[hurley_108]

Chumley Chumley:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Either way, it's time that we stopped having to pander to one province over the rest and a proper pop-to-MP representation is long overdue.

Heh, apparently Labrador is the least populous riding in the country (which would make it the most over-represented), with a population of 26,364. Divide Canada's population (34,018,957) by that and you need 1290 seats for perfect rep-by-pop.

Take PEI's (the most over-represented province) total population and divide by its seats and you get a population of 33963 per seat, which still requires about 1000 seats for perfect rep-by-pop.

What is the formula for representation by population? Is it just total population of the country divided by riding/province population?

There is no one formula for rep-by-pop, which is the whole source of the problem. But that's pretty much what I'd call it, yea.

[hurley_108]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

And look at Quebec vs Ontario. That's one that really bears comparison.

Using 2009 populations here, and Ontario as the standard, Quebec should have 64 seats by its population, meaning it has 12 "too many".

By the same math, though, Newfoundland and Labrador, PEI, and Nova Scotia each have 3 too many, and New Brunswick has 4 too many, giving the maritimes a total of 13 too many. Saskatchewan and Manetoba, between them, have 10 too many. And then there are the territories, which, by their populations, should all share one seat, but that would really be a kick in the pants.

So Quebec just is not "the problem." Yes, they're overrepresented, but they're only about a third of the total overrepresentation by the less populous provinces. After redistribution, with Ontario picking up 18, Alberta 5 and BC 7, Quebec will only have 1 seat too many, but the maritimes will still have 10 too many, and Saskatchewan and Manitoba 6 too many. So we've only solved half the overrepresentation problem, and pissed off Quebec even more in the process.

$1:

PEI's seat allocation goes back to Confederation and Labrador's allocation came after NFLD stopped driving on left in 1949. Yes moi dear! Between the two of them, Brampton is more populous.

Seat allocation was very fluid in the early days, and provinces would gain and lose seats easily. Things were nailed down with the constitution. And Quebec has just as much claim to its seats as do any other province.

Blaming Quebec and putting on a band-aid will not solve the problem.

[Mustang1]

I'm no Harperite, but i'd say he's pretty safe the time being. There's no monolithic issue that would necessitous an election, nor is there any legitimate/significant groundswell of popular support for one.

The Liberals, in my opinion, are still out in the political wilderness, and i don't see that ending anytime soon and an election won't be the solution either.

[DerbyX]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

And look at Quebec vs Ontario. That's one that really bears comparison.

Using 2009 populations here, and Ontario as the standard, Quebec should have 64 seats by its population, meaning it has 12 "too many".

By the same math, though, Newfoundland and Labrador, PEI, and Nova Scotia each have 3 too many, and New Brunswick has 4 too many, giving the maritimes a total of 13 too many. Saskatchewan and Manetoba, between them, have 10 too many. And then there are the territories, which, by their populations, should all share one seat, but that would really be a kick in the pants.

So Quebec just is not "the problem." Yes, they're overrepresented, but they're only about a third of the total overrepresentation by the less populous provinces. After redistribution, with Ontario picking up 18, Alberta 5 and BC 7, Quebec will only have 1 seat too many, but the maritimes will still have 10 too many, and Saskatchewan and Manitoba 6 too many. So we've only solved half the overrepresentation problem, and pissed off Quebec even more in the process.

$1:

PEI's seat allocation goes back to Confederation and Labrador's allocation came after NFLD stopped driving on left in 1949. Yes moi dear! Between the two of them, Brampton is more populous.

Seat allocation was very fluid in the early days, and provinces would gain and lose seats easily. Things were nailed down with the constitution. And Quebec has just as much claim to its seats as do any other province.

Blaming Quebec and putting on a band-aid will not solve the problem.

Excellent post. Ignoring Quebec is still going to be a recipe for a failed campaign and Harper knows it. He also knows that since he has no ability to determine where the new seats will be allocated he cannot count on the seats all going to ridings that favour him. The truth is that most of the seats (should) will end up in the urban cities since they are where the population has moved to. Toronto & Vancouver, 2 cities who vote overwhelmingly Liberal will receive at least 3/4s of the new seats. A few seats might go to the NDP in BC with the rest going to the CPC.

[DerbyX]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

I'm no Harperite, but i'd say he's pretty safe the time being. There's no monolithic issue that would necessitous an election, nor is there any legitimate/significant groundswell of popular support for one.

The Liberals, in my opinion, are still out in the political wilderness, and i don't see that ending anytime soon and an election won't be the solution either.

He might be safe from the electorate but his own party is another story. Under Harper there has been a hard ceiling to the level of support they can win and in the last 4 years or so he has only polled a couple of times (and by favourable pollsters) in majority territory. They were talking about knives being out last election let alone the fact that he has the CPC well down in support from then.

The Libs aren't quite that out of it. Iggy's bus tour has improved his own image somewhat and the Libs have been on a slow but steady climb (or the CPC on a decline). I think the next budget showing yet another massive deficit might be the straw for Harper.

[hurley_108]

Mustang1 Mustang1:

I'm no Harperite, but i'd say he's pretty safe the time being. There's no monolithic issue that would necessitous an election, nor is there any legitimate/significant groundswell of popular support for one.

