Canada Federal Representation 2024

[EastAnglianLefty]

The final region for my Quebec proposals is the east, made up of Gaspésie-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Bas St. Laurent, Chaudière-Appalaches, Estrie and Centre-du-Québec. At the moment there are 14.5 ridings within this area and I'd propose cutting this to fourteen.

That seems like a relatively minor change, but at present the ridings in the east are drastically undersized - Avignon--La Mitis--Matane--Matapédia is 34% below average, Gaspésie--Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine is 30% below, Rimouski-Neigette--Témiscouata--Les Basques is 21% below and Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup is 11% below. So evening things up does shift things westwards and towards more urban seats.





Gaspésie-Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine-Amqui 101861 - Gaspésie is a little undersized on its own and I'm not sure it's isolated enough to be left undersized, but if you did want to do so then Amqui can just go to the following seat
Rimouski-Neigette-La Matanie 102396
Rivière du Loup-Témiscouata-Kamouraska-L'Islet 102608
Montmagny-Bellechasse-Les Etchemins-Lévis 119620 - if you have an undersized Gaspésie then you can mathematically fit in three more ridings east of Beauce and Lévis, but doing so forces you to split Rimouski. Given that Lévis is too big for a single riding, I think this is a superior option
Lévis 107471 - the parts of the municipality west of the Chaudière and north of the Trans-Canada Highway
Beauce 110625 - adds St. Lambert-de-Lauzon to align with MRC boundaries
Les Appalaches-L'Erable-Lotbinière 100257
Victoriaville-Nicolet-Bécancour 105999 - the problem with this alignment is that you have to split the Arthabaska MRC to get vaguely sensible ridings. This isn't an ideal split, but I think it's good enough
Drummond 107967 - unchanged
Mégantic-Compton-Val-des-Sources 100220 - thinly populated rural areas without a great deal of coherence
Sherbrooke 105049 - shaves off Fleurimont
Richmond-Rock Forest-Fleurimont 99452 - the Richmond MRC and the parts of Sherbrooke not in the eponymous seat. If you want you could put the outer bits of Sherbrooke with Compton and Richmond with Mégantic et al., which is closer to the present arrangement but doesn't match up as well to MRC boundaries.
Brome-Missisquoi 100629 - basically the current seat, but I'm not sure why the present name doesn't mention Magog at all
Shefford 104153

[EastAnglianLefty]

The option without an additional seat in Montreal is to assign four small seats to the Outaoauis and six to the Laurentides. Best I can come up with for that is this:



Thérèse-De Blainville 106013 - unchanged
Mirabel 118727 - all of Mirabel and the rest of the Thérèse-De Blainville MRC
Deux Montagnes 103754 - the eponymous MRC
Argenteuil-Rivière du Nord 100928 - also contains part of Les Pays-d'en-Haut MRC.
Rivière du Nord 99961 - this splits Saint-Jérôme. If that bothers you, you can swap it for Prévost and Saint-Hippolyte, which puts this riding 3 people under the 10% mark (and you could always St Anne-des-Plaines if that bothers you.)
Laurentides-Labelle 108702 - has the rest of Les Pays-d'en-Haut MRC.



Buckingham-Papineauville-Cantley 101239 - all of Papineauville MRC, the bits of Les Collines-de-l'Outaouais east of the Gatineau River and outlying bits of Gatineau.
Pontiac 100947 - the rest of rural Outaouais and outlying bits of Hull and Aylmer. I suspect it's probably possible to only take bits of Aylmer, but I couldn't find a decent map of the old city boundaries.
Gatineau 98671 - very very narrowly within quota
Hull-Aylmer 104634

[Hatman 🍁]

"Papineau" would make a great name for that orange riding, but of course that is taken. Apparently that area is also called La Petite Nation as a touristy name (which exists in the current riding's name as well), which would work. Just picking three random places in the riding to name it isn't going to work.

[Krago]

"Papineau" would make a great name for that orange riding, but of course that is taken. Apparently that area is also called La Petite Nation as a touristy name (which exists in the current riding's name as well), which would work. Just picking three random places in the riding to name it isn't going to work.

Do the residents of La Petite Nation ever fight the residents of La Petite-Patrie in Montreal to see who is 'Petite-ier'?

[MaxQue]

"Papineau" would make a great name for that orange riding, but of course that is taken. Apparently that area is also called La Petite Nation as a touristy name (which exists in the current riding's name as well), which would work. Just picking three random places in the riding to name it isn't going to work.

