Tory gerrymandering

[jdobbin]

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.

All of this is as unlikely as the increase in seats that Harper proposed. It involves opening the Constitution and there is no consensus at all about what sort of changes should be made in terms of representation.

[Michael Bluth]

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.

I don't know if reduction of the number of MPs is necessary. We could stay at about 300 and just re-distribute.

1 Senator for each province and terriroty?

Is this reforming the powers of the senate somehow?

Seems like far to much power in the hands of 13 people.

I like Provinces having between 6 and 10 Senators (an equal number for each province) with the Territories having two each.

At the top end that is the size of the current Senate. Smaller is better, but not as small as you propose.

[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.

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

Well, it's not gerrymandering in the accepted definition of the term.

Perhaps instead of a poll deliberately designed as a partisan slam, maybe you could have perhaps put forth an argument as to the importance of representation by population, or some other thesis that would create discussion instead of fighting.

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.

well, at least we're agreed on that much. Why this, then?

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.

Why? Violation of population facts has been a long-standing and accepted feature of our electoral system. We've never had strict representation by population, and as Roger Gallaway's remarks in Hansard point out, it was by design. I don't see how it can be argued that failure to incorporate a principle that has never been part of our system qualifies as gerrymandering.

...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.

Well, it's not a crazy idea, per se, but it's a rather foreign one to Canada's electoral system. You're all amped up because this Tory proposal has kept with a Canadian tradition and failed to incorporate an American principle that's never been a fundamental aspect of Canadian democracy.

"Undervalued"... so, under the proposal, Ontarions would be only 96% as valued as Canadians in the middle-sized provinces? And Prince Edward Islanders would be 400% as valued? hmm. Does that viewpoint reflect the reality of Parliament's priorities? I would suggest it does not. I would suggest that arguing that Ontarions need more weight in Parliament is going to draw mostly chortles and guffaws anywhere outside of Ontario.

Small provinces like PEI and Newfoundland, as well as the Territories, have been given disproportionately high representation in the HoC. Intentionally, by design. The mathematical corollary of that decision is that voters in larger provinces will have proportionately lower representation. By definition. It's unavoidable. I'll let you work through the details on that with your pocket calculator, but trust me, it works out that way.

To summarize, we have a 140 year tradition in this country that knowingly varying from population facts when determining representation in the House of Commons is, indeed, quite cricket.

-k

[southerncomfort]

Well, it's not gerrymandering in the accepted definition of the term.

Perhaps instead of a poll deliberately designed as a partisan slam, maybe you could have perhaps put forth an argument as to the importance of representation by population, or some other thesis that would create discussion instead of fighting.

-k

Well said Kimmy its all partisan BS

[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.

I don't know if reduction of the number of MPs is necessary. We could stay at about 300 and just re-distribute.

1 Senator for each province and terriroty?

Is this reforming the powers of the senate somehow?

Seems like far to much power in the hands of 13 people.

I like Provinces having between 6 and 10 Senators (an equal number for each province) with the Territories having two each.

At the top end that is the size of the current Senate. Smaller is better, but not as small as you propose.

1 Senator for each of the 10 Provinces

1 Senator for the 3 territories

This is just to act as a safeguard against the regional population problems that will be present with the number of MPs. PEI will have an equal voice to Ontario in the Senate to help prevent the whole "tyranny of the majority" thing.

I think a group of 11 is more than enough to review bills before they finally become law. After all, the bulk of the work should be done by parliament, with the senate simply being a safeguard.

[Michael Bluth]

1 Senator for each of the 10 Provinces

1 Senator for the 3 territories

This is just to act as a safeguard against the regional population problems that will be present with the number of MPs. PEI will have an equal voice to Ontario in the Senate to help prevent the whole "tyranny of the majority" thing.

I think a group of 11 is more than enough to review bills before they finally become law. After all, the bulk of the work should be done by parliament, with the senate simply being a safeguard.

I wonder if that few people is enough to do the serious work of the Senate.

Without reform the Senate has almost equal powers to those of the House of Commons.

I really don't think 13 members would be enough. Four per province and one per territory might work. At 43 members that would still be pretty small.

Allows for enough bodies to have committees.

