How did the Conservative margin in the seat with their
155th-->
170th largest margin over their nearest opponent change from the actual results of the last election to the transposed results. Also, both under the present size of the Canadian House of Commons and the coming size, what is the range of seats where it's reasonably possible but not a lock that enough of the majority party's MPs will survive and follow the party whip that the party can survive a full five-year mandate? (I suppose the Conservatives could repeal the bill they put in that sets a date for elections and give themselves an extra year before the next election if it suited their interests.) I imagine the 166 seats out of 304 they won in the last election is above that range. I imaging there was some discussion of a number for a stable majority" during election night in 2011. Anyway, how does the Conservative's margins in the "grey area" seats regarding whether or not they win a stable majority change from the actual to transposed results of the last election?
Both of these two measures would seem to be more important than the number of seats they would win if the votes in each polling place (okay, so I'm sure some of those have changed but you know what I mean) remained the same in every election under this new plan as in 2011. I think I've read that in the c. 1995 boundary review in the UK, the Tories actually gained seats from the 1992 actual to transposed results, but I've heard it said that that boundary review was very bad for the Tories (a Labourite on this forum here said after the c. 2004-2005 review (taking effect before or after the 2005 election in different parts of the UK) that "we [Labor] won [the boundary review this time around] but not as much as in [whenever the one between the 1992 and 1997 general elections was]."
