Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarygeologist
I don't think the purported issue with rural representation is actually that significant based on the information and data that is available in the interim report for the upcoming "gerrymandering." Alberta is increasing from 87 to 89 ridings and based on their population numbers that means the average electoral district is 54,929. They have broken up the province into regions based on EDs. Edmonton ends up with an average population per ED of 56,870 or 3.5% above the Alberta average. Adding an extra ED there would make Edmonton 1.2% under the provincial average. Calgary will be 1.4% above the provincial average but adding another ED would make it 2.1% under average. They lump another 30 EDs into a few geographical groupings and those 30 ridings are an aggregated 0.45% under average. That leaves 10 EDs in the north which are an aggregated 10% below average. Removing one of those EDs puts that northern section right at the provincial average.
Realistically, Calgary and Edmonton are pretty close to where they should be for representation and some boundaries need to be adjusted to smooth out the variance between the city EDs. The same boundary adjustment can be made in rural EDs to smooth about variations
|
Yes, the upcoming redistribution of the electoral districts looks like good work and I do not believe that any reasonable person really called it gerrymandering. So of course the UCP are not happy with it, specifically because they wanted to gerrymander the effort and couldn't because they only got to appoint 2/5 people on the "independent" panel that was doing the work.
The gerrymandering comments were primarily pointed at the UCP attempts to meddle in the process and push for their drawings of the Lethbridge redistribution into 4 districts that watered down the Lethbridge voters, eliminate an "orange" seat, and increased rural representation.
I still wonder if the new maps are enough of a change to push for a snap election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Because these changes will be with us for up to 10 years, it makes sense to over represent the cities, given that's where most of the population growth will be taking place. We'll be way behind again by the next one. It's possible the next election would then perhaps slightly over compensate, but the one following will easily be back to the cities being under-represented.
|
I think that is the point of iggy's comment that the effort should be done more frequently. If the population is growing really quickly then adjustments should be made more quickly.
However, I agree with your suggestion that if we can easily predict that the cities will keep growing at a faster pace then that should be incorporated into the plan. Make the city ridings below the average for right now and then let them quickly fill up.
One might even say this kind of predictive planning to allow for future growth is just common sense...