The maps are based on public domain files available at Wikipedia. The populations for ridings were obtained from Statistics Canada, using GeoSearch 2006. Populations for provinces were obtained from Statistics Canada, and are for the year 2006.
On the population legend, those numbers are thousands. (ie, 50 = 50,000; 145 = 145,000 etc. I forgot to put that in. :P)
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/183/canada2008um9.png
Excluding the territories, as they're a special case...
The most over-represented province is Prince Edward Island. (It can't have fewer than four ridings due to a clause in the constitution.) It has one riding for every 33,963 people. If the average riding had that many people, we would have 931 ridings.
The most under-represented province is Alberta. It has one riding for every 117,513 people. British Columbia has one for every 114,264 people, and Ontario has one for every 113,647 people. If the average riding had 117,513 people, we would have 269 ridings.
Quebec is the only province that meets the national average. It has one riding for every 100,615 people, which is closest to the national average of 102,639 nationally.
The least populated riding is Labrador, with 26,364 people. If every riding had that many people, we would have 1,199 ridings. The most populated riding is Brampton West, with 170,422 people. If every riding had that many people, we would have 185 ridings.
someone123
10-20-2008, 07:48 PM
People like to complain about this but in practice it's not really as much of a problem as it is made out to be, if it is a problem at all. The supposedly under-represented areas tend to have much higher populations and large areas like the GTA (or some of its sub-areas) have fairly consistent political aims and get to send many MPs to Ottawa. The hugely over-represented areas in the territories and PEI only make up a tiny fraction of total MPs.
Westerners in particular like to complain about the seat distribution but the fact is that despite this they've managed to exert a significant amount of influence over federal politics (e.g. Conservatives in power), and giving them a few more seats isn't going to change the fundamental fact that Central Canada has a much larger population.
Acajack
10-20-2008, 07:52 PM
And the Meech Lake Accord (remember it anyone?) would have guaranteed, among other things, that Quebec would have had a minimum of 25% of the seats in the House of Commons forever, regardless of the evolution of its share of the Canadian population.
HomeInMyShoes
10-20-2008, 08:14 PM
Awesome vid.
Populations are shifting though. It's what happens and looking at things like vid's graphical representation are important to determine if things need to be revised. I'd like to see us start dropping some MPs and getting rid of some dead weight.
I do think you should have inverted the colours vid. Red for overrepresented (low population in the riding.)
wild wild west
10-20-2008, 08:21 PM
No surprise here...the areas with the lowest per capita representation tend to be fast-growing provinces (Ontario, BC and Alberta) and in particular the 6 largest cities.
lubicon
10-20-2008, 08:25 PM
From Wikipedia:
The House of Commons is composed of 308 members,[1] each of whom represents a single electoral district (also called a riding). Law requires that there be a minimum of 282 electoral districts; there are currently 308. Seats are distributed among the provinces in proportion to population, as determined by each decennial census, subject to the following exceptions made by the constitution. Firstly, the "senatorial clause" guarantees that each province will have at least as many Members of Parliament as Senators. Secondly, the "grandfather clause" guarantees each province has at least as many Members of Parliament now as it had in 1976. Finally, no province may lose more than fifteen per cent of its seats after a single decennial census.
As a result of these three clauses, smaller provinces and provinces that have experienced a relative decline in population are over-represented in the House. Quebec is over represented in proportion to its populations, while Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta are represented in proportion to their populations. Provincial boundary commissions are responsible for drawing the boundaries of the electoral districts. Territorial representation is independent of population; each territory is entitled to only one seat. The calculation is done by taking the minimum 282 seats and subtracting the three territories to equal 279 seats. The population of Canada is then divided by 279 to equal the electoral quotient. The population of the province is then divided by the electoral quotient to equal the provincial seat allocation.[7] Representation in the House of Commons is summarised in the table at the end of this section.[8]
Wooster
10-20-2008, 08:31 PM
The 905 seems to be the worst. Of course this area adds about a riding worth of people every year.
mmmatt
10-20-2008, 08:32 PM
Great job vid! very informative :)
WhipperSnapper
10-20-2008, 08:37 PM
look at that sprawl!!!!!!
Ontario, BC and Alberta are getting a few more ridings in time for the next election (not enough to bring them to the national average though) and after the 2011 census, which is the main census (the ---6 censuses aren't as thorough or important) most of the seats will be redistributed.
If you look at the Toronto map especially, it isn't the core cities that are slighted, it's the fast growing suburbs around them. The ridings can't be redrawn fast enough to accurately represent them, which is why some Toronto ridings have twice as many people as Northern Ontario ridings.
And interesting note, Ontario's Provincial Parliament seat distribution uses 2001 as a base year for seats in Southern Ontario, and 1991 as a base year for seats in the North. Because, you know, we'd bitch if it was otherwise. :rolleyes:
I considered putting the colours the other way around, but 'warm' colours typically represent a density or high amount of something, while 'cool' colours represent sparsity or low amounts of something, so that's why I went with those colours.
Cambridgite
10-20-2008, 09:08 PM
Some of these ridings don't make much sense in the way they're designed. Not even speaking about size and representation, but in terms of shape and what is included in them. One of the most retarded ones around is the Kitchener-Conestoga riding (on the very west side of the GTA section), which has suburban areas of Kitchener lumped in with 3 rural townships. What does someone living in an apartment block in Kingsdale have in common with someone living in a Deer Ridge Estates McMansion, and what do either have in common with a mennonite living in Wellesley township? Not much, but all of these areas are lumped together in a pretty arbitrary way. Not that it matters this time around, since even the most traditionally liberal area ridings switched over to conservative in this election. But I think some of our riding boundaries need to be revised to reflect the population characteristics they represent. Ditto for ridings such as Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale as well as Markham-Oak Ridges, and I'm sure many others across this country.
Cambridgite
10-20-2008, 09:10 PM
If you look at the Toronto map especially, it isn't the core cities that are slighted, it's the fast growing suburbs around them.
Exactly. The 416 has nothing to complain about when it comes to being represented by the province. Thank you for pointing that out.
HomeInMyShoes
10-20-2008, 09:17 PM
Ontario, BC and Alberta are getting a few more ridings in time for the next election (not enough to bring them to the national average though) and after the 2011 census, which is the main census (the ---6 censuses aren't as thorough or important) most of the seats will be redistributed.
If you look at the Toronto map especially, it isn't the core cities that are slighted, it's the fast growing suburbs around them. The ridings can't be redrawn fast enough to accurately represent them, which is why some Toronto ridings have twice as many people as Northern Ontario ridings.
And interesting note, Ontario's Provincial Parliament seat distribution uses 2001 as a base year for seats in Southern Ontario, and 1991 as a base year for seats in the North. Because, you know, we'd bitch if it was otherwise. :rolleyes:
I considered putting the colours the other way around, but 'warm' colours typically represent a density or high amount of something, while 'cool' colours represent sparsity or low amounts of something, so that's why I went with those colours.
True, with warm versus cold, but that depends on which way you organize or think of the ratio. Titling it underrepresentation only would make it less prone to misinterpretation. Sorry, I'm becoming a serious map geek.
waterloowarrior
10-20-2008, 11:11 PM
About 2.334 million people in the 4 Atlantic provinces get 32 seats. The City of Toronto has 2.503 million people and gets 23 seats
704 thousand people in Waterloo Region and Guelph get 6 seats. 746 thousand in NB get 10.
Architype
10-21-2008, 01:25 AM
Great map Vid, now you just need to redraw it appropriately and send it along to Ottawa. I'm sure they would appreciate it. :)
Andy6
10-21-2008, 02:51 AM
Interesting. As I've pointed out on my blog, the situation changes a little bit if you count eligible voters per riding, rather than people per riding. Some Toronto-area ridings have surprisingly low numbers of eligible voters. Does "one person, one vote" mean an equal number of people per riding or an equal number of electors per riding?
Also, political power is not a simple function of number of seats. If a province had 60% of the seats in the House of Commons its representatives will be able to control legislation not 60% of the time, but 100% of the time. On the other end of the spectrum, if a province or territory has just one or two seats, the votes of its MPs are rarely if ever going to be required to assemble a majority of votes on an issue. PEI's influence with the 2 MPs (or 1.5 MPs) it "deserves" would arguably be considerably less than its 0.4% share of the Canadian population would require.
What is problematic are some of the inequities that have been built into our system because of the formula for distributing seats, and particularly by the requirement that no province can lose seats combined with the very small increases in total seats that the legislation provides for. So we have Winnipeg having the same number of MPs as Calgary and Saskatchewan with the same number as Manitoba (which has about 200,000 more residents), while Nova Scotia has 3 fewer than Saskatchewan when the populations of the two provinces would suggest that the difference should be only one. Unless the government either removes the rule against provinces' losing seats or allows for greater increases in the total complement of MPs, these anomalies are only going to get worse.
MolsonExport
10-21-2008, 12:34 PM
Quebec is the only province that meets the national average. It has one riding for every 100,615 people, which is closest to the national average of 102,639 nationally.
And there it is, folks. Please refrain from bashing Quebec for all the election ills.
Acajack
10-21-2008, 01:18 PM
And there it is, folks. Please refrain from bashing Quebec for all the election ills.
MolsonExport, mon ami, you know as well as I do that facts never get in the way of good old fashioned Quebec bashing! ;)
Bedford_DJ
10-21-2008, 07:31 PM
Great Job Vid!
To me it looks like some seats in Saskatchewan should be moved to Toronto and Ottawa. The districts really do need to be redrawn. From a Atlantic Canadian perspective i can tell some fixing up would help;
Northern NS (Cape-Breton/Guysborough) is declining is population so maybe a merger into two districts and some boundary changes would make it evener. Right now they have the same number of MP's as HRM but they dont have nearly as many people. Halifax has 40% of NS's population and 4 full districts. Northern NS has maybe 20% and three districts. Its not very even.
Metro-One
10-21-2008, 08:10 PM
Why would there be any Quebec bashing in this respect, they are at the seat per capita ration the rest of the nation should be. This also shows that one can not deny that Alberta, BC and Ontario are under represented.
rrskylar
10-21-2008, 08:27 PM
To show you how over represented by govt. we are in Canada, if the US was to have our type of representation they would have over 3000 members in congress! As it is now the present size of Congress is 435 seats which means one member represents on average about 650000. Their senate has 100 members, two for every state. Having two senators from each province and maybe one each from the three territories doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Cambridgite
10-21-2008, 08:50 PM
To show you how over represented by govt. we are in Canada, if the US was to have our type of representation they would have over 3000 members in congress! As it is now the present size of Congress is 435 seats which means one member represents on average about 650000. Their senate has 50 members, two for every state. Having two senators from each province and maybe one each from the three territories doesn't sound like a bad idea.
True enough. Why not cut down on bureaucracy when you can?
Bedford_DJ
10-21-2008, 08:54 PM
If their senate has 50 members wouldn't that be one for every state?
someone123
10-21-2008, 08:58 PM
The per capita representation argument about Canada and the US seems very naive to me. First of all, the cost of having 308 seats vs 100 or whatever (possibly the 40 that would supposedly be analogous to 435 in the US?) is not significant as a part of the overall budget. If your goal is to cut back on spending, looking at the number of MPs and senators (maybe to a lesser degree) is a waste of time. Beyond this, there are two major problems with the comparison: (1) a lot of the functions of the government and dynamics of a group like the MPs don't change much as population does, and (2) the US political structure is very different from Canada. We have more distinct political entities per capita, twice as many major parties, and the PM and cabinet usually have seats.
Some of these ridings ... across this country.
