Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-04-2026, 08:03 AM   #421
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
Exp:
Default

I think the challenge of reducing the number of ridings would mean some rural ridings would be double the size, and they already say how challenging it is to represent and get to all those communities. And given the size, they may have vastly different priorities. That's where my double value urban ridings make more sense.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2026, 08:09 AM   #422
Geraldsh
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Exp:
Default

Social media and paved roads have reduced the size of rural ridings significantly
Geraldsh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2026, 08:09 AM   #423
calgarygeologist
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven View Post


No.

Those regions will end up with more influence when those kids age into voting. And then the lines should be updated again to balance out the ridings, which probably creates another riding in the area with lots of people (and that is how those regions end up with more influence, through having more eligible voters). Maintaining the electoral districts on a regular basis is critical and it should be more frequent when the population is booming at a faster pace.

Alberta (and Canada) needs to get rid of these systems that allow one persons vote to be worth more than another. Currently that is demonstrated with rural ridings that have far less eligible voters than city ridings with far more voters.

If riding X has 27,000 eligible voters and riding Y has 53,000 voters then that means a vote in riding X has almost double the influence of a vote in Y. This is fundamentally undemocratic as every vote should be equal in impact. It is an even more serious problem when combined with a "first past the post" system where that riding with 53K voters still only elects 1 MLA and all of the extra votes are wasted. And then when one party gets enough MLAs to form government, that's it, they get 100% of the power even if they only had 36% of the vote.

We need to move to a Mixed Member Proportional Representation system. Reduce the number of ridings, but still have elected officials that are regional and then have the rest of the government be allocated based on the popular vote.

Honestly, if we could have one referendum in Alberta, I wish it would be for electoral reform to implement a MMPR system.
You have all the mechanisms available to submit a petition on electoral reform. Go ahead and make it happen.
calgarygeologist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2026, 11:05 AM   #424
Wolven
First Line Centre
 
Wolven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarygeologist View Post
You have all the mechanisms available to submit a petition on electoral reform. Go ahead and make it happen.
Sure, if you pay the cash portion then I'll do the leg work. I hear the UCP changed the dollar amount though....
__________________
Wolven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2026, 11:41 AM   #425
Wolven
First Line Centre
 
Wolven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
I think the challenge of reducing the number of ridings would mean some rural ridings would be double the size, and they already say how challenging it is to represent and get to all those communities. And given the size, they may have vastly different priorities. That's where my double value urban ridings make more sense.
I think that problem of how challenging it is to represent a rural riding is overrated and hyped up to try to overshadow the fact that in the current system most rural ridings have smaller populations and thus a disproportionately higher value to their vote. Ensuring all votes have equal value should take priority over MLA driving time. Remember, these MLAs work for us and they are doing a job that pays really well.

The alternative is a pure proportional representation system where there are no ridings and the seats are 100% allocated by popular vote.

I think MMPR is more desirable, even if it means that rural Alberta is carved into 10 massive ridings. Having those ridings does drive some accountability where there is a named person who is responsible for your region.

Technology could solve a lot of the problems that they are trying to solve by making rural ridings smaller.
1) Improve video conferencing options for rural MLA engagement
2) Build a regional priorities dashboard on the Alberta website so we can list and see a record of the priorities of each region and let citizens submit things to add to the priority list of their riding. (Spoiler: I doubt the priorities are that different from one part of the province to another - health care, education, infrastructure, taxes)
3) Better transparency into what government is doing. This could be on the Alberta website with trackers and connected stories that broadcast all of the work and policies that the government is working on
4) Move MLAs out of "emails" and into a more advanced system, like a ticketing system where communications are retained as permanent records and converted into workflows.
etc.
__________________
Wolven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2026, 01:18 PM   #426
calgarygeologist
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

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
calgarygeologist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2026, 01:40 PM   #427
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Pickle Jar Lake
Exp:
Default

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.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2026, 01:49 PM   #428
Wolven
First Line Centre
 
Wolven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calgarygeologist View Post
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 View Post
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...
__________________
Wolven is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Wolven For This Useful Post:
Old 02-04-2026, 01:53 PM   #429
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Exp:
Default

I think the problems with vote distribution are grossly overstated

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...oral_districts



In general ridings are larger than 40k and smaller than 50k. There are a few outliers on the small side for very reasonable reasons.

Even after 10 years of growth aren’t terrible. They could be election deciding by are reasonable.

I think a conversation worth having is where do you draw boundaries between suburban and rural and small urban centers. This is where gerrymandering can occur. But the idea that rural is vastly over represented is overstated. It is not 18% controls 50%

Last edited by GGG; 02-04-2026 at 01:58 PM.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:21 PM.

Calgary Flames
2025-26






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy