Reader Ian Bailey writes;
As you know in Canada the number of seats is based on the Census
population. But what if the Census is wrong?A quick look at the attached spreadsheet shows that Nova Scotia had more electors and voters than Saskatchewan in 2006. Which should be impossible given the relative Census populations.
Reference: Results of the 2006 Election (http://www.elections.ca/scripts/OVR2006/default.html- table 3 & 4).
If Nova Scotia has more people than Saskatchewan the new electoral law should cause some consternation for the regular Canadian's, the equal rights types and legal beagles considering Saskatchewan has 3 more seats than Nova Scotia.
How could the census be wrong? The return rate on mail in censuses is less than 80% in the U.S.. God knows what Canada's return rate is. It is widely known that the 18-30 group shows in general is vastly under counted. In Nova Scotia, population 907,008 (2001), the MSI database (Health Cards) showed 954,000 people not counting the military (10,000) and RCMP (1,000). In Halifax there are whole new subdivisions of big apartment buildings and condos and the new census showed almost no change in population. There is a problem, how big is anybody's guess.
The MSM should have picked up on it when the 2006 election results came out. Sorry, what was I thinking.
Anyway it is a little different take on the inequalities of our electoral system without dumping on PEI with 4 seats.
Sask. has had no effective representation in Ottawa since it joined Confederation so why worry now.
Rep by pop formulas are a distraction, think of the "milch cow" ...there's yer federal representation.
What if the voters' lists are wrong? What if more people than permanent residents voted? Students from other provinces are allowed to vote in Quebec's federal elections.
What if nothing is wrong?
But, check the figures. Saskatchewan in 2001 had 978,333. In 2006, 968, 157. That's a loss of about 10,000.
NS in 2001 had 908,007. In 2006, 913,462. That's a gain of about 5,000.
The electoral list in NS of 2006 does indeed show about 40,000 MORE than in Sask, while the 2000 list has NS at about 4,000 LESS than Sask. Even given the 10,000 loss of Sask population, that seems a tad high.
There could be other explanations less nefarious. A new ruling about students? Or?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can different age distributions explain some of this apparent anomaly? In the 2001 census, Saskatchewan had about 60,000 more young persons (0-19 years) than Nova Scotia, many of whom would not yet qualify as electors.
NS does tend to have an older population than most places but the variation does seem a tad large.
But the real point of this ought to be the abysmal voter turn out. Is it really that difficult to get to the local polling booth?
Stupid me! I keep forgeting that voting is somehow an inconvience. That 10 minutes out of a life is just too much.
"The MSM should have picked up on it when the 2006 election results came out. Sorry, what was I thinking." Good thing i put my coffee down before reading that!
Who ever said that government stats were current?
They are not and never have been.
Question:
Nova Scotia has a ridiculous number of University and Colleges relative to it's population so could this be skewing these results?
If you're an out of Province student you wouldn't get counted in the census, but you could get medical services as well you can vote in the riding of your school can you not?
Further to government stats just look at the CPI figures. To keep the figure low food and energy are removed because those costs are too volatile. Obviously food and energy are discretionary items. How convenient.
Good points Reid. We do have an insane number of university students in this province.
...wonder how many strip joints are listed in the census as dwelling places, like in Edmonton's electoral listings.
I'm amazed this country continues to run, but maybe, just maybe the cows are starting to come home and the truth reveled.
Mulch cow indeed.
Let's also remember that the census counts the population - citizens and non-citizens alike, and of course also people below voting age. It is entirely conceivable that when comparing provinces with similar populations that the less populous province could have a greater number of eligible voters than the slightly more populous province.
Don
Rather than increase the number of MPS we should take MPS away from lower poulation areas. The increase in MPS and their staffers will cost a fortune that could be better spent.
Finally, I see someone posting that holds a similar view to mine.
"Rather than increase the number of MPS we should take MPS away from lower poulation areas. The increase in MPS and their staffers will cost a fortune that could be better spent."
Posted by: scott at May 18, 2007 12:27 PM
Given what big government, and the socialist hordes have done to us, as opposed for us, how could anyone actually believe that more MPs, and the attendant larger bureaucracy could be a positive development?
Are there inequities? Certainly.
Is more government a solution? Highly doubtful.
So I support Scott's idea of re-distribution, but with no more, and hopefully less government!
Cheers!
Unfortunately Scott the stupid constitution that Trudork brought in won't allow for that. PEI will have no less than 3 MPs in perpetuity, Quebec will have no less than 75 MPs in perpetuity. The constitution allows for increases in MPs only.
Yet another reason to through out that piece of garbage.
PEI should be taken as the basis by which 1 MP is assigned. Then you take the population of each of the other Provinces and divide by PEI's population and that's the number of MPs they get. Then you give 1 to each of the 3 territories just because their population is too low to use as the basis.
