BC electoral boundary commission (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 07, 2024, 04:29:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  BC electoral boundary commission (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: BC electoral boundary commission  (Read 3737 times)
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,044
Canada


WWW
« on: August 16, 2007, 01:36:41 PM »

Proposed new boundaries can be found here
http://www.bc-ebc.ca/

They have also created boundaries for an STV system if that option wins the next referendum there.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,044
Canada


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2007, 02:38:22 PM »

I like the new boundaries because Carole James' seat disappears. Cheesy

Honestly Gabu, I don't understand why you like the most economically right wing government BC has ever had. But whatever. Carole James will find a seat to get re-elected in, no problem.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,044
Canada


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2007, 09:22:10 PM »

I like the new boundaries because Carole James' seat disappears. Cheesy

Honestly Gabu, I don't understand why you like the most economically right wing government BC has ever had. But whatever. Carole James will find a seat to get re-elected in, no problem.

BC's doing fine, and I have had little complaints about most of what Campbell's government has been up to.  That and I must admit that I'm a little cynical about the BC NDP's commitment to workers after they passed a bill making it perfectly legal for high-tech companies to work their employees as much as they want without paying them a cent of overtime whatsoever.

Of course you wouldn't have any complaints, as you aren't affected by the Campbell government.

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?

Well, to be fair one of those borders happens to be an actual boundary between Langley Township and Abbotsford.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,044
Canada


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2007, 09:24:46 PM »

The Northern ridings actually look sane for a change. How odd.

Yeah, they've put Prince George in one district which I like. Maybe it'll make it competitive.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,044
Canada


WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2007, 09:36:49 PM »

Anyone know what the political impact of the boundary changes would be?

From what I hear, they hurt/help both parties equally. I haven't seen any redistributed results like they did here in Ontario.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,044
Canada


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2007, 02:05:19 AM »

Proposed new boundaries can be found here
http://www.bc-ebc.ca/

They have also created boundaries for an STV system if that option wins the next referendum there.
Google Earth animation showing historical boundaries (since 1966)


Oh wow. Hadn't noticed that. Neat!
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,044
Canada


WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2007, 01:16:40 PM »

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. 
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,044
Canada


WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2007, 03:43:18 PM »

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.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,044
Canada


WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2007, 04:08:31 PM »

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.

Oh I know. The basis of my argument is on aesthetics.  It's easier to divide a city in half then to slice some of it off.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,044
Canada


WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2007, 05:11:46 PM »

Oh I know. The basis of my argument is on aesthetics.  It's easier to divide a city in half then to slice some of it off.

If you want pretty districts, why not carve out districts in the shapes of hearts and flowers? Tongue

haha Gabu. Everyone knows hearts dont fit together and neither do flowers really... Maybe we need to find Escher to help us out.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,044
Canada


WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2007, 05:12:59 PM »

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.
It looks like Kamloops has two centers.   Kamloops is at the junction of the North and South Thompson Rivers, with the Thompson River flowing to the west, the South Thompson flowing from the east, and the North Thompson entering at a right angle from the North.

North Kamloops is on the west bank of the North Thompson.  There is a bridge over the Thompson to the south, but it is rather on the western edge of the built-up area of Kamloops which is actually a bit further east along the South Thompson.  So you could end up with two central areas that aren't adjacent to one another in one district.  And then another district with less developed areas and then more rural areas attached.

In the case of Prince George they were able include the densely populated center in a single district.

If the city is naturally divided, it only makes sense to use this natural division as a border.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 13 queries.