Tory gerrymandering

[Figleaf]

If you believe Alberta is hard done by, you really are left but no choice than to vote someone else in. At the moment, you and other Albertans don't seem ready to make that move.

Alot of us won't show up to vote. There is growing sentiment here (at least in those I talk to) that we are truly powerless to do anything. Our boy, my MP, is the Prime Minister of Canada.... and we aren't being treated any better than when the Prime Minister was from Montreal.

It doesn't work dobbin, it just doesn't work.

What's the point in voting? The names of the winners may change but the real outcomes look very familiar.

IMO, voters (all over the place) are like people who keep repeating their bad relationship scripts, continuing to make the same kinds of destructive choices about the kind of people they hook up with.

In the specific case of Steve and the Alliance, I remember very clearly that the rhetoric supporters purveyed indicated an (unsupported but intimately held) assumption that Steve and his gang were somehow different in nature than prior politicians and other parties. Why did they delude themselves that way? Desperation for change? Ideation of 'one of their own'? I don't know.

[jdobbin]

It doesn't work dobbin, it just doesn't work.

What's the point in voting? The names of the winners may change but the real outcomes look very familiar.

I suppose we vote because the alternative is armed resistance. I hope you are not at that point.

[geoffrey]

It doesn't work dobbin, it just doesn't work.

What's the point in voting? The names of the winners may change but the real outcomes look very familiar.

I suppose we vote because the alternative is armed resistance. I hope you are not at that point.

I'm certainly not. But I am at the point of complete voter apathy.

[jdobbin]

I'm certainly not. But I am at the point of complete voter apathy.

It seems pretty bad that even the presence of the prime minister in your riding doesn't remove that feeling.

[Michael Bluth]

I'm certainly not. But I am at the point of complete voter apathy.

You have more than 7500 posts here but you are apathetic?

Time to look at the dictionary geoff. Seems like you just like to whine.

Not surprisingly dobbin turned your "apathy" into an attack on the Conservatives. What a f*ckin' joke...

[jdobbin]

IMO, voters (all over the place) are like people who keep repeating their bad relationship scripts, continuing to make the same kinds of destructive choices about the kind of people they hook up with.

In the specific case of Steve and the Alliance, I remember very clearly that the rhetoric supporters purveyed indicated an (unsupported but intimately held) assumption that Steve and his gang were somehow different in nature than prior politicians and other parties. Why did they delude themselves that way? Desperation for change? Ideation of 'one of their own'? I don't know.

We'll have to see how that new right wing movement to create another conservative party shapes. I can remember how dismissive Mulroney was of Reform when it started.

[Figleaf]

Crikey! Michael Bluth is up to 1105 posts since joining MLW in March!

And now 19 more in just a few hours. I sure hope this high level of output is mated with high quality.

[Who's Doing What?]

Crikey! Michael Bluth is up to 1105 posts since joining MLW in March!

And now 19 more in just a few hours. I sure hope this high level of output is mated with high quality.

It's OCD Cyber style.

[Figleaf]

We'll have to see how that new right wing movement to create another conservative party shapes. I can remember how dismissive Mulroney was of Reform when it started.

Yes, it will be interesting to see how that pans out. Many people thought a few years ago that the shotgun marriage of the Alliance and the Tories was a union of desperation between two philosophically mismatched groups. What's amazing in the reverse-takeover quality. It first appeared the Alliance faction had the upper hand in the merger, but the resulting leadership (Steve, Tom Flanergan, etc.) have themselves turned pretty much into old style cater-to-privilege Tories.

[jdobbin]

Crikey! Michael Bluth is up to 1105 posts since joining MLW in March!

And now 19 more in just a few hours. I sure hope this high level of output is mated with high quality.

How many of the posts followed one that I made? Stalker!

It almost reminds me of Ricki Bobbi. Thank goodness that guy was banned. It would be sad if he ever showed up again.

[Canadian Blue]

I don't really get the point of this poll, all it does is show that Figleaf hates people who disagree with him, which isn't much of a surprise to anybody else.

I'm fairly disgusted at the current state of Canadian democracy, more or less because the two major parties are in essence similar with regards to policy, and both usually resort to childish name calling and partisan squabbles. Meanwhile the Greens are completely out of it with regards to policy, and the party is more of a flavour of the month. However in saying that I think we need to change our current electoral system so that more parties can be put in check, as well it seems that with a minority government the government works much better because they actually need to be able to sell their policies to the people as well as the other parties in parliament.

I'm surprised nobody has talked about how the Tories were taken over by the Alliance, especially considering that 92% of the PC membership was in favor of the merger.

[Michael Bluth]

I don't really get the point of this poll, all it does is show that Figleaf hates people who disagree with him, which isn't much of a surprise to anybody else.

I'm surprised nobody has talked about how the Tories were taken over by the Alliance, especially considering that 92% of the PC membership was in favor of the merger.

Figleaf ... blech. Simply here to troll, best to ignore him.

It really wasn't a straight takeover of the PCs by the Alliance.

The PC wing of the party is very strong, and has arguably played a big role in the moderate government we have seen from Harper.

[Figleaf]

I don't really get the point of this poll, all it does is show that Figleaf hates people who disagree with him,...

WTF? How does it show that exactly?

[Michael Bluth]

WTF? How does it show that exactly?

Your premise is false.

Gerrymandering - To divide (a geographic area) into voting districts so as to give unfair advantage to one party in elections.

The proposed changes to the number of MPs would still leave Alberta and BC with far fewer seats then every province but Ontario per capita.

What is the political advantage to the Conservatives?

[jdobbin]

WTF? How does it show that exactly?

Seems like you have your own stalker, Fig.

[kimmy]

Perhaps if the thread had not been opened with an "are you still beating your wife?" type question, it would not have descended into partisan douchebaggery.

First off, a note on the word "Gerrymandering".

Gerrymandering is a form of redistricting in which electoral district or constituency boundaries are manipulated for an electoral advantage. The word "gerrymander" is named for the Governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry (July 17, 1744 – November 23, 1814),[1] and is a blend of his name with the word "salamander," which was used to describe the appearance of a tortuous electoral district pressed through the Massachusetts legislature in 1812 by Jeffersonian democrats, in order to disadvantage their electoral opponents in the upcoming senatorial election, and reluctantly signed into law by Gerry.[2] "Gerrymander" is used both as a verb meaning "to commit gerrymandering" as well as a noun describing the resulting electoral geography. Ideally, it is pronounced with an initial /g/ (a hard G), as with Elbridge Gerry's actual name, but the "jerry" pronunciation is now the normal pronunciation.

Deviation from the strict principle of representation by population isn't really gerrymandering in a strict sense. The term refers to redrawing the boundaries of constituencies, such as the repeated adjustment of the "Edmonton Center" riding to aid in returning Anne McLellan to Ottawa, for instance.

If one considers deviation from the principle of representation by population to be gerrymandering, then it must be pointed out that the present system is already intensely gerrymandered, and always has been. Jeffrey Simpson notes as much in the very first lines of the article that was referenced earlier:

Seat distribution in the House of Commons has been messed up for a very long time - in fact, from Confederation.

Canada has never had complete representation by population. From the beginning, little fiddles and side deals adjusted rep by pop, mostly to help small provinces.

While Ontario will remain under-represented under the proposed plan (39.4% of the population vs 35.2% of the seats) that is in fact an *improvement* over the present situation (38.8% of the population vs 34.4% of the seats.)

Canada has in fact never had strict representation by population, as that goal has always been compromised by the goal of providing representation for small regions.

In addressing a proposal to cap the number of MPs at 308, Liberal Roger Gallaway spoke thusly:

If one were to look at the admission of British Columbia, one would find that there were great discussions and debates in that province around how we could be certain we were going to get enough people in this place to be representative of us. That is part not just of history but of the constitutional convention to which we agreed upon the creation of this country and upon the addition of these former colonies at that time.

The end result is that Bill C-486 would in fact end 175-odd years of our understanding of what representation in this place ought to be and our understanding of what was agreed upon at several points in the past. We cannot say that it is our understanding of democracy today that it will be this way or that way. It does not work that way because this is part of the Constitution.

Members may not like the fact that Prince Edward Island has four members of Parliament with a simple population of 130,000 people. They may not like the fact that other areas of the country, perhaps the Province of Quebec, have what would appear to be an inordinate number of members of Parliament relative to its population, but this was a deal. It is more than a deal. It is the Constitution of the country and it ought not to be trifled with in this manner.

Hansard, May 3 2004

In short, the principle of representation by population has never been the be-all or end-all of representation in the House of Commons.

Every province and territory except for Ontario, Alberta, and BC, benefits from special clauses. Quebec and other low (or negative) growth provinces benefit from a clause stating that no province shall have fewer MPs than they had in 1976. The Atlantic provinces benefit from a clause that provinces shall not have fewer MPs than senators. The Territories benefit from the fact that it's not medically possible to send only a fraction of an MP to Ottawa.

The news here is that under the proposal, BC and Alberta would finally have the same proportional representation as Quebec. Ontario will be remain under-represented by approximately the same proportion as it is today.

Is it fair that Ontario would have lower proportional representation than Quebec, Alberta, and BC?

Perhaps not. However, I think the perception (and probably an accurate one) is that Ontario is already the 800kg gorilla of Confederation, and the cause of democracy and fairness is not especially furthered by amending Ontario into an 820kg gorilla; becoming an 816kg gorilla will be more than adequate for Ontarions to voice their interests on the national stage.

If we accept that smallest provinces should have higher representation so as to have a voice in the national debate (and as a nation, we *have* accepted this, for 140 years) does not also the reverse hold? That the largest of us should moderate our voices so as to not drown out the rest?