Under that formula there'd be 246 MPs today. That's a nice number... smaller than now and nicely representative.
Finally, I see someone posting that holds a similar view to mine.
"Rather than increase the number of MPS we should take MPS away from lower poulation areas. The increase in MPS and their staffers will cost a fortune that could be better spent."
Posted by: scott at May 18, 2007 12:27 PM
Given what big government, and the socialist hordes have done to us, as opposed for us, how could anyone actually believe that more MPs, and the attendant larger bureaucracy could be a positive development?
Are there inequities? Certainly.
Is more government a solution? Highly doubtful.
So I support Scott's idea of re-distribution, but with no more, and hopefully less government!
Cheers!
two things to consider about representation in the House of Commons:
1. the supreme court decided many years ago (can't remember the case) that the principle of representation by population (the general idea behind the Commons when it was created in 1867) could be overriden for reasons of redressing the evils of regional inequities and the under-representation of cultural collectives (i.e. francophones, etc.)
2. the constitution (BNA 1867) decreed that no province could have fewer members of the Commons than it had senators. the constitution also decreed that the three maritime provinces would be allotted 24 senators, a number equal to that of upper canada and lower canada. the senate was created to provide regional equality to the new federal government and to "correct" the potential "imbalance" of pure per capita representation along similar lines to the american senate. thus, PEI was given four senators out of the 24 maritime senate seats, and PEI thus has four members of the Commons. this arrangement is constitutionally enshrined. it has nothing whatsoever to do with census figures, and since federal institutions require the unanimous consent of the provinces and federal government to effect constituional change, there is precious little you can do about it.
albertan - because something is written in the constitution does not mean that it cannot be amended.
My concern about representation-by-language is that this is akin to tribalism rather than a civic mode of government. Tribalism is a mode where an hereditary attribute of a population is given political authority. This hereditary attribute is normally kinship.
To make language an hereditary attribute is extremely dangerous, because it sets up that language, not as a method of communication but as an attribute of a confined and closed political power. Trudeau's Charter is almost entirely about this, making language, in particular, French, a political force rather than a communicative system.
Tribalism is inherently non-democratic; it ignores representation by population and focuses on hierarchies of power by hereditary attributes. Do we want this in Canada?
Is Quebec, defining itself as 'francophone' in its unilingual definition - going to set up one province as having privileged political power in Canada? Note that Quebec's insistence on its unilingual nature rejects the anglophone presence in its population and rejects other languages in its population. Quebec also ignores the francophone population in other provinces, such as New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba.
Instead, Quebec defines French as a political attribute owned solely and completely - by Quebec. Therefore, it states that it, and it alone, should get special powers in the House. Not New Brunswick, Ontario or Manitoba (by virtue of their francophone population). Only Quebec.
Mr. ET.....no quibbles over anything you wrote, it's all gospel here on this site, isn't it? ;)
this is my take on canadian political/constitutional history:
new france was conquered by the brits to placate yankee ambitions to settle over the appalachians.
the yankees separated from the crown in part as protest over the french settlement issue, (non-assimilation), and over the taxation required to pay for the conquest.
upper canada was created (1791??) to placate the loyalists
canada was created (union of upper and lower: 1840??) in part to make a stronger resistance to manifest destiny (polk and 54'40 and all that)
a federal canada was created to further the financial interests of upper canada, specifically, the Family Compact...to do this the Chateau Clique of lower canada was bribed, as were the power elites in the Maritimes. thus the constitutional settlement of 1867 which we have to this day. i interpret all events after the conquest as being actuated by or for the aggrandisment of the power elites of what is now southern ontario. this interpretation i argue is essential for properly understanding the canada of today.
accommodations, alliances, bargains, and such might be made from time to time, but upper canada merely stoops to conquer.
touching the matter of changing this settlement, yes, it is theoretically possible, but as i wrote, such change would require unanimous consent. why should PEI give up its four MPs and senators? practically speaking, such an amendment is impossible.
what is more likely is what took place in 1776. the yanks don't prettify what they did, they called it a revolution. it constitutional terms, they claim to have created a new political and legal order, while maintaining their legal and political heritage, by unconstitutional means. if i don't remember precisely, but constitutional scholars refer to this as a "grimnorm"? "grinnorm"? something like that.
at any rate, i think this type of change is all that reform minded canadians might accomplish. the established system is irrefragable.
Heard a story yesterday on the radio that Nfld. had not updated its jury lists in 8 years, they were done monthly up until then. it is possible that some trials will be challenged because of it.
you would thing that somewhere in the "Grant Receiver General Province" someone could at least put in a token effort of work other than Danny "Whine for Wine " Williams.