DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Politics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 21738--------------------------------------------------
Canadian Politics
By: Kerry Date: March 10, 2019, 10:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I was wondering how Trudeau and the Liberal Party will fare in
the next election and tried to find out how each riding
(district) voted for its representative in Parliament. How
much of a shift in percentages would be needed to defeat Trudeau
if he remains party leader?
I did not get very far. The task seemed daunting, but I was
shocked to discover how unequal in population the ridings are.
Why should some ridings contain so few people compared to other
ones? That means some people have more influence when voting.
It suggests that whoever drew the ridings may have done it
dishonestly. If I have time, I may research which parties
dominate in the ridings with smaller populations and which
dominate in those with larger ones to see if the ridings were
rigged in favor of one party.
Will Trudeau be around in the next election? If he stays put,
I'd think it would hurt the Liberal Party. I also wonder if the
two ministers who resigned from his cabinet have an eye on being
his replacement.
#Post#: 21741--------------------------------------------------
Re: Canadian Politics
By: paralambano Date: March 11, 2019, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry - ^
I think that the last re-destribution of seats federally was
done in 2015. Is it still out of whack? It's based on the
10-year census.
Ya, I'm wondering too how Trudeau will do. There does seem to be
some anti-him sentiment around. The thing is, how popular is the
opposition? It's Trudeau they know I think, not Andrew Scheer.
If Scheer wins, I think it will be by an anti-Trudeau vote. We
have a Conservative government in Ontario. It usually means a
Liberal one in Ottawa.
para . . . .
#Post#: 21742--------------------------------------------------
Re: Canadian Politics
By: Kerry Date: March 11, 2019, 3:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=paralambano link=topic=1386.msg21741#msg21741
date=1552318522]
Kerry - ^
I think that the last re-destribution of seats federally was
done in 2015. Is it still out of whack? It's based on the
10-year census.[/quote]I think it may have been out of whack as
soon as the map got redrawn.
I understand the need for the sparsely populated provinces to
have at least one seat. I also understand that number of
voters might count more than number of all the people.
Nunavut had 18,124 electors; Yukon had 25,264; and Northwest
Territories had 28,795. Put those aside then as necessary
seats.
What remains is still astonishing. Prince Edward Island has 4
seats with an average of 27,235 electors per seat. Quebec at
the other end has 78 seats with an average of 81,290.
Breaking it down district by district, the least populous
district in Prince Edward Island is Charlottetown with 26,400
electors while the most populous district in Ontario is Niagara
Falls with 101,505. Charlottetown votes Liberal, Niagara Falls
votes Conservative. While I can't make a judgment about Canada
as a whole, those two districts suggest Liberals drew up the map
since the Liberal voters in Charlottetown have almost four times
as clout in Parliament as Conservative voters in Niagara Falls.
Neither district got changed in the 2012 federal electoral
redistribution.
Some things are so hard to understand, I wonder if Wikipedia has
them right.
Canadian federal electoral redistribution, 2012
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_electoral_redistribution,_2012
The allocation of seats to the provinces and territories was
based on rules in the Constitution of Canada as well as
population estimates made by Statistics Canada based on the 2006
Census (in particular, the allocation is based on an estimate
for the population as of July 1, 2011, "based on 2006 Census
population counts adjusted for census net undercoverage and
incompletely enumerated Indian reserves").
A final report was tabled October 2013, with the changes
proclaimed to take effect as of the first dissolution of
Parliament occurring after May 1, 2014. The names of some
ridings were changed the Riding Name Change Act, 2014 came into
force on June 19, 2014.
So do I have this right? The current districts are based on a
census that is 13 years old that got "adjusted" because someone
knew the census numbers weren't right and on "estimates" of
growth in some areas? Why not conduct a more thorough census
and draw a map in a timely fashion?
We know the Liberals came into power in the next election. How
could it be if the government that produced the new map was
Conservative? I need to do more research; but from the little
I've seen so far, it looks as if Liberals drew the map and not
the Conservatives. For example, all four districts from Prince
Edward Island go Liberal. That over-representation creates one
or two more Liberal MPs. Why would a Conservative government
approve such a map?