La Petite Nation isn't a touristy name, it's the name of the valley (and river) in that area and the name of the old seigneurie (founded by Champlain himself). It's the name Champlain gave to the local Algonquin tribe (until they were extermined by the Iroquois a few decades later).

La-Petite-Patrie is named after an early 70's novel in which the author describe his childhood in the area. It was usually considered a part of Villeray then, even if it was quite different (or like everywhere in Montreal, by using the name of the local parishes, in that case Sainte-Cécile and Saint-Édouard; the later also being a current municipal ward).

[Krago]

"Papineau" would make a great name for that orange riding, but of course that is taken. Apparently that area is also called La Petite Nation as a touristy name (which exists in the current riding's name as well), which would work. Just picking three random places in the riding to name it isn't going to work.

La Petite Nation isn't a touristy name, it's the name of the valley (and river) in that area and the name of the old seigneurie (founded by Champlain himself). It's the name Champlain gave to the local Algonquin tribe (until they were extermined by the Iroquois a few decades later).

La-Petite-Patrie is named after an early 70's novel in which the author describe his childhood in the area. It was usually considered a part of Villeray then, even if it was quite different (or like everywhere in Montreal, by using the name of the local parishes, in that case Sainte-Cécile and Saint-Édouard; the later also being a current municipal ward).

If Montreal ridings are being named after 70s novels, what about Outremont--Duddy-Kravitz?

[MaxQue]

"Papineau" would make a great name for that orange riding, but of course that is taken. Apparently that area is also called La Petite Nation as a touristy name (which exists in the current riding's name as well), which would work. Just picking three random places in the riding to name it isn't going to work.

La Petite Nation isn't a touristy name, it's the name of the valley (and river) in that area and the name of the old seigneurie (founded by Champlain himself). It's the name Champlain gave to the local Algonquin tribe (until they were extermined by the Iroquois a few decades later).

La-Petite-Patrie is named after an early 70's novel in which the author describe his childhood in the area. It was usually considered a part of Villeray then, even if it was quite different (or like everywhere in Montreal, by using the name of the local parishes, in that case Sainte-Cécile and Saint-Édouard; the later also being a current municipal ward).

If Montreal ridings are being named after 70s novels, what about Outremont--Duddy-Kravitz?

Well, the riding is named after the neighborhood.

[Philly D.]

If Montreal ridings are being named after 70s novels, what about Outremont--Duddy-Kravitz?

Don't go there...

On another note, the map for Nova Scotia seems reasonably satisfactory. It is an improvement from the 2013 map from a population equality point of view (the average variance per riding is about 1.5 percentage points lower), in spite of Sydney--Victoria. It can't expand into Inverness; the first town downwards from Cape Breton Park is Chéticamp and for OLA reasons it needs to be in the same riding as Richmond County. I don't know if it needs to be in the same riding as Glace Bay (i.e. if there is a Francophone community of interest there); if so we can expect either a break with tradition or a negative exception at the next redistribution.

As for Shubenacadie--Whatchamacallit, it may be possible to swap things around with Preston, but this is only a possibility and I don't care to study this in detail; I played with ridingbuilder.ca for 15 minutes and came to the conclusion that Nova Scotia is not an interesting province to draw. I suspect even New Brunswick is more interesting; the geography of the coast basically dictates most everything there. To a lesser extent, I suspect this true of all the "small" provinces, and in any case the inherent small c conservatism of many Commissions (perhaps because they were headed by a judge? or because they share staff from prior redistributions?) and smaller population shifts tend towards minimal map changes.

Oh, and what say you guys about two negative exceptions for Northern Ontario? If you put most of Algoma District in one riding (-7.5% variance) and the city of Thunder Bay in another (-3% variance) and make exceptions on both sides on it covering most of what makes Northern Ontario Northern Ontario, it becomes quite easy to draw 9 ridings. In addition, the exception to the east would become a Francophone- and First Nations-opportunity riding.

[Poirot]

Shubenacadie--Whatchamacallit

Not being familiar with these names, I would just call it S-W. Easier.

The 2012 Quebec commission proposed many names of people for riding names before backtracking. For the riding of Papineauville / Petite Nation in the Outaouais, it would propose Guy Lafleur. It is possible highway 50 in the Outaouias will be named Guy Lafleur.

[Poirot]

Gaspésie-Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine-Amqui 101861 - Gaspésie is a little undersized on its own and I'm not sure it's isolated enough to be left undersized,

A reason to keep it undersized is representating and serving the islands. (at the provincial level the islands are a legislated exception for size of riding, the islands are one riding on the own.)