[M.Dancer]

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

I thought I was on your ignore list?

sad sad sad

You didn't know he was full of shit? I'm supposed to be on his ignore list too, yet he can't stop himself from replying to me when he can make the pretense of seeing it in another's quote.

[Michael Bluth]

I thought I was on your ignore list?

sad sad sad

You didn't know he was full of shit? I'm supposed to be on his ignore list too, yet he can't stop himself from replying to me when he can make the pretense of seeing it in another's quote.

Kinda like dobbin and his false claims of stalking?

dobbin magically knows what is in my posts even though he ignores me and claims I am stalking him.

It's all pretty sad.

Can't make a logical argument so make up a false claim of victimization.

Seems to be par for the course for the left.

[gc1765]

How many threads have been taken over by who is stalking who or who is ignoring who? I know I'm not perfect when it comes to getting off-topic, but can we at least TRY to stay on topic?

[jdobbin]

I think a group of 11 is more than enough to review bills before they finally become law. After all, the bulk of the work should be done by parliament, with the senate simply being a safeguard.

A safeguard or a competing authority?

Even if the provinces would agree to this (and I don't think they would), why would Ottawa create a position that could be more powerful than anything the House of Commons has?

[M.Dancer]

How many threads have been taken over by who is stalking who or who is ignoring who? I know I'm not perfect when it comes to getting off-topic, but can we at least TRY to stay on topic?

I agree, it only serves the passive aggressive's desires...........

Anyway, are we content with these troll bait polls?

[Michael Bluth]

How many threads have been taken over by who is stalking who or who is ignoring who? I know I'm not perfect when it comes to getting off-topic, but can we at least TRY to stay on topic?

If it bothers you don't reply on the boards. Feel free to PM with your concerns. I was attacked and falsely accued publicly. So I defended myself publicly.

Anyway, are we content with these troll bait polls?

Troll bait is a perfect way to describe these polls.

Such is life. The OP couldn't even fathom an honest and open debate on anything to do with this Government.

[gc1765]

Anyway, are we content with these troll bait polls?

My mistake. This particular thread was doomed from the beginning (didn't notice the poll at first). The problem is when people start taking over legitimate threads that actually have interesting discussion.

Since this topic is troll bait, I will ignore it as such. Troll away...

[Figleaf]

Perhaps instead of a poll deliberately designed as a partisan slam, maybe you could have perhaps put forth an argument as to the importance of representation by population, ...

Why would not be partisan when I was trying to guage criticism of the party carrying out the gerrymandering?

...or some other thesis that would create discussion instead of fighting.

Its not the poll that produces the fighting, it's the irrational objectors to it that do that.

Violation of population facts has been a long-standing and accepted feature of our electoral system. We've never had strict representation by population, and as Roger Gallaway's remarks in Hansard point out, it was by design. I don't see how it can be argued that failure to incorporate a principle that has never been part of our system qualifies as gerrymandering.

You're not making much sense here. You say its extensivey gerrymandered, then you complain when I complain about gerrymandering.

Anyway, having ridings that are misaligned is not gerrymandering. DELIBERATELY misaligning them for political gain is.

... I would suggest that arguing that Ontarions need more weight in Parliament is going to draw mostly chortles and guffaws anywhere outside of Ontario.

Oh really? You should check out the results of this poll.

[M.Dancer]

NO TROLLING/FLAMING

Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all.

Some messages are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value. An example would be a person who persistently creates conflict without contributing anything useful. In newsgroup circles, such a person is known as a "troll". We define "trolling" as a message that serves no constructive purpose and is likely to cause offence or arguments. We define "annoying" as any message that results in a complaint from a registered user -- we will then decide whether to take action.

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS

Please respect others using this board by refraining from personal attacks. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with a thought or idea and attacking an individual. We encourage lively debate and intelligent critiques of others viewpoints, not tirades against another poster.

TRIM YOUR REPLIES

When replying to a post, quote only what is needed for context. No one is interested in reading the entire post again! Quoting the entire post wastes expensive bandwidth and is just plain annoying. After hitting the quote buttom, please remove those portions of the post that are unrelated to your response.