[quote]Ya, I'm wondering too how Trudeau will do. There does
seem to be some anti-him sentiment around. The thing is, how
popular is the opposition? It's Trudeau they know I think, not
Andrew Scheer. If Scheer wins, I think it will be by an
anti-Trudeau vote. We have a Conservative government in Ontario.
It usually means a Liberal one in Ottawa.[/quote]
I'm guessing Trudeau is getting some pressure privately from
within his own party to step aside so Scheer can't run on a
platform based mostly on anti-Trudeau sentiment.
#Post#: 21751--------------------------------------------------
Re: Canadian Politics
By: paralambano Date: March 12, 2019, 10:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry - ^
[quote]I'm guessing Trudeau is getting some pressure privately
from within his own party to step aside so Scheer can't run on a
platform based mostly on anti-Trudeau sentiment. [/quote]
I think that one of Trudeaus' campaign platforms was electoral
reform but it looks like that's not going to happen unless all
the parties agree on an alternative. Isn't first-past-the-post
still used in the USA like it is here?
The Chief Electoral Officer in 2015 was a Harper nominee. Harper
had a majority government defeated by Trudeau. Any redrawing
would have been the Officer's assignment under the
Conservatives. Trudeau has had his nominee appointed by a
Liberal majority Parliament.
I think Trudeau would have still won in 2015 but with a minority
government if the results were tabulated strictly by rep-by-pop.
The Liberal gambit was to have their voters go for any candidate
that could beat the Conservative candidate in the riding. The
debate it seems is on the merits of both systems. Still, both
dominant parties are more centrist than apart ideologically.
It's the NDP that Canadians appear not to want since it appears
to many as too far left.
Who could replace Trudeau in the Liberal Party even if he were
turfed from caucus as leader? Jody Raybold? I'm supposing most
voters don't care about the Lavalin affair and had never heard
of her before this and her dual duties as Attorney-General. What
are the gas prices like on election day? I think Trudeau will
win again.
Ol' starin' at my wall para . . . .
#Post#: 21753--------------------------------------------------
Re: Canadian Politics
By: Kerry Date: March 12, 2019, 4:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=paralambano link=topic=1386.msg21751#msg21751
date=1552405415]
Kerry - ^
I think that one of Trudeaus' campaign platforms was electoral
reform but it looks like that's not going to happen unless all
the parties agree on an alternative. Isn't first-past-the-post
still used in the USA like it is here?[/quote]For the most part,
it is; but some states hold run-offs if no one gets over 50%.
Such run-offs usually are a huge waste of money, others may not
be. I don't have many ridings done yet; but I found a few of
both kinds. I've finished looking at 3 provinces, and the
Liberals hold all the seats. The percentages involved in the
results do not suggest gerrymandering, not in those three
provinces. I wonder if there's enough Conservative voters in
the whole province of Newfoundland and Labrador that they could
win just one seat even if they were all gerrymandered into one
riding. Trudeau bragged about how the Canadian system was not
gerrymandered. So far, that looks fairly true; but so far, it
looks as if it wouldn't matter much in some provinces where the
lines get drawn since the province is almost solidly one party
or another.
The Chief Electoral Officer in 2015 was a Harper nominee. Harper
had a majority government defeated by Trudeau. Any redrawing
would have been the Officer's assignment under the
Conservatives. Trudeau has had his nominee appointed by a
Liberal majority Parliament.
[quote]I think Trudeau would have still won in 2015 but with a
minority government if the results were tabulated strictly by
rep-by-pop. The Liberal gambit was to have their voters go for
any candidate that could beat the Conservative candidate in the
riding. The debate it seems is on the merits of both
systems.[/quote]
There was a result in Prince Edward Island in the riding of
Egmont I found interesting where the Liberals got 49.25%, the
Conservatives with 28.95% and the NDP garnering 19.18%. The
outcome almost certainly wouldn't have changed even with a
run-off. There were a few other ridings in the first three
provinces I've looked at where the winner got under 50%; but
none was close enough that anyone could claim the Conservative
would have won in a run-off -- not in the ridings I've looked at
so far.
Being satirical about it, perhaps if the NDP could convince
Conservatives to vote against the Liberals, the NDP could win
more seats. In the riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook in
Nova Scotia, the NDP came in second with 34.39%. The Liberal
won with under 50% -- 47.95% to be precise. If all the
Conservatives had voted for the NDP, the NDP would have had
over 50%.
[quote]Still, both dominant parties are more centrist than apart
ideologically. It's the NDP that Canadians appear not to want
since it appears to many as too far left.[/quote]It looks to me
as if the Democratic Party here in the US may be venturing too
far to the left. There are candidates from ultra-liberal
districts trying to push the party that way. I think that they
were already too far left of center when Trump won. Now some
want to go further to the left.
[quote]Who could replace Trudeau in the Liberal Party even if he
were turfed from caucus as leader? Jody Raybold? I'm supposing
most voters don't care about the Lavalin affair and had never
heard of her before this and her dual duties as
Attorney-General. What are the gas prices like on election day?
I think Trudeau will win again.[/quote]I doubt too if many
voters care that much about the Lavalin affair. I think it's
silly to punish an entire company along with all its employees
for the wrong-doing of a few bad apples. Why ban them from all
government contracts? Why not put the culprits who bribed
people on trial and put them in jail?
What may cause more problems for Trudeau is that both ministers
who resigned were women. His reputation as a feminist is
tarnished. He looks as if he tried to exert undue pressure on
Jody Raybold. He can be portrayed as the typical domineering
corrupt white male, anti-women as well as anti-indigenous.
HTML https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/03/canada-trudeau-feminism-wilson-raybauld/584677/
At first pass, the SNC-Lavalin affair might not seem like an
issue with a feminist underpinning. But the problem with running
on a feminist agenda is that when two of your strongest female
cabinet ministers resign, you face something of a feminist
reckoning. Trudeau has earned international accolades for his
vocal support of women’s issues; here at home, he has been
criticized for virtue signaling. And the question of what it
really means to have gender parity—not just in the cabinet or
government, but at work, at home, and in society more broadly—is
something for which Trudeau’s brand of feminism might not be
able to provide a satisfying answer.
From across the aisle, one Conservative MP, Michelle Rempel, put
it plainly. “Trudeau came out and asked for strong women, and he
got them,” she told me in an interview last week.
Trudeau is also in a corner looking as if he's trying to hide
something. Scheer is making him look that way.
HTML https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-trudeau-1.5050819
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau and the Liberals must lift a "gag order" and ensure Jody
Wilson-Raybould can speak the full truth about the circumstances
around her decision to leave cabinet.
The SNC-Lavalin controversy has exposed a crisis of moral and
ethical leadership in Trudeau's office, Scheer said at a news
conference Sunday in Ottawa, adding an online campaign is
underway to support Wilson-Raybould.
"Justin Trudeau must let her speak," he said.
MPs are to hold an emergency session of the House of Commons
justice committee on Wednesday, and Wilson-Raybould has
previously said she would be willing to return to provide
additional testimony.
Scheer said Liberal MPs on the committee need to support
Wilson-Raybould coming back to shed additional light on the
scandal, suggesting if they do not, it would suggest the prime
minister "has something to hide."
"Previously, it was only after intense pressure that Liberal MPs
on the justice committee allowed this investigation to start,
and only after intense pressure from Canadians did Justin
Trudeau even partially allow Ms. Wilson-Raybould to speak,"
Scheer said.
#Post#: 21768--------------------------------------------------
Re: Canadian Politics
By: paralambano Date: March 13, 2019, 5:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry - ^
Nice work looking into the Canajun political system :).
Ya, we don't hear much about gerrymandering here. Here's an
article 'splains it:
HTML https://www.vox.com/2014/4/15/5604284/us-elections-are-rigged-but-canada-knows-how-to-fix-them
and a comparison:
HTML https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/25/trudeau-says-canada-does-redistricting-better-we-do-is-he-right/?utm_term=.322d9e6e0691
Ya, about Scheer. That's what I like about the parleeyment (sic)
system. You're face-to-face with the opposition answering for
things. Trump enters Congress like a King to account and he does
all the yackety.
I think the Conservatives here would much rather vote Liberal
than NDP which having an NDP win is a nightmare for them.
Have you seen the vid of what looks like Trudeau making contact
with a female MP in the House of Commons? How some of the
opposition made hay with it! "Physical molestation" (?). But
what stride has he! Yellow or red card :)?
HTML https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FUtCFRp6wBw
Ol' red-eye para . . . .
#Post#: 21770--------------------------------------------------
Re: Canadian Politics
By: Kerry Date: March 13, 2019, 8:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=paralambano link=topic=1386.msg21768#msg21768
date=1552474105]
Kerry - ^
Nice work looking into the Canajun political system :).
Ya, we don't hear much about gerrymandering here. Here's an
article 'splains it:
HTML https://www.vox.com/2014/4/15/5604284/us-elections-are-rigged-but-canada-knows-how-to-fix-them
and a comparison:
HTML https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/25/trudeau-says-canada-does-redistricting-better-we-do-is-he-right/?utm_term=.322d9e6e0691
[/quote]I ran across the Washington Post article earlier but the
Vox article was new. I also just finished the ridings in New
Brunswick; and wow, the results there were astonishingly
different from the other three provinces I finished. I
suspected commissions in each province did it, and the Vox
article confirmed that. I think the results in New Brunswick
also suggest that while the commissions are allegedly
nonpartisan, most people still have biases. While it's clear
that Canadian districts do not resemble crazy patchwork quilts
but form compact areas; it is glaringly obvious that some of the
commissions did not give a fig about trying to create districts
with equal populations. Such districts would be slapped down
almost instantly in the US as flouting the "one man, one vote"
rule. I've already noted the discrepancies in the number of
districts assigned to the provinces as flouting this principle;
and it's flouted rather wildly in New Brunswick.
The district Miramichi—Grand Lake has a population of 59,343 at
one end of the scale while Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe has 89,484.
That is not even close to being equal. It's almost a 2:3 ratio.
To make matters worse, Miramichi-Grand Like is a new riding,
carved out of Miramichi, Fredericton, Beauséjour and
Tobique—Mactaquac. Now if you're going to carve out a new
district out of four old ones, surely you'd take enough from
them to make the new ones fairly equal; but they didn't.
Most of the new district (83%) is from the old Miramich one. The
rest came from: Fredericton (10%), Beauséjour (6%), and
Tobique—Mactaquac (1%). They should have taken more from
Fredericton which has a population of 81,759 and from Beauséjour
which has 80,416 and some also from Tobique—Mactaquac with
70,632.
The commission looks to me as if it had a Conservative bias.
While it's true that Liberals won all the seats in New
Brunswick, it looks as if Conservatives wanted to have lots of
Liberal voters in Beauséjour instead of risking moving more of
it into the new district. Beauséjour is the most solidly
Liberal riding in the province. Other ridings are somewhat
similar.
If you divide the ten districts into five with the most people
and five with the least, a pattern stands out. Four of out five
of the least populous are more favorable to Conservatives --
in those four, the difference in results was less than 10%.
Liberals won but with less than 10%. That looks like
gerrymandering to me; and if there is a shift of just 5% with
Liberals getting 5% less and Conservatives 5% more in the next
election, the Conservatives will pick up four seats in the
smallest ridings. Indeed they may pick up the fifth as well
since Conservative Bernard Valcourt held the seat until the last
election.
[quote]Ya, about Scheer. That's what I like about the
parleeyment (sic) system. You're face-to-face with the
opposition answering for things. Trump enters Congress like a
King to account and he does all the yackety.[/quote]It has
advantages and disadvantages. I heard a British MP this morning
explain how he could be friends with MPs from the other party
off the floor, but once they sat facing each other they got
partisan. I used to watch Question Time and thought it more
entertainment than anything else. The party members expressing
approval of remarks sounded like the braying of donkeys to me.
[quote]I think the Conservatives here would much rather vote
Liberal than NDP which having an NDP win is a nightmare for
them.[/quote]Probably. But what about people who voted Liberal
last time who might get turned off in the next election? Will
they go Conservative or NDP?
[quote]Have you seen the vid of what looks like Trudeau making
contact with a female MP in the House of Commons? How some of
the opposition made hay with it! "Physical molestation" (?). But
what stride has he! Yellow or red card :)?[/quote]
To be honest, I didn't see much of anything even with the
circles to point it out; but I don't understand why the Speaker
tolerates all the people milling around. That would not happen
in the US House. People would be told to clear out; and if
they didn't, the Speaker would use the gavel and threaten them
with the Sergeant of Arms. If something happened with Trudeau,
I'd give it a yellow card. Whatever it was, it was nothing
compared to Mayor Ford.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDmwte000hw
#Post#: 21772--------------------------------------------------
Re: Canadian Politics
By: paralambano Date: March 13, 2019, 11:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Kerry - ^
Ya, I had already seen the Ford thing. That whole era was mad.
Mad I say :o!
The thing is, with the Trudeau vid, what's he doing acting like
a Sergeant-at-Arms?
Mayor Ford didn't govern Canada, thankfully. His brother is
Premier of Ontario.
People who voted Liberal last time will likely vote Liberal
again I think. It's ingrained. They likely wouldn't go
Conservative since there appears to be a great divide of
perception. I think that Liberals would rather go to the NDP.
[quote]It has advantages and disadvantages. I heard a British
MP this morning explain how he could be friends with MPs from
the other party off the floor, but once they sat facing each
other they got partisan. I used to watch Question Time and
thought it more entertainment than anything else. The party
members expressing approval of remarks sounded like the braying
of donkeys to me. [/quote]
Advantages and disadvantages, of course. I like the idea of
friends off-stage and partisan on since people do have different
political beliefs.
Ya, the braying of donkeys, but the Leader answers to all
opposition. I'd like to see Trump withstand some of the stuff
that's said in Parliament. Would he lose it?
I wonder if any MP's have filed a complaint regarding your
findings of riding population distributions?:
Population remains the basic principle determining constituency
boundaries. Each commission proceeds by dividing the total
provincial population by the allocation of seats to produce a
provincial electoral quota. The commissions are then to "proceed
on the basis that the population of each electoral district in
the province [...] shall, as closely as is reasonably possible,
correspond to the electoral quota for the province." Although a
commission may depart from a very strict application of this
rule, none could recommend an electoral district whose
population varied from the provincial electoral quota by more
than 25 per cent either way (except in very special cases, such
as rural or geographically isolated areas, or the far north,
where the variance can go below 25 per cent under the provincial
quota). The Act instructs commissions to consider "community of
interest," “community of identity” and historical constituency
boundaries in drawing the electoral map. As well, the Act
instructs the commissions to maintain a “manageable geographic
size” for sparsely populated districts.
Once the commissions have completed their work and issued their
reports, MPs have an opportunity to file written objections to
any of the boundaries or constituency names, providing they are
signed by at least 10 MPs. Such objections are then sent back to
the commission, which may or may not amend the report. Once the
MPs’ objections have been considered, the commission can issue a
final report. These final reports form the basis of a
representation order, which is drafted by the Chief Electoral
Officer, proclaimed by Cabinet in the Canada Gazette and then
issued by the governor general. :
HTML https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/redistribution
What does electoral quota mean? Isn't the variance of 25% either
way based on that?
para . . . .