Mirabel 118727 - all of Mirabel and the rest of the Thérèse-De Blainville MRC

Mirabel is one of the fastest growing area so being on the gigger side already, it will become too big quick. I think it would be best to have it on the smaller side today because of growth.

[Poirot]

The new seat is Plateau-Mont-Royal, with everything else having a reasonably obvious successor. I'm moderately happy with this, but here are a few niggles in no particular order:

• I'm not wild about that division of LaSalle. You can avoid it by putting Côte Saint-Luc in with Dorval instead and shuffling things round, but that feels a little disruptive
• I get the impression Parc-Extension isn't a good fit with Mont-Royal
• Similarly, Papineau's western extension somehow looks off
• The tail of Plateau-Mont-Royal is probably a bit awkward.

I don't think there is a direct road link between Côte Saint-Luc and Dorval/Lachine. You would need to pass through NDG. I think Côte Saint-Luc would not be moved to keep Jewish community together.

I don't know if the fence between Parc-Extension and Mont-Royal is still in place but it's different socio-economic profile. I don't know if there could be Parc-Extension with part of Outremont and Côte-des-Neiges.

[Krago]

The proposals for BC and PEI have been released:

https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/ebv/en/?locale=en-ca&prov=bc

https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/ebv/en/?locale=en-ca&prov=pe


I strongly suggest using ‘OpenStreetMap’ as your basemap.

[emmettmark]

The proposals for BC and PEI have been released:

https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/ebv/en/?locale=en-ca&prov=bc

https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/ebv/en/?locale=en-ca&prov=p


I strongly suggest using ‘OpenStreetMap’ as your basemap.

As a BC Resident, I am cringing at the current proposal.

[emmettmark]

The proposals for BC and PEI have been released:

https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/ebv/en/?locale=en-ca&prov=bc

https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/ebv/en/?locale=en-ca&prov=p


I strongly suggest using ‘OpenStreetMap’ as your basemap.

As a BC Resident, I am cringing at the current proposal.

https://redecoupage-redistribution-2022.ca/com/bc/prop/index_e.aspx

Once I regather my composure, I will be creating a lengthy response - these boundaries looks like someone drew lines on a map while blindfolded.

[CascadianIndy]

The EU4 starting map for the Holy Roman Empire looks cleaner than the Lower Mainland.

[emmettmark]

As a BC Resident, I am cringing at the current proposal.
[/quote]

Analysis and Data: http://shorturl.at/lnwF3

The Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission needs to put in a lot of work into amending/changing their initial proposal, as I cannot fathom how they decided to draw Greater Vancouver with such disregard for existing municipal boundaries and communities of interest. Municipalities and communities are 'cracked' across numerous ridings beyond belief.

After crunching some numbers, it's apparent that the average number of (full or part) municipalities per Greater Vancouver riding, rises from approx. 1.52 to 2.19, compelling MPs to coordinate with a far greater number of municipal governments than now.

The most egregious examples include Pitt Meadows - Fort Langley, (Pitt Meadows - Maple Ridge successor), which, while still including Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, now also includes parts of Surrey, Langley Township, and Port Coquitlam. Richmond East (Formerly Steveston - Richmond East), which had previously been entirely contained within the City of Richmond, now takes in parts of New Westminster and crosses the Fraser to pick up territory in Delta.

Additionally, the number of MPs per (full or part) Greater Vancouver municipality goes up dramatically, from approx. 1.8, to nearly 3. This will compel the average municipal government to coordinate with a greater number of MPs.

Intensive examples of this include Burnaby (going from 3 MPs to 6), Delta (going from 1 MP to 3), and Surrey (going from 5 MPs to 7), which all contain numerous ridings that straddle municipal boundaries, and will greatly complicate federal-municipal cohesion.

[Philly D.]

Although this map seems a bit rushed, it is very strong with respect to the numerical criteria; even the Southern Interior ridings aren't THAT small (the smallest one is South Okanagan at only -6,3%).
The Lower Mainland IS a bit of a mess (why do two Vancouver ridings cross into Burnaby?), but there may need to be one riding crossing the Fraser from Surrey eastwards -- although probably only one.

I'm surprised Powell River remains with Vancouver Island. They explicitly mentioned that their first decision was to decide where the new riding should go and that the choice was between them and the Southern Interior (who "correctly" won out.) This may explain most of the problems; they would have been better off in starting with the "corners" and working their way around until the new riding naturally "appears". In such a case I would expect the new riding to be centred around Hope. Furthermore, putting Qathet in West Vancouver (although that riding would no longer contain West Van!) my allow undoing the riding across the Howe Sound. You would think that with Stephen Ladyman on the Commission again, they would remember that as a trouble spot, but I guess not...