-k

[Figleaf]

WTF? How does it show that exactly?

Seems like you have your own stalker, Fig.

I do, but not Canadian Blue -- he's just misguided.

M.Dancer is the one who seems to have become my unwelcome entourage, although he seems to be taking a vacation today.

[jdobbin]

I do, but not Canadian Blue -- he's just misguided.

M.Dancer is the one who seems to have become my unwelcome entourage, although he seems to be taking a vacation today.

I don't think Canadian Blue attacks personally either. He just comments and makes points that one can either agree or disagree about.

I don't know enough about Dancer although he did call voters morons.

As for your other stalker, doesn't he remind you of Ricki Robbi the way he follows you around the forums? Ricki seemed to attack personally all the time. Thankfully, he was banned. We won't see the likes of him again.

[Michael Bluth]

Perhaps not. However, I think the perception (and probably an accurate one) is that Ontario is already the 800kg gorilla of Confederation, and the cause of democracy and fairness is not especially furthered by amending Ontario into an 820kg gorilla; becoming an 816kg gorilla will be more than adequate for Ontarions to voice their interests on the national stage.

If we accept that smallest provinces should have higher representation so as to have a voice in the national debate (and as a nation, we *have* accepted this, for 140 years) does not also the reverse hold? That the largest of us should moderate our voices so as to not drown out the rest?

-k

Very good points kimmy.

I would personally prefer that no province be guaranteed seats. That would have to be part of a reall triple-E senate IMHO.

Look at the US. There is no floor in the House of Reps. A number of States have only one, at large, member of the House. But nobody whinges because there is more power in the Senate.

That wouldn't necessarily happen here, but it might be a positive benefit to Senate reform.

[Figleaf]

I do, but not Canadian Blue -- he's just misguided.

M.Dancer is the one who seems to have become my unwelcome entourage, although he seems to be taking a vacation today.

I don't think Canadian Blue attacks personally either. He just comments and makes points that one can either agree or disagree about.

I don't know enough about Dancer although he did call voters morons.

As for your other stalker, doesn't he remind you of Ricki Robbi the way he follows you around the forums. Seems to attack personally all the time. Thankfully, he was banned. We won't see the likes of him again.

Oh, you mean Bluth. I think he's stalking YOU.

All I have to do to avoid Bluth is not post anything about Steve. Leave Steve alone and his hired flunky Bluth can't be bothered with you. Just remember, don't criticise il duce if you don't want to hear from ill dupe.

[jdobbin]

Oh, you mean Bluth. I think he's stalking YOU.

All I have to do to avoid Bluth is not post anything about Steve. Leave Steve alone and his hired flunky Bluth can't be bothered with you. Just remember, don't criticise il duce if you don't want to hear from ill dupe.

I do notice that name appear behind every post I make. It does seem obsessive, even stalkerish.

Perhaps he doesn't realize that for this particular thread that Harper won't be able to get his proposal through because it isn't supported by Quebec. Harper can't win more votes in Alberta so he isn't about to offend Quebec. This was a trial balloon that isn't going anywhere.

[Michael Bluth]

Oh, you mean Bluth. I think he's stalking YOU.

All I have to do to avoid Bluth is not post anything about Steve. Leave Steve alone and his hired flunky Bluth can't be bothered with you. Just remember, don't criticise il duce if you don't want to hear from ill dupe.

Hired flunky? Where's that come from Fig?

ill dupe? That one is almost humouous. Almost note quite though.

[Figleaf]

Perhaps if the thread had not been opened with an "are you still beating your wife?" type question, it would not have descended into partisan douchebaggery.

I'm real sorry to have used the term 'gerrymandering' to describe gerrymandering. What was I thinking?

Deviation from the strict principle of representation by population isn't really gerrymandering...

Deliberately delivering more seats to some and not to others in knowing violation of population facts is gerrymandering in my book.

If one considers deviation from the principle of representation by population to be gerrymandering, then it must be pointed out that the present system is already intensely gerrymandered, and always has been. Jeffrey Simpson notes as much ...

Yep.

...I think the perception (and probably an accurate one) is that Ontario is already the 800kg gorilla of Confederation, and the cause of democracy and fairness is not especially furthered by amending Ontario into an 820kg gorilla...

Unless you have the crazy idea that undervaluing individual voters based on where they live is not quite cricket.

[Michael Bluth]

Unless you have the crazy idea that undervaluing individual voters based on where they live is not quite cricket.

Nobody, except for voters in the Atlantic provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan think that is fair.

Figs, what do you think of my Senate reform, House of Commons reform idea?

[cybercoma]

I still think the overall number of seats should be reduced to create a more efficient and effective parliament. The seats should be based on population alone. I also believe the Senate should be made up of 1 representative from each province and 1 representative for all the territories.

Could be a terrible idea but I think it might be the one thing that can save the government in the apathetic eyes of Canadians. The amount of money saved should be significant.