Introduction to Canadian Politics

This video is designed for people from other countries; namely the US, UK, or Australia, to learn about the basics of Canadian Politics.

Quick Update: Utah

I've been focusing on making videos, so please check my channel for my latest updates. I've also taken a look at the US election.

I've looked at some polls from Utah. The state seems to be the only interesting one this year. There are a lot of states that are 49%-51%, and many that are 40%-60%. That's boring. Utah however consistently has an "other" vote that beats the top candidate.

40.7% - Trump
31.9% - Clinton
13.4% - Johnson
11.2% - Evan McMullan
1.7% - Constitution Party Candidate
1.1% - All Others Combined

McMullan is Mormon, and from Utah, so is likely to get support that way. This may be the first time that a state votes for 4 candidates over 10% each in a long time. However, we'll need to see how this goes.

Teddy on Politics on Youtube

It's official, our first official video, an introduction to the channel, is out on Youtube. You can watch it here.

US: 6 weeks to go

Not much commentary again, things are simply solidifying.

The coming debates do have some potential to change things, but even that is limited. Given how and when things really begin to change in US election, we may still have another week or two to go before we can really start to see any changes. Until then, it's likely the only changes we will see to this map is more solidifying of various states.

Announcement: Youtube Podcasts

After a few months of thought on the topic I've come to some realizations. While I'm a visual learner, I am not, if I can butcher a phrase, a visual speaker. I do like maps and tables, but I do not think that the sort of visuals in CGP Grey videos, for example, will help me very much.

As such I am starting an experiment; podcasts on youtube on the topics that I think are worth making videos about. This means, in short, not many, if any images. This will be something to 'listen' to.

I am hoping I can make the first one tomorrow; but I won't make any guarantees, but I will say that I will continue this experiment through at least a dozen such videos going to the end of the year. If I find this is working, I will continue.

Electoral Reform: Pure Proportional Representation

Much of the debate about a possible proportional system is centred around the idea that there would be some kind of nationwide list. This article is part of that. Frankly, that idea is nonsense. While there could well be some kind of national equalizing list, such as exists in places like Norway, the base proportional districts would be provincial in nature. This is in no small part because current constitutional arrangements demand it.

As such, I want to use this opportunity to examine the idea of "Pure PR" That is Proportional Representation without any locally elected members. This contrasts with MMP, which is Proportional Representation where people still elect a single local MP. Not many countries use Pure PR, and those that do tend to be smaller.

So what new ridings would we have? The answer to that is actually quite simple if you look at it. Proportional districts tend to be large to ensure proportionality. As such we can easily define the first 8 proportional districts.

Prince Edward Island - 4
Newfoundland - 7
New Brunswick - 10
Nova Scotia - 11
Saskatchewan - 14
Manitoba - 14
Alberta - 34
British Columbia - 42

Each of these provinces would have a single province-wide proportional district, and elect the same number of MPs as they currently do. Nothing about Proportional Representation prevents that, and in fact, nearly all proportional systems do things this way. The idea of a national list in Canada is absurd.

So what about the larger provinces? A proportional district with 121 members (Ontario) could be quite unwieldy. As such, we will be dividing up the larger provinces into smaller, more easily manageable chunks.

I've decided to use areas between 30 and 60 members large. As such, I present 2 maps, for Ontario and Quebec, divided into their new proportional districts.

For Quebec the division is perhaps most obvious. The Montreal area  is it's own district, while the rest of Quebec is also it's own district. Ontario is somewhat similar, but due to the population, three districts are needed rather than two. Toronto and it's neighbouring regions, York, Durham, and Peel, become a central riding, while the remainder of Ontario is divided into North East and South West.

Like my earlier post on STV, I want to examine what an election would look like under this system.

Using D'Hondt, we get the following results:

NL:
6 - LIB - 165,418
1 - NDP - 54,120
0 - CPC - 26,469
0 - GRN - 2,772

PEI:
3 - LIB - 51,002
1 - CPC - 16,900
0 - NDP - 14,006
0 - GRN - 5,281

NS:
7 - LIB - 324,816
2 - CPC - 93,697
2 - NDP - 85,468
0 - GRN - 17,630

NB:
6 - LIB - 227,764
2 - CPC - 112,070
2 - NDP - 81,105
0 - GRN - 20,551


Atlantic Subtotals:
22 LIB // 5 CPC // 5 NDP // 0 GRN


MB:
7 - LIB - 268,280
5 - CPC - 224,527
2 - NDP - 81,960
0 - GRN - 18,944

SK:
3 - LIB - 131,681
7 - CPC - 267,937
4 - NDP - 138,574
0 - GRN - 11,527

AB:
 9  - LIB - 473,416
21 - CPC - 1,150,101
 4 -  NDP - 224,800
 0 -  GRN - 48,742

BC:
15 - LIB - 829,816
13 - CPC - 708,010
11 - NDP - 615,156
 3 - GRN - 194,847


Western Subtotals:
34 LIB // 46 CPC // 21 NDP // 3 GRN


After which we get into Quebec

Greater Montreal Area:
17 - LIB - 881,148
 4  - CPC - 250,755
10 - NDP - 554,070
 8  -  BQ  - 445,006
 1  - GRN - 55,107

Rest of Quebec:
12 - LIB - 636,525
 9  - CPC - 456,638
10 - NDP - 521,296
 7  -  BQ  - 379,138
 0  - GRN - 40,288


