Canadian Maps and Graphics

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't believe they'd ever drop us below 75 for symbolic political reasons, though.

There are other ways as I said to reduce Quebec's influence in Parliament (for rep by pop reasons, not necessarily devious).

Though I think either Meech or Charlottetown or both would have guaranteed Quebec 25% of the seats in the HoC, forever.

It can’t go below 75, by statute, I don’t think.

[Andy6]

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.

Way more people in urban areas aren’t citizens, or voters. Also, political influence does not increase on a straight-line basis with reference to number of seats. It’s closer to an exponential basis. If (supposing only two provinces) Ontario has 51% of the seats and Quebec has 49%, Ontario gets its way 100% of the time, not 51% of the time. That’s why representation should be weighted to some extent toward smaller component jurisdictions (not necessarily in Canada’s rather Byzantine fashion, though).

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't believe they'd ever drop us below 75 for symbolic political reasons, though.

There are other ways as I said to reduce Quebec's influence in Parliament (for rep by pop reasons, not necessarily devious).

Though I think either Meech or Charlottetown or both would have guaranteed Quebec 25% of the seats in the HoC, forever.

The tinkering to the formula last time was done to put Quebec at the national average, Quebec is not guaranteed 25% (has 23% now), but it is grandfathered at 75. 6 provinces overrepresented, 3 provinces under-represented and Quebec at the average. I would expect the same type of changes if Quebec falls below the national average once the current formula's electoral quotient etc. is applied.

No one should get too excited, by the time the census is done and confirmed and the formula is applied and jigged and agreed and the redistribution of riding boundaries is gerrymandered and approved it will be 2026 before the changes are made, so probably take effect 3 elections from now.

In 1992, as part of the discussions surrounding the Charlottetown Agreement, Québec succeeded, among other things, in ensuring that its representation in the House of Commons could never fall below the threshold of 25% of the total seats. However, following the failure of this constitutional agreement, this measure never materialized.

new “grandfather clause”,39 which ensured that no province could have fewer seats than it had in 1986, when the Representation Act, 1985, came into force.

[MonctonRad]

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.

Political representatives in a large urban area tend to be much more anonymous than their counterparts in the distant hinterlands. Does anyone really care if Toronto has 45 MPs rather than 42? How many people in TO actually know what the boundaries of their riding are or who their local MP is? On a daily basis it doesn't really matter.

In northern Ontario however, a riding could be tens if not hundreds of thousands of square kms in area, and the MP might be responsible for multiple disparate far flung communities, all of which have local agendas which are important to them. MPs in rural areas are much more personally responsible for these communities than an urban Toronto MP. These rural folk have very little influence on the national stage, and their only access to the levers of power is often only through their local MP. Everyone knows who their federal MP is, and these MPs are petitioned every day on multiple issues.

Rural MPs are disproportionately involved in constituency work as a result. Add in large travel distances between the communities they represent, and it becomes pretty clear that there is a real and palpable reason for relative overrepresentation of rural areas in parliament

[wave46]

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.

[Acajack]

Here is the map of provincial ridings in Quebec by population.

http://jhroy.ca/2018/00.html

[Andy6]

Manitoba went to strictly equal population by riding (within a small tolerance) about 20 years ago, eliminating the modest bias in favour of the North and some rural areas that had developed.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Here is the map of provincial ridings in Quebec by population.

http://jhroy.ca/2018/00.html

At least they didn't include Labrador in that map!!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

At least they didn't include Labrador in that map!!

That'd be a sneaky way for Labradorians to get a seat in our assembly!

They already have a federal MP for only 25k people.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Acajack

They already have a federal MP for only 25k people.

And this is a perfect example of why, occasionally, the playbook regarding riding sizes should be tossed out the window.

Labrador is a large disparate territory, physically removed from Newfoundland proper by the Strait of Belle Isle, and has unique challenges and a large aboriginal population. In order to get up to a standard Canadian riding with about 110,000 people, their riding would have to be expanded to include all of western Newfoundland, incorporating a different population with their own unique challenges and culture.

Compare this to two adjacent ridings in downtown Toronto, each consisting of fewer than 50 square city blocks................

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

And this is a perfect example of why, occasionally, the playbook regarding riding sizes should be tossed out the window.

These areas should still have voices in Parliament, though, regardless of how lopsided it can be at times. I don't think all three territories should be merged into one given the challenges and differences in each area, and the same goes for Labrador. You even gave a reasoning for why this should be the case a few posts back:

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

In northern Ontario however, a riding could be tens if not hundreds of thousands of square kms in area, and the MP might be responsible for multiple disparate far flung communities, all of which have local agendas which are important to them. MPs in rural areas are much more personally responsible for these communities than an urban Toronto MP.