Eyeballing the map on electionatlas, it appears to be a 14-14-14-1 map.
The Tories get the new Vernon--Lake country (obviously) and shore up Kootenay--Columbia and White Rock. But they just fall short in Cloverdale and go further backward in both Richmond ridings, West Vancouver (third?), North Island and Port Moody.
The NDP pick up Vancouver--Granville (of this I am certain), and shore up Ladysmith, North Island and Port Moody while holding out in Skeena. Pitt Meadows and West Vancouver become closer (but not Kootenay--Columbia), but so does South Okanagan.
The Liberals lose a riding but most other ridings get shorn up, except possibly West Vancouver and Coquitlam--PoCo.

[Poirot]

They don't seem to mind crossing river. It's often a natural barrier but I don't know Vancouver; maybe there is some community of interest. New Westminster-Bridgeview crosses the river but the south side looks more industrial. Same with the proposed Richmond East that has a bit south of the Fraser river.

Pitt Meadows-Fort Langley is drawn to cross two rivers in two different directions.

Burnaby North-Seymour separated by Burrard Inlet still exists.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Running into issues accessing this. Cannot specify a number of districts. Reloaded page twice and this issue replicated itself without fail.
What to do?

[emmettmark]

They don't seem to mind crossing river. It's often a natural barrier but I don't know Vancouver; maybe there is some community of interest. New Westminster-Bridgeview crosses the river but the south side looks more industrial. Same with the proposed Richmond East that has a bit south of the Fraser river.

Pitt Meadows-Fort Langley is drawn to cross two rivers in two different directions.

Burnaby North-Seymour separated by Burrard Inlet still exists.

Hahaha, as a lifelong Vancouverite and British Columbian, crossing the river should only be a last resort for electoral redistribution in Greater Vancouver (a la Burnaby North Seymour); the fact that this has been done in four different ridings, is shocking and hopefully will be thrown out.

Only two of the four aforementioned ridings (New Westminster Bridgeview and Richmond East), have a bridge within the riding. One must straddle the boundary of 'Pitt Meadows - Fort Langley' to travel from the Port Coquitlam portion to the rest of the riding.

The truly terrible riding, which came into existence after the last redistribution and is still around, is 'Burnaby North - Seymour,' which requires constituents to exit the constituency to travel between the North Burnaby and North Vancouver/Seymour areas.

[emmettmark]

I am seriously wondering what the BC Electoral Boundaries commission was thinking. There were so many irrational choices and splitting of communities of interest/municipalities, it's almost as if this map proposal was purposefully designed to compel public outrage.

What's even worse, is that 2/3 commissioners, Ken Carty and Stewart Ladyman, served on prior BC federal boundary commissions, (in 2002 and 2012 respectively), and should recall public feedback sessions.

[DL]

FWIW as I recall from the last redistribution, the final maps were often very different from the initial proposal by the commission. You can be sure that there will be very raucous public meetings in BC and lots of lobbying for changes to these maps

[emmettmark]

FWIW as I recall from the last redistribution, the final maps were often very different from the initial proposal by the commission. You can be sure that there will be very raucous public meetings in BC and lots of lobbying for changes to these maps

I very much hope so - I had hoped that this cycle would have been an opportunity to change 'frankenstein' ridings with no coherent/central community of interest, like Burnaby North - Seymour, Mission - Matsqui - Fraser Canyon, and Vancouver Granville.

Unfortunately, it appears that plenty of time will be spent trying to correct fundamental errors that never should have occurred in the first place!

[Hatman 🍁]

I made a better map of BC last night. It seemed to get a lot of good comments on Twitter. What do you think?






It's big drawback is the Skeena-Bulkley Valley-Powell River riding. But by creating it, I was able to nuke the Burnaby North-Seymour riding and make the Van Island ridings smaller.

[emmettmark]

I made a better map of BC last night. It seemed to get a lot of good comments on Twitter. What do you think?

It's big drawback is the Skeena-Bulkley Valley-Powell River riding. But by creating it, I was able to nuke the Burnaby North-Seymour riding and make the Van Island ridings smaller.

This is immeasurably better than whatever the commission initially proposed! I also like Krago's map, or literally, anything that doesn't resemble terrible choices like Port Coquitlam - Pitt Meadows - Fort Langley!