Figleaf scores the natural hat trick

[kimmy]

Perhaps instead of a poll deliberately designed as a partisan slam, maybe you could have perhaps put forth an argument as to the importance of representation by population, ...

Why would not be partisan when I was trying to guage criticism of the party carrying out the gerrymandering?

You've failed to substantiate the accusation of gerrymandering made in your poll question.

...or some other thesis that would create discussion instead of fighting.

Its not the poll that produces the fighting, it's the irrational objectors to it that do that.

You've also failed to show that the objections are irrational.

Violation of population facts has been a long-standing and accepted feature of our electoral system. We've never had strict representation by population, and as Roger Gallaway's remarks in Hansard point out, it was by design. I don't see how it can be argued that failure to incorporate a principle that has never been part of our system qualifies as gerrymandering.

You're not making much sense here. You say its extensivey gerrymandered, then you complain when I complain about gerrymandering.

I never agreed that it was gerrymandered. First off, as I pointed out, the definition of gerrymandering (the real definition, not Figleaf's Special definition) refers to maliciously drawn boundaries, not the relative number of voters. A minor point, but I would expect some amount of accuracy from a guy who goes on a rant when somebody mis-uses the word "liberal".

Secondly, I said

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.

Note the word "if".

I dispute your application of the word gerrymandering to this, and not just because it doesn't meet the literal definition of gerrymandering, but because it doesn't fit the spirit of gerrymandering either.

The word gerrymandering, as you're well aware, has a connotation of mischief, shenanigans, malice, gimmickry, and so-on.

But the deliberate over-representation of small provinces, and resulting under-representation of large provinces, was an intentional characteristic of our federal system right from day one.

Now: how can a characteristic that's been an accepted and intentional part of our system from the very start be considered gerrymandering?

Anyway, having ridings that are misaligned is not gerrymandering. DELIBERATELY misaligning them for political gain is.

You've done nothing to establish that they've been misaligned for political gain.

In fact, you've failed to establish that they're misaligned at all. Why do you consider Ontario being under-represented by 4.2% under this proposal to be a misalignment, when Ontario is currently under-represented by 4.4%? It doesn't appear to be a misalignment at all, it appears to be a continuation of a Canadian tradition that holds that the mighty moderate their voice so that the meek might be heard.

... I would suggest that arguing that Ontarions need more weight in Parliament is going to draw mostly chortles and guffaws anywhere outside of Ontario.

Oh really? You should check out the results of this poll.

I refuse to. The results of your poll are crap, because your poll is crap, because it's based on a faulty question. A number of people have already stated their refusal to participate because of the assumption inherent in the question.

I spit in the general direction of your poll.

-k

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps instead of a poll deliberately designed as a partisan slam, maybe you could have perhaps put forth an argument as to the importance of representation by population, ...

Why would not be partisan when I was trying to guage criticism of the party carrying out the gerrymandering?

You've failed to substantiate the accusation of gerrymandering made in your poll question.

...or some other thesis that would create discussion instead of fighting.

Its not the poll that produces the fighting, it's the irrational objectors to it that do that.

You've also failed to show that the objections are irrational.

Violation of population facts has been a long-standing and accepted feature of our electoral system. We've never had strict representation by population, and as Roger Gallaway's remarks in Hansard point out, it was by design. I don't see how it can be argued that failure to incorporate a principle that has never been part of our system qualifies as gerrymandering.

You're not making much sense here. You say its extensivey gerrymandered, then you complain when I complain about gerrymandering.

I never agreed that it was gerrymandered. First off, as I pointed out, the definition of gerrymandering (the real definition, not Figleaf's Special definition) refers to maliciously drawn boundaries, not the relative number of voters. A minor point, but I would expect some amount of accuracy from a guy who goes on a rant when somebody mis-uses the word "liberal".

Secondly, I said

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.

Note the word "if".

I dispute your application of the word gerrymandering to this, and not just because it doesn't meet the literal definition of gerrymandering, but because it doesn't fit the spirit of gerrymandering either.

The word gerrymandering, as you're well aware, has a connotation of mischief, shenanigans, malice, gimmickry, and so-on.