The Liberals, in my opinion, are still out in the political wilderness, and i don't see that ending anytime soon and an election won't be the solution either.

The only thing I can think of right now that would change the landscape is a possible double-dip to the recession. Or Harper outsmarting himself again and the opposition actually doing something about it.

[uwish]

and ppl are complaining about the Tories? The Liberals have been doing this every 6 months like clock work...

go for it, major a CPC majority will bring some more stability to parl.

[andyt]

If you read the business pages, everybody seems to be expecting a double dip - not as precipitous as the last one. Friday the US will release the non-farm employment numbers - it they're not good, that's going to scare a lot of people. Our employment numbers seem to have stalled as well, as well as consumer confidence. Both the left and the right seem to agree that economies will stall as the stimulus money runs out. The question is for how long and the argument is whether to start stimulating again.

The Liberals may be debating whether to call an election, but their consensus seems to be to wait till spring, when the economy may be in worse shape. I think they'd be foolish to force an election right now - there's no issue they could run on where they look better than the Reformacons.

[DerbyX]

uwish uwish:

and ppl are complaining about the Tories? The Liberals have been doing this every 6 months like clock work...

go for it, major a CPC majority will bring some more stability to parl.

Doing what? Seat adjusting? Nope. Threatening an election? Not that either. That is a consequence of a minority government and having to beg support from any of the opposition parties. They all say they have to decide to support whatever non-confidence motion or not. It always sounds like they are threatening an election when in reality they are sending a message to the government "table something we can support".

Harper is well out of majority territory and its all downhill for him.

[Thanos]

Picking a fight over the illegal immigration/bogus refugee issue that those lying Tamil bastards put into the spotlight again could be worth calling an election over. At the very least it would be highly entertaining to those of us who are getting kind of bored with how sedate out politics have been lately.

Other:

1) Run-offs requiring at least a 51% majority victory would be terrific to implement. I see no reason why any election has to be a one-night deal. If we had to vote again a couple of weeks or a month later, so be it. Anyone too lazy or disinterested to get off their asses and get out to vote again should just move to Russia if they think doing so is such a bloody hardship. PR is not so much a good idea, because it looks like a total clusterfuck to implement. It'd be like Florida 2000 all over again with way too many people totally confused or just too damn stupid to know what to do.

2) A republican system would be terrific, but only if it was built around 3 to 5 distict parties that are consitently competitive against each other. As we can see in the US with only two major parties, both of which are completely controlled by pretty much the same corporate interests and which are forced to pander to the ultra-wealthy, a republican electoral is just a formula for gridlock, partisan hackery, and an eventual major loss of public confidence in democracy.

[uwish]

DerbyX DerbyX:

uwish uwish:

and ppl are complaining about the Tories? The Liberals have been doing this every 6 months like clock work...

go for it, major a CPC majority will bring some more stability to parl.

Doing what? Seat adjusting? Nope. Threatening an election? Not that either. That is a consequence of a minority government and having to beg support from any of the opposition parties. They all say they have to decide to support whatever non-confidence motion or not. It always sounds like they are threatening an election when in reality they are sending a message to the government "table something we can support".

Harper is well out of majority territory and its all downhill for him.

so your claiming that the Liberals in the last 5 yrs have not 'debated' about calling an election no less than 10 times? I may believe you but millions wouldn't.

[DerbyX]

uwish uwish:

DerbyX DerbyX:

uwish uwish:

and ppl are complaining about the Tories? The Liberals have been doing this every 6 months like clock work...

go for it, major a CPC majority will bring some more stability to parl.

Doing what? Seat adjusting? Nope. Threatening an election? Not that either. That is a consequence of a minority government and having to beg support from any of the opposition parties. They all say they have to decide to support whatever non-confidence motion or not. It always sounds like they are threatening an election when in reality they are sending a message to the government "table something we can support".

Harper is well out of majority territory and its all downhill for him.

so your claiming that the Liberals in the last 5 yrs have not 'debated' about calling an election no less than 10 times? I may believe you but millions wouldn't.

They have debated it every time a vote of non-confidence level comes around. Its simply a fact of the political reality that if they fail to support it the government may fall.

They aren't in fact threatening an election since they alone cannot do that. Harper can get support from either the NDP or Bloc. All the Libs ever do is debate whether to support the government or not. Partisan hacks want to call it an "election threat". If the Liberals alone had the power to bring down the government the argument may have weight but the fact is Harper can sidestep the Libs and garner support from the other opposition parties.

[hurley_108]

uwish uwish:

so your claiming that the Liberals in the last 5 yrs have not 'debated' about calling an election no less than 10 times? I may believe you but millions wouldn't.

As many times as the Liberals have threatened non-confidence, the Conservatives have called things confidence matters that historically haven't been in an attempt to bully the opposition into passing legislation.

And don't forget the '08 election was a snap election that was all the Conservatives' doing.

[uwish]

and Hurley do you think those bills that were historically not traditional confidence matters were unimportant to Canadians?

[DerbyX]

uwish uwish:

and Hurley do you think those bills that were historically not traditional confidence matters were unimportant to Canadians?

Important or not it doesn't matter. What matters is that its not a threat of election when the CPC turn it into an election possible vote.

In fact you could say they were the ones doing the threatening.