More People = More Seats

[scribblet]

Interesting comment here in the National Post. I'm posting most of it as subscription is required.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...a3-fd8915a8ab55

More people = more seats

National Post

Published: Tuesday, December 20, 2005

snip

Beyond minor tinkering with seat distribution, the governing Liberals have done little to move toward fairer representation. Why? In part, because the Atlantic provinces that boast some of the most over-represented areas of the country also tend to be reliably Liberal. (Consider that tiny Prince Edward Island, whose population of under 140,000 would nearly fit into a single riding in other parts of the country, has delivered its four seats to the Liberals in each of the recent elections.) And while the same is no longer true of Quebec, the Liberals have no interest in the headache they would give themselves through reducing its share of the overall seat count by increasing the number of ridings in other provinces -- particularly since, unlike the Tories, they can count on drawing at least some seats out of that province each election.

Stephen Harper's Conservatives, however, have no such concerns. Less reliant on Atlantic Canada and less prone to pandering to Quebec, they are willing to ensure that other regions get their fair shake. And so this past weekend, Mr. Harper announced that a Conservative government would move to reduce these regional imbalances. Rather than take away seats from any province -- a move that would be politically untenable, even if justified in theory -- he proposed that Ontario would receive an additional 10 seats, B.C. would get an extra four, and Alberta would receive two or three more.

snip

Under the current formula, which redistributes seats every 10 years, Quebec and Atlantic Canada are guaranteed a set proportion of seats, thus ensuring other provinces will never be properly represented. Whatever the motivation, it's time to stop devaluing the votes of Canadians in our fastest-growing regions.

[hiti]

Interesting comment here in the National Post.  I'm posting most of it as subscription is required.

Stephen Harper's Conservatives, however, have no such concerns. Less reliant on Atlantic Canada and less prone to pandering to Quebec, they are willing to ensure that other regions get their fair shake. And so this past weekend, Mr. Harper announced that a Conservative government would move to reduce these regional imbalances. Rather than take away seats from any province -- a move that would be politically untenable, even if justified in theory -- he proposed that Ontario would receive an additional 10 seats, B.C. would get an extra four, and Alberta would receive two or three more.

Not that's an example of the media lying. Harper has done the biggest pandering to Quebec this past week that will surely help separatism.

Besides Harper is not saying anything new or differenct than what has always been happening with seat distribution.

He is making an issue out of a non-issue that Elections Canada does automatically every few years..... seat distribution based upon population.

Wonder what Harper's next "me-too" policy announcement will be. Spruce trees can now be used a Christmas trees?

[PocketRocket]

Rather than take away seats from any province -- a move that would be politically untenable, even if justified in theory -- he proposed that Ontario would receive an additional 10 seats, B.C. would get an extra four, and Alberta would receive two or three more.

That's all we need, another 16 or 17 fat cats feeding at the next-to-highest-paying portion of the public trough.

[scribblet]

Rather than take away seats from any province -- a move that would be politically untenable, even if justified in theory -- he proposed that Ontario would receive an additional 10 seats, B.C. would get an extra four, and Alberta would receive two or three more.

That's all we need, another 16 or 17 fat cats feeding at the next-to-highest-paying portion of the public trough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I tend to agree actually.

Under the current formula, which redistributes seats every 10 years, Quebec and Atlantic Canada are guaranteed a set proportion of seats which means that other provinces will never be properly represented whatever the motivation. It really is time to look at our whole system and democratic reform.

[Montgomery Burns]

It does seem unfair that Alberta has 4 less seats than the Maritimes, yet has nearly 1 million more population.

[Yaro]

I agree, federal representation should be based on a strict rep by pop system. One man, one vote is an important principle.

[Canuck E Stan]

...and that's why it is important to get an elected Senate for proper regional representation.

[Yaro]

Why would we need an elected senate? While I don't know how I feel about an elected senate I don't see why that would change our need for a more fair distribution of seats in parliament?

[Riverwind]

Why would we need an elected senate? While I don't know how I feel about an elected senate I don't see why that would change our need for a more fair distribution of seats in parliament?

Whether we like it or not, Canada is a big country with diverse regions and an unequal distribution of population. Right now we attempt to balance the 'tyranny of the majority' in the house of commons by giving Quebec and Atlantic Canada more than their share of seats. This ends up screwing Western Canada.

An elected senate with more limited powers with seats distributed to regions would counter balance a house of commons that is true rep by pop.