But the deliberate over-representation of small provinces, and resulting under-representation of large provinces, was an intentional characteristic of our federal system right from day one.

Now: how can a characteristic that's been an accepted and intentional part of our system from the very start be considered gerrymandering?

Anyway, having ridings that are misaligned is not gerrymandering. DELIBERATELY misaligning them for political gain is.

You've done nothing to establish that they've been misaligned for political gain.

In fact, you've failed to establish that they're misaligned at all. Why do you consider Ontario being under-represented by 4.2% under this proposal to be a misalignment, when Ontario is currently under-represented by 4.4%? It doesn't appear to be a misalignment at all, it appears to be a continuation of a Canadian tradition that holds that the mighty moderate their voice so that the meek might be heard.

... I would suggest that arguing that Ontarions need more weight in Parliament is going to draw mostly chortles and guffaws anywhere outside of Ontario.

Oh really? You should check out the results of this poll.

I refuse to. The results of your poll are crap, because your poll is crap, because it's based on a faulty question. A number of people have already stated their refusal to participate because of the assumption inherent in the question.

I spit in the general direction of your poll.

-k

My hat is off to you. You have way more patience that I.

[Figleaf]

Its not the poll that produces the fighting, it's the irrational objectors to it that do that.

You've also failed to show that the objections are irrational.

Not all are. But it is the irrational ones that lead to 'fighting'.

... as I pointed out, the definition of gerrymandering (the real definition, not Figleaf's Special definition) refers to maliciously drawn boundaries, not the relative number of voters. A minor point, but I would expect some amount of accuracy from a guy who goes on a rant when somebody mis-uses the word "liberal".

Minor point indeed. To avoid appearing sophomoric, it's often preferable to focus on points that make a difference. You say I'm using 'gerrymander' wrongly because I'm using it to refer to adjustements of the number of people within ridings rather than to the boundaries of the ridings. If I concede that I should have said 'gerrymander-like', would that address your issue?

I dispute your application of the word gerrymandering to this, and not just because it doesn't meet the literal definition of gerrymandering, but because it doesn't fit the spirit of gerrymandering either.

The word gerrymandering, as you're well aware, has a connotation of mischief, shenanigans, malice, gimmickry, and so-on.

I think mischief is implicit in adjusting political representation to create advantage for one party or interest. And that is exactly what I think the government is doing in this case.

... how can a characteristic that's been an accepted and intentional part of our system from the very start be considered gerrymandering?

By taking deliberate and specific steps that expand and preserve that 'part of our system'.

In fact, you've failed to establish that they're misaligned at all. Why do you consider Ontario being under-represented by 4.2% under this proposal to be a misalignment, when Ontario is currently under-represented by 4.4%?

I think either number is a misalignment. Taking steps that approximately preserve that misalignment whilst remedying a similar problem elsewhere is the thing I'm objecting to.

... I would suggest that arguing that Ontarions need more weight in Parliament is going to draw mostly chortles and guffaws anywhere outside of Ontario.

Oh really? You should check out the results of this poll.

I refuse to.

Sure, since they directly contradict your unsubstantiated comment.

The results of your poll are crap, because your poll is crap, because it's based on a faulty question.

Other than your jejune quibble about the definition of 'gerrymander', what is wrong with the questions?

[Guest chilipeppers]

I tried to vote mu but it won't let me, says I didn't make a choice. Kinda speaks for such a pathetic poll anyway.

[Figleaf]

I tried to vote mu but it won't let me, says I didn't make a choice. Kinda speaks for such a pathetic poll anyway.

I think you have to record a vote to both questions to get it to register. If you are from/not from Ontario, you answer Mu in (at least) the one that doesn't apply to you.

[M.Dancer]

In this case, mu means.....

Shame there wasn't a button on the poll to chose Figleaf as the most dishonest partisan poster here....or it that what MU means?

[Michael Bluth]

In this case, mu means.....

Shame there wasn't a button on the poll to chose Figleaf as the most dishonest partisan poster here....or it that what MU means?

That's why I picked mu.

[kimmy]

I think mischief is implicit in adjusting political representation to create advantage for one party or interest. And that is exactly what I think the government is doing in this case.

