BC electoral boundary commission

[Verily]

Nasty straight-line splits in Fraser Valley. They should do concentric districts around Abbotsford and Langley instead of the proposed abominations.

I'm not a fan of the splitting of Kamloops, either; is it really so hard to put Kamloops in one district with the rural areas around it split up instead?

North Shore has some problems, too. Why not put all of West Vancouver and North Vancouver together in three districts and have the fourth cover Sea-to-Sky Country along with the rural areas currently in the proposed North Vancouver-Seymour?

[Verily]

My proposal for the Fraser Valley would be:

1. Maple Ridge, containing all of the city of Maple Ridge as well as Pitt Meadows and west to Hayward Lake, but containing none of Golden Ears and ending south of it.

2. Langley, containing the urban areas of Langley only.

3. Milner-Fort Langley, containing the rest of Langley Township

4. Aldergrove, more or less the same as current Abbotsford-Aldergrove

5. Abbotsford, containing the city of Abbotsford itself as well as Clearbrook, not too different from the current Abbotsford Centre but omitting the rural areas to the south

6. Chilliwack, containing the city of Chilliwack down to Vedder Crossing

7. Kent-Hope, the current Chilliwack-Hope district losing some of the north to #9 and all of urban Chilliwack to the new Chilliwack district while gaining the Cultus Lake area and the contiguous rural areas between Abbotsford and Chilliwack

8. Mission, containing all of Mission and along the northern shore of the Fraser River

9. , containing all of the rural areas in the current Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge-Mission and Mission-Clayburn

[Verily]

The STV boundaries on Vancouver Island are poorly conceived, too. They should only have two STV districts, with most of the current Mid-Island (save Cowichan-Goldstream) moved into North Island-Coast. 7 seats in Capital Region would be a lot, but not too many IMO.

Similarly, Northeast and Northwest should be combined into "North"; 2 seats are too few for STV districts, never mind the gargantuan geographic size. (They might then reduce the number of seats to 3 for the whole area, too, bringing them closer in line to representation elsewhere in the province.)

[Verily]

I'm not a fan of the splitting of Kamloops, either; is it really so hard to put Kamloops in one district with the rural areas around it split up instead?

Kamloops has 80% of the population of the two districts.

Okay, so put the center of Kamloops in one district and the outer areas with the rural areas in another.

[Verily]

I'm not a fan of the splitting of Kamloops, either; is it really so hard to put Kamloops in one district with the rural areas around it split up instead?

Kamloops has 80% of the population of the two districts.

Okay, so put the center of Kamloops in one district and the outer areas with the rural areas in another.

That's a terrible way of doing things; however I think that's what they did with Prince George. 

Why? It keeps areas with similar demographics together rather than splitting up rural areas and urban areas and making artificial districts that don't have any sort of uniting factor.

[Verily]

I'm not a fan of the splitting of Kamloops, either; is it really so hard to put Kamloops in one district with the rural areas around it split up instead?

Kamloops has 80% of the population of the two districts.

Okay, so put the center of Kamloops in one district and the outer areas with the rural areas in another.

That's a terrible way of doing things; however I think that's what they did with Prince George. 

Why? It keeps areas with similar demographics together rather than splitting up rural areas and urban areas and making artificial districts that don't have any sort of uniting factor.

I'm just not a big fan of it. You have one little tiny district and one huge massive district instead of having 2 similar sized districts. However in some cases, your method is preferred if the people are being disinfranchised because they are over-represented by rural interests.

But why does geographic size matter? Trees don't vote. Mountains don't vote.