#Post#: 21776--------------------------------------------------
Re: Canadian Politics
By: Kerry Date: March 13, 2019, 8:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=paralambano link=topic=1386.msg21772#msg21772
date=1552495943]
I wonder if any MP's have filed a complaint regarding your
findings of riding population distributions?:[/quote]I haven't
heard of any. You would expect complaints to come from a
minority party. In this case, the currently minority is the
Conservative Party which seems to have done some gerrymandering
when they did the job as a way of ensuring they continued to win
-- but they failed.
If you're going to gerrymander effectively, you want your party
to win by slimmer margins in more districts while the opposition
wins fewer districts but with bigger margins. Republicans in
the US often used race to gerrymander. They made some districts
predominantly black and Democratic. That ensured a certain
number of black Congressmen, but it wasted the votes of blacks
mathematically. If a district is 90% Democratic because it's
composed of blacks Democrats, that gives the Republicans an
edge in other districts since so many Democrats were taken out
of them. Here in Pennsylvania where Democrats often win
statewide elections, under the system just struck down by the
courts, the Republicans held most of the seats.
Believe it or not, the Republicans (under one of the Bushes)
once sued a state because it said they didn't have enough black
members of Congress. They won, the lines got redrawn and one or
two more blacks were elected to Congress; but it meant in that
state, Republicans won more races. And believe it or not,
control of the House of Representatives hung on it. The
drawing of districts intended to ensure black quotas in Congress
(who were Democrats) also produced a House controlled by
Republicans. Who would complain openly? The blacks elected
to Congress wouldn't; the white Democrats who lost control of
the House wouldn't, not if they wanted blacks to keep voting
Democratic; and the Republicans who got control of the House
wouldn't.
[quote]Population remains the basic principle determining
constituency boundaries. Each commission proceeds by dividing
the total provincial population by the allocation of seats to
produce a provincial electoral quota. The commissions are then
to "proceed on the basis that the population of each electoral
district in the province [...] shall, as closely as is
reasonably possible, correspond to the electoral quota for the
province." Although a commission may depart from a very strict
application of this rule, none could recommend an electoral
district whose population varied from the provincial electoral
quota by more than 25 per cent either way (except in very
special cases, such as rural or geographically isolated areas,
or the far north, where the variance can go below 25 per cent
under the provincial quota). The Act instructs commissions to
consider "community of interest," “community of identity” and
historical constituency boundaries in drawing the electoral map.
As well, the Act instructs the commissions to maintain a
“manageable geographic size” for sparsely populated districts.
Once the commissions have completed their work and issued their
reports, MPs have an opportunity to file written objections to
any of the boundaries or constituency names, providing they are
signed by at least 10 MPs. Such objections are then sent back to
the commission, which may or may not amend the report. Once the
MPs’ objections have been considered, the commission can issue a
final report. These final reports form the basis of a
representation order, which is drafted by the Chief Electoral
Officer, proclaimed by Cabinet in the Canada Gazette and then
issued by the governor general. :
HTML https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/redistribution
What does electoral quota mean? Isn't the variance of 25% either
way based on that?[/quote]I underlined what I think the answer
is. I did not have that piece of information about 25% variance
allowed before. There are issues nationally that precede this
in the way the provinces are allocated their number of
districts; and then there are provincial issues about how to
carve up the province into the proper number of districts. I'll
take New Brunswick since I have that finished. According to the
census figures I have, the population was 751,171. Thus the
ideal size for each riding would 75,117. Saying 25% either way
sounds almost reasonable, but is it if we look at what it
produces? A district with 25% fewer people would have a
population of 56,338. With 25% more, it would have 93,896.
That's awfully big. Since there is variance two ways, the
actual allowable ratio between largest and smallest ridings
would be 5/3.
The actual districts range from Madawaska—Restigouche with
62,540 to Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe with 89,484.
This allowable variance of size of 5/3 exists within each
province. When you see that the number of districts in each
province creates another variance that creates more inequity, we
see how the crazy results could be produced with the least
populous district in Prince Edward Island is Charlottetown with
26,400 electors while the most populous district in Ontario is
Niagara Falls with 101,505. Those numbers seem put out to
confuse since the number of voters is not the criterion to be
used. Let's use the population figures and not the number of
voters. Why confuse matters by including irrelevant figures?
The population figures are 34,562 and 128,357. The ratio is
3.71.
The article you cited says, "Population remains the basic
principle determining constituency boundaries." That should be
simple, shouldn't it? It might involve lots of math, but it
could still be fairly straightforward. Yet we see much of the
article after that justifying undermining that principle. First
they allowed the 25% variance up and down, creating a 5/3 ratio
within each province. "Although a commission may depart from a
very strict application of this rule, none could recommend an
electoral district whose population varied from the provincial
electoral quota by more than 25 per cent either way. . . ." As
if that wasn't enough tinkering with the "basic principle", they
then say in parentheses, "(except in very special cases, such as
rural or geographically isolated areas, or the far north, where
the variance can go below 25 per cent under the provincial
quota)."
Next comes what looks like a commandment to look at who lives
where in order to gerrymander effectively, "The Act instructs
commissions to consider 'community of interest,' 'community of
identity' and historical constituency boundaries in drawing the
electoral map. As well, the Act instructs the commissions to
maintain a 'manageable geographic size' for sparsely populated
districts.
I have not been looking at "race" in my analysis; but I haven't
gotten that far so I may go back and include it. Why? Because
something similar may be going on in Canada to what went on and
is still going on in the US where minorities are "given"
districts. That may please them. It might make indigenous
people happy to have members of Parliament be like them; but it
might also dilute their vote province-wise. In theory in a
province with lots of indigenous people, they could affect 90%
of the ridings; but if you put most of them into a few
districts, you dilute their influence.
It could work the other way too. I don't know. Maybe white
people are having their votes diluted. What I do know is that I
see a lot of complaining coming from indigenous communities
along with lots of apologies and the like with no real solutions
apparently in sight. I suspect it's the white power structure
working behind the scenes to dilute the influence of minorities;
and the Lavalin affair also might suggest that. Jody
Wilson-Raybould is from a predominantly white district; but has
an indigenous background. It could be that Trudeau gave her
jobs in his administration as window dressing and expected her
to take his "suggestions" out of gratitude. It makes him look
good to have women and indigenous people in his cabinet. I am
not saying she was unqualified. Looking at her bio on
Wikipedia, I'd say she was qualified; but that might not have
been Trudeau's reason for appointing her.
Her district is also interesting since the NDP is strong there.
In 2011, the Conservatives won it with only 35.4% of the vote.
In 2015, they managed to get only 26.1%, and the Liberals won
with 43.9% with the NDP coming in second with 26.9%.
#Post#: 21777--------------------------------------------------
Re: Canadian Politics
By: Kerry Date: March 13, 2019, 9:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There is reason for concern about the fairness of the justice
system when the known facts of the Lavalin affair are
considered.
No one currently at Lavalin is denying there were bribes.
Their defense is that ex-employees did it. Those are known
facts; yet no one seems to know who these guilty persons are.
Lavalin may be afraid of lawsuits if they named names; but the
government surely knows who they are and has not chosen (so far
as I know) to prosecute them. Instead prosecutors chose to
pursue the corporate angle while the guilty parties seem immune
from prosecution.
Also unexplained is how such bad apples could exist within the
Lavalin corporate structure; and the current Lavalin position
has certainly not explained it. What they are saying is that
they've taken steps to prevent it in the future. In other words,
"We got caught at it and we promise not to do it again." When
they assert the guilty parties were "employees," they are
inferring no one on the board was involved; but that is hard to
believe unless their board is composed of blind and deaf idiots
who have no clue what happens much of the time. It is
reasonable to believe that the board, while not ordering anyone
to pay out bribes, knew about it and tolerated it. When the
company got caught, the "employees" got the blame.
How high did the corruption go? Were these "employees" who are
no longer with the company paid for their silence? Why isn't
someone in Parliament investigating this? Why so much emphasis
on politics and Trudeau?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page