Ridings are organized by population. Taking demographics into account might bring up accusations of gerrymandering. I would support changing ridings, such as those in Saskatoon, Regina and Thunder Bay so that the urban areas are represented apart from rural areas. Northwestern Ontario should be two ridings--Thunder Bay, and everything west of Nipigon. East of Nipigon should be put in with Algoma--Manitoulin--Kapuskasing. Thunder Bay should include only the urban area of the city.
True, with warm versus cold, but that depends on which way you organize or think of the ratio. Titling it underrepresentation only would make it less prone to misinterpretation. Sorry, I'm becoming a serious map geek.
You are. :) I don't feel like redoing it though. If you want to, be my guest. It's PD.
Great map Vid, now you just need to redraw it appropriately and send it along to Ottawa. I'm sure they would appreciate it. :)
No, I'll just have to find a way to participate in the redistricting process. The way I want to redraw it would require constitutional amendments.
If StatsCan put eligible voters up on its census map, I would have used those instead, but it only puts the population. Eligible voters changes at election day as well when new voters register at the polls or shortly before the election (as I did). If I had a lot more time to dedicate to it, I would make that map. It would take several times longer than this map, though. I had Saskatchewan finished in less than a minute, it was little more than four clicks to colour the districts.
To show you how over represented by govt. we are in Canada, if the US was to have our type of representation they would have over 3000 members in congress! As it is now the present size of Congress is 435 seats which means one member represents on average about 650000. Their senate has 50 members, two for every state. Having two senators from each province and maybe one each from the three territories doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Canada is a small country, though. The UK has about the same ratio. They have around 700 MPs. They don't even all fit in their House of Commons, many have to stand outside and listen. I think they're renovating it soon. (Ours is going to be renovated in a couple years, not sure where they are with that. The house and senate will be put into the court yards of the east and west blocks at Parliament, I think.)
In terms of diversity of opinion in parliament, Canada is well ahead of the US. Too bad our two major parties are too scared to take advantage of it by being more willing to form a coalition.
The US Senate has 100 seats. Canada's has 103. Wyoming has one representative in the US House, out of 435. The US model is basing the house on population, and the senate on second level political unit. By way of the senate, no state is 'under represented'. Canada isn't quite like this, though. We base our senate on regions, so we have four provinces in the west 'sharing' 24 senators. It's possible that all 24 could come from the same province, leaving three with no senate representation at all. At the very least, senators should have ridings so that all parts of the country are represented in the upper house.
Acajack
10-21-2008, 10:17 PM
To show you how over represented by govt. we are in Canada, if the US was to have our type of representation they would have over 3000 members in congress! As it is now the present size of Congress is 435 seats which means one member represents on average about 650000. Their senate has 50 members, two for every state. Having two senators from each province and maybe one each from the three territories doesn't sound like a bad idea.
I'd say that from a representative democracy perspective, having a lower ratio of elected representative-to-constituent (as we do in Canada compared to the US) isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Andy6
10-22-2008, 12:19 AM
And interesting note, Ontario's Provincial Parliament seat distribution uses 2001 as a base year for seats in Southern Ontario, and 1991 as a base year for seats in the North. Because, you know, we'd bitch if it was otherwise.
Ontario just uses the federal boundaries, unless something has changed recently -- so I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Quebec's population is close to the national mean because the formula for the number of seats in the House of Commons is calculated on the basis of a fixed number of seats for Quebec (75). That has been true, with some deviations, since Confederation, when Quebec was awarded 65 seats permanently and the number of ridings in other provinces varied as they grew faster or more slowly than Quebec. At one point the formula was changed so that Quebec would get 4 additional seats at each redistribution but that was abandoned because the other provinces' representation would have grown so fast to keep up that there wouldn't have been enough room for all the MPs in the chamber.
rrskylar
10-22-2008, 01:19 AM
I'd say that from a representative democracy perspective, having a lower ratio of elected representative-to-constituent (as we do in Canada compared to the US) isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Unless you fail to remember someone (you and I) have to pay for it, our past MP (Bill Blaikie) decided to retire before the past election and he will now collect a 145K a year pension. Not bad if you can get it!
