Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
Isn't the under-representation of urban areas (vis-à-vis the "regions") pretty much the way things are in many, many countries? Perhaps most of them even?
I think it's partly a case of representation not following demographic change and a hangover from when our populations were much more rural, but I think there is probably some of that that's still deliberate for political reasons, and also even logical ones - it's not a bad idea to have a balance between urban and rural interests.
Though obviously that balance is extremely difficult to achieve.
|
It's how badly the misbalance is that makes things challenging. I don't think Canada does terrible on that metric in the House of Commons.
There's cases like Labrador, which has ~26,000 residents for its riding. Then there's Brant with ~132,000 people. These are the extremes though. The bulk of ridings contain between 75,000-110,000 people.
The regions with lower numbers of residents per riding are disproportionately located in provinces with few ridings. Thus, they achieve a modicum of balance by having one or two extra seats than they should. The net effect is relatively negligible writ large, as the large provinces (BC, AB, ON and QC) basically dominate because their huge populations give them an advantage in seats. There's not a case where the provinces of <2 million gang up on the big 4 in the House of Commons, because they don't have the people to do that.
The US Senate is a whole different kettle of fish. There's a reason podunk places like Iowa and Wyoming get lots of goodies disproportionately and that's because they contribute the same 2 Senators as California, New York and Texas.
Could Canada do better to give more of a voice to its smaller provinces? Probably. I don't think I'd want a US-style Senate - that's too far in the other direction of the tail wagging the dog. It won't happen, because Constitutional Debate in this country is unpleasant.
Everything is compromise.