Quebec Subtotal:
29 LIB // 13 CPC // 20 NDP // 15 BQ // 1 GRN


And into Ontario

North East Ontario:
15 - LIB - 835,201
12 - CPC - 633,213
 5 -  NDP - 304,078
 1 -  GRN - 62,853

South West Ontario:
15 - LIB - 809,235
14 - CPC - 801,147
 7 -  NDP - 405,389
 1  - GRN - 68,854

Greater Toronto Area:
26 - LIB - 1,286,957
17 - CPC - 865,033
 7 -  NDP - 376,449
 1 -  GRN - 54,285


Ontario Subtotal:
56 LIB // 43 CPC // 19 NDP // 3 GRN


Nationwide Total:
141 LIB // 107 CPC // 65 NDP // 15 BQ // 7 GRN // 3 from the Territories

You'll notice I didn't mention a threshold; that's because there is none. The size of the districts act as their own threshold. The largest one has 51 members which puts an effective threshold of around 2%. This means none of the parties last-time that did not win seats, would win seats under this new system.

Compare our result above to an absurd nationwide list:
135 LIB // 109 CPC // 67 NDP // 16 BQ // 11 GRN // 0 Libertarians

Despite the fact the Libertarians were the next most popular party, despite the fact I am using no threshold, they win 0 seats. In fact you'd need to expand the commons to 473 seats before they win a seat. You can check for yourself here. (presuming the link lasts)

One reason the Liberals do better under the regional system is how strongly they won the Atlantic, which is given more seats than its population would otherwise grant.


So what of this system? It's very unlikely we'd ever get it; given that it eliminates local representatives. However, in short, it would distribute seats based on the proportion of votes. That means an end to majorities.

There is not much more to say on it. I will, however, examine the other systems that are being looked at in posts in the coming days and weeks.

Electoral Reform - A sizable proposal

This is a proposal that won't impact the way you vote at all. In fact, it's a proposal for drawing ridings. This proposal is thus only useful if we keep ridings, and as such, is best useful for either ranked ballots or FPTP.


Currently, we have laws in this country that allow northern ridings to have less people than southern ridings. One problem is that the definition of what's northern is unclear, and when it is clear, people often argue about where the line should be.

As such I've developed a solution. My solution fixes that. When it comes time to decide Federal ridings, we shall follow all the steps we do now, right up until you divide all the ridings within each province. Instead of simply dividing all ridings within a province to be equal in terms of population, you make it equal in terms of population and size; by making every 10 SQ KM of physical size, equal to a single voter. The current exceptions would continue in some way. Most ridings would be expected to be within 10% of the average population. Geography can create some weird situations, so as many as 1/10th of every riding in the province can be as much as 20% off the average. Lastly, should any single riding be in "extraordinary circumstances" in a province, the commission redrawing the boundaries may set that riding as much as 50% off from average. Remember though, all those averages include the 'phantom electors' that are added due to the size of the riding.

You may think that this means that urban ridings will be crowded while rural ridings in farming areas will only have a few dozen voters, but that does not properly understand the size differences in ridings.

Flamborough—Glanbrook which is #21 on the map, is 941 SQ KM in size. This means 94 'voters' would be added to the riding before calculating if it's the proper population, or if it is too large or small. Compare this to #61, Toronto Centre, which is under 10 SQ KM, meaning only 1 'voter' gets added. For Flamborough, this would increase the population of that riding from 97,081 to 97,175, or a change of 0.1%

Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, #12 on the above map, is under 9,000 SQ KM in size. If you had added this as a population would add 900 residents, which would bump the quote from 3.74% above the average to 4.51%, a very minor change. Compare this to the Algoma riding, #01, which is over 100,000 KM SQ in size, which would add 10,000 people to the population of the riding, or the Kenora riding, #16, that would add 32,000 voters due to it's size.

Compare as well to provinces elsewhere. In Manitoba the Churchill riding, on it's current population and it's new area population, would have ranked at 134,000 people, and as such, been very over-populated. This means northern communities like this would be far better represented.


In general, as a result of this, you'll only see a minor shift northward of ridings. Most provinces already properly under-populate their northern ridings. Where this will matter is in parts of Northern Ontario. The native communities in Northern Ontario often feel under-represented, and this is, in part, because areas like Sudbury, Thunder Bay, and Sault Ste. Marie, are comparatively over-represented. This proposal would shift ridings within Northern Ontario further north, while pushing ridings in areas like Sudbury slightly to the south. Northern Quebec would also see a massive change; while most ridings in the province wouldn't see a change, the massive northern riding would be split in two. This is important, again, for the native community, as they are spread over the massive area of this riding, and, would get their own riding. Contrast this with the current riding, where the majority of voters live in the southern 'bulb' hanging off the south end of the riding.

Not as well that I still give the option to go as low as 50% or as high as 150% due to extraordinary circumstances. Part of the reason for this is that Labrador, even with the area adjustment, would be beyond 25% of the quota. I see no reason, at this time, to remove Labrador as it's own seat.


This is based on an idea from Australia, where rather than 1 person being added for every 10 SQ KM in size, the state of Queensland adds 1 person for every 50KM in size, and only if the seat is over 100,000 SQ KM in size. Canada is much more willing to allow it's physically larger ridings to be smaller in terms of population, and part of the reason for this is due to our friend Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the manner in which he over-represented rural farming areas as a method to stay in office.

I feel that this proposal is a fair and simple way to enshrine in law a current regulation that is unclear, and a simple way to ensure that such representation principles are less associated with any 'where is the line' controversy that may erupt.