The notion that regional areas have to be represented is hogwash, should NB with only people 751,000 have 10 senators per 73,000 people while Alberta with 3,500,000 have only 6 senators (or 1 senator per 550,000)
Ontario uses 2001 federal boundaries in the south, and 1991 federal boundaries in the north. Kenora--Rainy River and Thunder Bay--Atikokan haven't existed for more than 4 years, but the province still uses them.
The notion that regional areas have to be represented is hogwash, should NB with only people 751,000 have 10 senators per 73,000 people while Alberta with 3,500,000 have only 6 senators (or 1 senator per 550,000)
The point of the senate should be to give regions an equal voice. However, it is now a total joke. The provinces in each region may have different goals/values and the fact that senators are appointed by the PM and serve until age 75 makes the senate one of the biggest farces in Canadian politics. Revamp it and make it like the US Senate. A fixed number of senators for each province and make them elected.
salvius
11-05-2008, 12:57 AM
The point of the senate should be to give regions an equal voice. However, it is now a total joke. The provinces in each region may have different goals/values and the fact that senators are appointed by the PM and serve until age 75 makes the senate one of the biggest farces in Canadian politics. Revamp it and make it like the US Senate. A fixed number of senators for each province and make them elected.
No thank you. It's especially unnecessary in Canada, a country far more decentralized than US (the only major exception being the criminal code). Premiers can represent their regions just fine; in fact, they're often far more effective opposition to the federal government than the actual opposition in the House of Commons.
SteelTown
12-17-2008, 06:15 PM
Ontario to get 21 more seats in Parliament
Updated: Wed Dec. 17 2008 1:49:38 PM
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20081217/ont_seats_081217/20081217?hub=Toronto
Ontario will now have 21 more seats in the House of Commons as the federal government quietly agreed to give in to the province's demand for greater representation.
Originally, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said that Ontario would receive 10 seats in the House under a revamped distribution plan meant to reflect a growing population in the province as well as Albert and British Columbia.
However, on Wednesday, Premier Dalton McGuinty told reporters that he and Harper had come to an understanding when they met in Ottawa last Friday.
"I spoke with him about that and I think we've fixed it," McGuinty said when he was asked if the seat issue had come up during their meeting.
McGuinty said Harper agreed to the extra seats without asking Ontario to give up anything in return.
"I think there was a sense that it was the right thing to do," he said.
McGuinty had voiced his concern over the redistribution plan that would have given Canada's most populous province one MP for every 115,000 residents. He said other key provinces had better representation with one MP for every 105,000 citizens.
At one point, the issue caused a deep tension between Ottawa and Ontario. Peter Van Loan, the Conservative government house leader, called McGuinty the "small man of Confederation" for his demands.
McGuinty insisted he just wanted fairness and shot down accusations he was acting un-Canadian for wanting the most for Ontario.
The premier said that during his meeting with Harper, the prime minister argued that Ontario was better off because of the redistribution plan. Harper pointed out that under the old formula, Ontario would have only received four additional seats.
"I said 'yeah, that's true, but that's not the point," McGuinty explained. "The point is we should be working towards fairness, and over time we would have continued to fall behind."
Ottawa's concession is the latest move on the federal government's part to show a unified front with the Ontario Liberals as both governments try to hammer out a rescue package for the auto sector.
With files from The Canadian Press
What about Alberta and BC?
WhipperSnapper
12-17-2008, 10:58 PM
Having two senators from each province and maybe one each from the three territories doesn't sound like a bad idea.
That would mean a vote representing Ontario would be worth several times less than one representing New Brunwick. Still, better than we have now, I guess.
The Chemist
12-17-2008, 11:12 PM
To show you how over represented by govt. we are in Canada, if the US was to have our type of representation they would have over 3000 members in congress! As it is now the present size of Congress is 435 seats which means one member represents on average about 650000. Their senate has 100 members, two for every state. Having two senators from each province and maybe one each from the three territories doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Small countries tend to have more representatives per capita than big ones. It's normal.
