News   Apr 24, 2024
Latest Iteration of 50 Eglinton West Proposes 46- and 58-Storey Towers
 263     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Sustainability Month: Mass Timber Construction Showing Long-Term Economic Benefits
 493     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 480     0 

New Electoral Boundaries

I don't know about Essex, but due to sheer geographic size, Kenora's an exceptional case, and was treated as such in the previous redistribution. That is, you really have to factor out Kenora in any Ontario riding size comparisons...
 
I'm hearing a lot of opposition from Eastern Ontario to the new map, as the "county" model that has prevailed since Confederation is being replaced by linking towns along the St. Lawrence River and separating out a lot of the rural areas.
 
Except her concerns seem pretty baseless. Even on the proposed T-S (University to Ossington/Dovercourt, south of Bloor) the NDP would have won by more than a 2-1 margin in 2011 and very comfortably in 2008. The "condo dwellers are ipso facto anti-NDP" line is so 2006.

And I for one welcome this new map for Toronto. I think it respects the community of interest concept than previous riding distributions. Good riddance to the riding called "Rosedale" for most of its history - Rosedale and Yorkville have far more of a community of interest with Summerhill, Deer Park and Davisville than they do with the territory south of Bloor. St. Paul's should never stretched as far east as it did. The "Don Valley" ridings are more sensibly divided too.

Generally, MPs are not rational actors in the redistribution process. However if the Liberals were to object I'd understand as they are hurt a bit by this map (but they've got bigger problems given the narrowness of their "base" these days).
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
Don't see that this would impact Albrecht much ... the riding had grown by over 30,000 between 2001 and 2011, so something had to change. They've swapped the larger and recently developed Huron, Trussler, Laurentian, etc. neighbourhoods of Kitchener for lower density and older Stanley Park and Bridgeport areas. Albrecht lives in Wilmot Township, which is still in Kitchener-Conestoga. If anything, I'd have thought he'd benefit from this - but I don't think it's a big impact to him, as much of the population that was in the riding in 2001 is still in the riding.

I really don't think this has anything to do with trying to deal with Albrecht. If so, I'd have thought they'd have chopped the new Kitchener Centre in half, and lumped it with Wilmot and western Waterloo.

Does seem a bit odd that Kitchener Centre is now only 93,000 or so, while Kitchener-Conestoga is 101,000. I'd have pushed a bit more of Kitchener into Kitchener Centre ... and perhaps Bridgeport into Waterloo.

Still, I don't see any malice, It has the appearance of being done in good faith.
Click to expand...

As for Kitchener Centre, I can easily see the population of that riding growing significantly in the next 20 years through infill development, particularly Downtown Kitchener. I think that making this riding less populous will ensure some future-proofing of the boundary.

The same can be said for Waterloo. Additionally, there is a significant portion of Waterloo's population that is not included in census data (~30,000 students) who are not considered residents yet are eligible to vote
 
Last edited:
King of Kensington said:
I'm hearing a lot of opposition from Eastern Ontario to the new map, as the "county" model that has prevailed since Confederation is being replaced by linking towns along the St. Lawrence River and separating out a lot of the rural areas.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make any sense. There's only 3 ridings that touch the St. Lawrence River: Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry, Leeds-Grenville, and Kingston and the Islands. There aren't ANY changes proposed for these 3 ridings. Or Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
 
adma said:
I don't know about Essex, but due to sheer geographic size, Kenora's an exceptional case, and was treated as such in the previous redistribution. That is, you really have to factor out Kenora in any Ontario riding size comparisons...
Click to expand...

I get that it's big and as a result should be less populous. But when we're talking about one riding being 135% larger than another, the range is too big. I can understand a 30-40% variance, not a situation where one Ontarian's vote is well over double the influence of another's vote.
 
nfitz said:
That doesn't make any sense. There's only 3 ridings that touch the St. Lawrence River: Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry, Leeds-Grenville, and Kingston and the Islands. There aren't ANY changes proposed for these 3 ridings. Or Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
Click to expand...

Sorry meant Lake Ontario.
 