You think so? Why? Of the 22 seats that would be created, 10 would be in Ontario and a good portion of the remaining 12 would be in Liberal-friendly areas of British Columbia. The argument that this is some sort of scheme to give Conservatives an electoral edge seems awfully fragile.

... how can a characteristic that's been an accepted and intentional part of our system from the very start be considered gerrymandering?

By taking deliberate and specific steps that expand and preserve that 'part of our system'.

That 'part of our system' has been put their intentionally. Respecting that intention and the reasons behind it is not mischief.

In fact, you've failed to establish that they're misaligned at all. Why do you consider Ontario being under-represented by 4.2% under this proposal to be a misalignment, when Ontario is currently under-represented by 4.4%?

I think either number is a misalignment. Taking steps that approximately preserve that misalignment whilst remedying a similar problem elsewhere is the thing I'm objecting to.

"Misalignment" implies some sort of mistake or oversight or error has been made, but the over-representation of the mini-provinces at Ontario's expense is very much in keeping with the spirit of our federal system.

The issue of whether Ontario alone would bear the burden of providing the mini-provinces with higher proportional representation would be a good one to discuss.

... I would suggest that arguing that Ontarions need more weight in Parliament is going to draw mostly chortles and guffaws anywhere outside of Ontario.

Oh really? You should check out the results of this poll.

I refuse to.

Sure, since they directly contradict your unsubstantiated comment.

Do I feel refuted by your poll?

The results of your poll are crap, because your poll is crap, because it's based on a faulty question.

Other than your jejune quibble about the definition of 'gerrymander', what is wrong with the questions?

The question you posed is much like asking "Do you support Liberal hate speech?" One can legitimately ask it... one can legitimately vote no... but neither the question nor the answer actually make any claim that Liberal hate speech has occured. I just can't stand Liberal hate speech! I definitely do not support it! I can't cite an incident where Liberal hate speech has actually occured but I'm definitely voting "no!" because after all, who would actually vote that they support hate speech?

Just so with your question. Your question asks if we support gerrymandering. Neither yourself nor the other 5 people who voted "no" have offered a compelling argument that this specific plan is gerrymandering, or even "gerrymander-like", as you put it. You yourself now say you *think* the government is trying to give itself an electoral advantage. If you wanted a poll on the merits of this specific proposal, then instead of asking if people support schemes to rig the system to obtain electoral advantage, you should have asked whether people think this plan is such a scheme.

-k

[Figleaf]

I think mischief is implicit in adjusting political representation to create advantage for one party or interest. And that is exactly what I think the government is doing in this case.

You think so? Why? Of the 22 seats that would be created, 10 would be in Ontario and a good portion of the remaining 12 would be in Liberal-friendly areas of British Columbia. The argument that this is some sort of scheme to give Conservatives an electoral edge seems awfully fragile.

Your interpretation surprises me. The Conservatives are well known to have a preponderance of support in Alberta, and they often seem to think they can rely on BC for seats too. Accordingly it appears to their advantage to add more seats where their success is more assured.

... how can a characteristic that's been an accepted and intentional part of our system from the very start be considered gerrymandering?

By taking deliberate and specific steps that expand and preserve that 'part of our system'.

That 'part of our system' has been put their intentionally. Respecting that intention and the reasons behind it is not mischief.

But you are simply making up the part about their intentions. Their stated intention is to REMEDY the imbalance that presently exists that you call 'part of our system'. And yet, they only intend to apply the remedy where it helps them most. Ergo, it's mischevious gerrymandering (-like).

"Misalignment" implies some sort of mistake or oversight or error has been made, ...

Misalignment implies misalignment, whether by mistake or on purpose.

... I would suggest that arguing that Ontarions need more weight in Parliament is going to draw mostly chortles and guffaws anywhere outside of Ontario.

Oh really? You should check out the results of this poll.

I refuse to.

Sure, since they directly contradict your unsubstantiated comment.

Do I feel refuted by your poll?

Your feelings are irrelevant. Your statement is belied by the poll results.

[Michael Bluth]

Your feelings are irrelevant. Your statement is belied by the poll results.

Your poll was misleading. A false question. Nobody cares figleaf...