Look at Ireland. Population is less than 4 million, yet they have 165 representatives in their national parliament!
kirjtc2
12-17-2008, 11:59 PM
The smaller provinces need to be overrepresented to protect their interests against some mob rule majority.
Take a look at the US: the House of Reps is entirely based on population, but that's balanced out by the Senate where Vermont has as many senators as California.
Bassic Lab
12-18-2008, 12:53 AM
What about Alberta and BC?
The plan already called for Alberta and BC to be topped up to even them out with Quebec. Ontario was short shifted in the original plan without any real reason. It is now getting the same ratio as Alberta and BC were going to get for one reason, Ontario now looks like fertile ground for the Conservatives. It isn't like they suddenly decided to do the right thing just because.
With additional seats in the three, currently, under represented areas it might actually be possible to elect a majority government despite the Bloc. Which seems to be the entire motivation behind this.
Bassic Lab
12-18-2008, 12:59 AM
The smaller provinces need to be overrepresented to protect their interests against some mob rule majority.
Take a look at the US: the House of Reps is entirely based on population, but that's balanced out by the Senate where Vermont has as many senators as California.
Provincial interests should be dealt with by provincial governments. In federal matters all Canadians should have an equal voice. Our federal government is supposed to be a government. This is different from the US federal government, which was meant to not a government but instead an alliance of sovereign states.
crooked rain
12-18-2008, 01:08 AM
The smaller provinces need to be overrepresented to protect their interests against some mob rule majority.
Take a look at the US: the House of Reps is entirely based on population, but that's balanced out by the Senate where Vermont has as many senators as California.
I thought the US Senate was created that way to ensure that the House of Representatives does not get filled with wackos who are voted in by the people - thus subverting the rule of the people somewhat. Now that Senate seats are prohibitively expensive to run for, I think it is still fulfilling that role. Not that I am complaining - the US Senators seems pretty balanced and intelligent compared to some of the characters in the House.
Rathgrith
12-18-2008, 01:57 AM
Why don't they just dig up PEI and ship it to the GTA? ;)
MTLskyline
12-25-2008, 06:02 AM
The plan already called for Alberta and BC to be topped up to even them out with Quebec. Ontario was short shifted in the original plan without any real reason. It is now getting the same ratio as Alberta and BC were going to get for one reason, Ontario now looks like fertile ground for the Conservatives. It isn't like they suddenly decided to do the right thing just because.
With additional seats in the three, currently, under represented areas it might actually be possible to elect a majority government despite the Bloc. Which seems to be the entire motivation behind this.
Yeah finally we can have a majority.
Smevo
12-27-2008, 02:38 AM
Great Job Vid!
To me it looks like some seats in Saskatchewan should be moved to Toronto and Ottawa. The districts really do need to be redrawn. From a Atlantic Canadian perspective i can tell some fixing up would help;
Northern NS (Cape-Breton/Guysborough) is declining is population so maybe a merger into two districts and some boundary changes would make it evener. Right now they have the same number of MP's as HRM but they dont have nearly as many people. Halifax has 40% of NS's population and 4 full districts. Northern NS has maybe 20% and three districts. Its not very even.
I'd have to agree with you on the Northern NS point. Currently the urban population is split so CB has two ridings with equal population, but it doesn't make much sense in terms of similarities. The CB Canso riding has Glace Bay and New Waterford urban areas lumped in with Richmond, Inverness, and a portion of Guysborough county which are all rural, and tends to get overrun by the rural agenda. The CB the Lakes or whatever it's called (it's been years since I voted in that riding) has Sydney and the Northside urban areas lumped in with Victoria County and the rural areas around the Bras D'Or lakes and is still strongly influenced by the rural population, but because many are commuters to the urban are in this riding, it's less influenced than the CB Canso riding.
As far as these two alone go, I'd say urban CBRM should be one riding (encompassing a populations of close to 100,000) and put the southern CBRM rural population with Richmond, Victoria, Inverness, and some Northern Nova Scotia areas because they have more in common with each other than with the urban CBRM. That would give CB effectively 1.5 ridings, which works with the national average as well. ;)
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
