 1, 2009

Just the idea of adding more representatives to slow down an already troubled process is problematic to me. How much does each representative cost us anyway? 120K, 150KK, its not just salaries but benefits as well as pensions, plus office staff, etc.

It is something I have thought about as well.

Certainly the desks in the Commons will be the first casualty. It will probably be bench seating.

Smallc · October 1, 2009

I have read the Constitution. Stop acting out with your insulting tone.

I wasn't using an insulting tone. You either didn't know the rules of seat distribution or you were arguing to try to prove a point....by arguing a false point.

jdobbin · October 1, 2009

I wasn't using an insulting tone. You either didn't know the rules of seat distribution or you were arguing to try to prove a point....by arguing a false point.

I wasn't arguing a false point. I was arguing that your stance of "I don't care" is going to fly in Quebec.

Smallc · October 2, 2009

I doubt anyone will notice much. The numbers won't always be in favour of one province or another. There's no perfect distribution that's going to fix it. This is trying to make something out of nothing.

jdobbin · October 2, 2009

I doubt anyone will notice much. The numbers won't always be in favour of one province or another. There's no perfect distribution that's going to fix it. This is trying to make something out of nothing.

Really? So you think it will be a cakewalk getting this through the House?

Smallc · October 2, 2009

I really don't know what will happen politically. I know that it should happen, to make things more fair.

jdobbin · October 2, 2009

I really don't know what will happen politically. I know that it should happen, to make things more fair.

I can't see it going through without a re-think.

kimmy · October 2, 2009

A lot of the new seats would of necessity be in the Greater Vancouver area and Southern Ontario, hardly locks for Conservative candidates.

Alberta and BC have been getting dicked on representation for a long time (theoretically, so has Ontario, but it's hard to feel sorry for them when they already have so much clout.) This growing inequity is simply not consistent with the fundamentals of our democracy.

-k

jdobbin · October 2, 2009

Alberta and BC have been getting dicked on representation for a long time (theoretically, so has Ontario, but it's hard to feel sorry for them when they already have so much clout.) This growing inequity is simply not consistent with the fundamentals of our democracy.

The first round of changes where the Tories wanted to stick it to Ontario was not going to work. I can't see how they can get it through without Quebec feeling they are now at the short end of the stick.

As was pointed out earlier, if 330 seats meant 77 seats for Quebec then 342 seats would mean more seats than the present zero offered now.

kimmy · October 2, 2009

Achieving fairer representation for BC and Alberta and Ontario and maintaining Quebec's over-representation are competing objectives.

If Quebec is going to be given a de-facto veto over decisions like this, Quebec separation isn't going to be the only threat to national unity before long.

-k

Argus · October 2, 2009

It is relevant if Quebecers get up in arms about how they may slip 2 or 3% of seats below their population when Manitoba and Saskatchewan have eight seats more than their populations warrants?
Serously. Do you think Quebec is going to go with this?

Well, so far I haven't heard any noise from them. I gather it is the plan of the Liberal Party to attempt to exploit this issue for political gain? Do your best to get them "up in arms" as you say? I'm sure that will do wonders for national unity but then, when has your party ever cared about anything other than itself?

Edited October 2, 2009 by Argus