However, compare that to somewhere like, say, PEI, and the argument loosens a bit. Four on PEI is a bit excessive given the general homogeneity of issues and small geography of the area. I know there's historical reasoning for this, but PEI is a better example of the issues of representation in Parliament than Labrador.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by JHikka

However, compare that to somewhere like, say, PEI, and the argument loosens a bit. Four on PEI is a bit excessive given the general homogeneity of issues and small geography of the area. I know there's historical reasoning for this, but PEI is a better example of the issues of representation in Parliament than Labrador.

I would agree with this (even though I am originally from PEI). The Island probably should have no more than two MPs.

The four members that the Island currently have are constitutionally protected however, and that isn't going to change (just like the 10 members that NB has). At some point however, NS could lose an MP (eleven down to ten).

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

And this is a perfect example of why, occasionally, the playbook regarding riding sizes should be tossed out the window.

Labrador is a large disparate territory, physically removed from Newfoundland proper by the Strait of Belle Isle, and has unique challenges and a large aboriginal population. In order to get up to a standard Canadian riding with about 110,000 people, their riding would have to be expanded to include all of western Newfoundland, incorporating a different population with their own unique challenges and culture.

Compare this to two adjacent ridings in downtown Toronto, each consisting of fewer than 50 square city blocks................

Quebec also does this provincially by giving the Îles-de-la-Madeleine its own seat even if it only has 10,000 people. (The provincial average per seat is around 60,000 I think.)

We also do this for the huge Ungava region which is west and southwest of Labrador. It has its own member for a population of around 25,000.

Federally, these regions are grouped with other regions. Ungava is with part of Abitibi, where there are a few cities, in order bring it closer to the 100,000 people per MP average. And the islands are grouped together with the Gaspésie for the same reason.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Here is the map of provincial ridings in Quebec by population.

http://jhroy.ca/2018/00.html

every single underrepresented riding is on the island of Montreal (where the allophones are clustered). Not Laval, not the South Shore, not the North Shore. The island of Montreal is where the red zones are.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by wave46

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.

good post.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

every single underrepresented riding is on the island of Montreal (where the allophones are clustered). Not Laval, not the South Shore, not the North Shore. The island of Montreal is where the red zones are.

The light red or pink ridings are all under-represented as well.

The five or so red ridings (so most under-represented) are all in central-western Montreal, but over and under ridings are found all over the province.

There are even diverse, over-represented Liberal stronghold ridings like Lafontaine on the island of Montreal.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by wave46

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.

Yep. At the end of the day PEI has ~0 impact on the outcome regardless of whether they get 2-4x the representation. But at least these geographical areas, when representation is bumped up a bit, can have somewhat local MPs representing a coherent area. PEI would probably be okay with 2 but apparently they have some historical guarantees which again have a marginal impact on the overall picture.

It is a bit annoying how PEI is the "poster child" for electoral grievances relating to Atlantic Canada when in reality it is an outlier. Many ridings in Atlantic Canada are in the 85,000-100,000 population range, and probably a bit closer to the mean number of electors than the population suggests. For example the Long Range Mountains riding in NL had more electors in 2011 than Markham or Vancouver Kingsway did. These days parts of urban Atlantic Canada are growing quite quickly and likely have the same demographic representation issues you find in suburban Ontario or BC. It is not actually guaranteed that the demographic pattern of 1990-2010 will continue ad infinitum until Atlantic Canada has ~0% of Canada's population and Alberta is ~100%.

[Andy6]

It's kind of interesting that, for example, the Toronto riding of Humber River-Black Creek has 15,000 fewer electors than the rural riding of South Shore-St. Margarets in Nova Scotia, even though it has 16,000 more people.

[JHikka]

The Boston Public Library has high-resolution scans of late-19th century maps of a few different places in Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes. A selection:

Collingwood (1875)


Toronto (1873)


Saint John (1882)


Yarmouth (1889)


https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/...alth:9s1621613
Link provides a map and sortable filter for maps. Maps have clickable links with zoom, etc. etc.

These maps aren't especially difficult to find online but I think these are some of the highest resolution i've come across.

[Architype]

Interesting that Toronto had wards all named for saints. I thought that was a mostly Catholic thing.

But here is the answer to my question.

Old Toronto was a city of saints. Their names were stitched into the fabric of the community by the first settlers from the British Isles, starting in the early 1800s. Thanks to them, Toronto’s first political divisions and neighbourhoods were named for the patron saints of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and, thanks to a quirk of timing, the patron saint of librarians, miners, and students.

This saintly history is most clearly visible on the Toronto subway map, where several of the old wards were enshrined in the names of stations, particularly on the University line. Elsewhere, the saints live on in the names of city markets and older civic buildings. But who were the saints of Toronto, and what did they do to earn such veneration? Here’s a handy guide to Toronto’s most holy and virtuous.

http://spacing.ca/toronto/2014/09/17...oronto-saints/