A letter I co-wrote to Olivia Chow:

We are writing to express our support for the proposed riding boundaries for central Toronto as well as to express our concern about your opposition to the removal of the territory north of Bloor St. (Annex and Seaton Village communities) from the riding of Trinity-Spadina.

With a population of 144,000 according to the 2011 census, Trinity-Spadina must be reduced in size. The shifting of territory inevitably affects neighboring ridings.

The riding to the east, Toronto Centre (which takes back territory between University Ave. and Yonge St. that was redistributed to Trinity-Spadina in 2003) has been changed significantly under this proposed redistribution, and for the better. Toronto Centre - named "Rosedale" for most of its history - was a terribly gerrymandered riding where there was little community of interest between the wealthy Rosedale and Yorkville areas in the north and the more mixed-income, politically progressive rest of the riding. The northern part of Toronto Centre is to be joined with the eastern half of St. Paul's - an area with similar demographics and voting patterns - in the newly proposed riding of Mount Pleasant. This new riding thus very much respects the community of interest.

The riding of St. Paul's too, in its 1996 and 2003 redistributions, had stretched too far east from its traditional territory in terms of creating a community of interest. The Annex and Seaton Village communities that go into St. Paul's, in contrast, do have a community of interest with neighboring communities such as Casa Loma, Rathnelly, Tarragon Village, and Hillcrest. The University of Toronto campus, it should be noted, does not go north of Bloor St.

The creation of a waterfront-centric riding - taken out of Trinity-Spadina and Toronto Centre ridings and otherwise leaving them in place - at the federal/provincial levels is not possible. According to the 2011 census, the population of the area south of Queen St. between the Don River and Dufferin St. is about 80,000 - too small to merit a riding. A waterfront-centric ward may indeed be created at the municipal level when a new ward map is created for the city. In our conversation with Councillor Adam Vaughan, Vaughan confirmed that the City is not restricted to following riding boundaries. A municipal ward could thus also include territory both north and south of Bloor.

It is our view that the proposed federal riding map is an improvement in terms of representation for Toronto. The overall progressive character of the central city is strengthened under the new boundaries for Toronto Centre and St. Paul's (and retained in Trinity-Spadina), while Mount Pleasant better captures a community of interest that had been previously split between two ridings.

We plan on making a deposition to the boundaries commission in support of the new map for central Toronto (with minor adjustments for the boundary between Toronto Centre and Mount Pleasant to not split the Church-Wellesley community). We hope we can count on your support.
Click to expand...
 
CDL.TO said:
I get that it's big and as a result should be less populous. But when we're talking about one riding being 135% larger than another, the range is too big. I can understand a 30-40% variance, not a situation where one Ontarian's vote is well over double the influence of another's vote.
Click to expand...

I actually think this concern is overblown. The chance that any of us cast a tie-breaking vote that determines who wins our riding is basically zero - whether you're in a Toronto riding or up north somewhere. So in that sense none of us have ANY influence through our individual votes.

More important is that each Canadian has one MP, and those MPs compete against each other up in Ottawa for pork barrel spending and political influence. So again, we're all getting the same deal there. What matters more is how effective our MPs are when they get to Ottawa (and what party they are from). I for one would rather be represented by a Chow or a Rae, instead of some nobody from the sticks.
 
Oh, he's really from Toronto! But somehow Davenport ended up with his old friend Andrew Cash.
 
According to an acquaintance who follows these things closely, Glen Murray wants to move the boundaries for TC/Mount Pleasant southward down to Carlton so the gay village is included with Rosedale et. al.
 
Bonnie Crombie comments on the proposed electoral boundaries:

http://www.mississauga.com/opinion/columns/article/1504788--i-haven-t-forgotten-malton

The Electoral Boundary Commission has failed to heed one of its key guiding principles: that boundaries “respect communities of interest or identity.” Splitting Malton at Morningstar Dr. and Goreway Dr. unnecessarily divides Malton and is not in the best interest of the community. We must seize the opportunity to get the boundaries right this time.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top