Active Users:1008 Time:14/11/2024 11:12:03 PM
The thing is, regions often have national relevance far greater than their populations would suggest Joel Send a noteboard - 05/03/2012 10:21:26 AM
Like I said, nearly all Western democracies have constituencies like that, which almost inevitably favours regions with low population even if you don't have a system like Norway's (e.g. Canada, which has several provinces/territories with barely 30-40k of inhabitants, but obviously they can hardly avoid giving them a single seat at least, whereas Ontario and Quebec have far more inhabitants per seat than that).

The analysis doesn't really hold true for Canada, and your facts are somewhat wrong. The smallest province had a 135k population by 2006 (last major redivision of the constituencies), 10 times bigger than your numbers (25-35k are more like the size of a small constituency in the smallest provinces). It is true that numbers favour the low population areas to an extent - constituencies in PEI have around 25K pop, while the rural provinces like Manitoba have around 80k and the denser provinces like Alberta, Québec, Ontario, BC have many urban constituencies in the 130-150k range (and most between the 80 to 100k range).

But the numbers don't quite paint the whole picture. E.g.: the Maritimes together have about a third of the number of constituencies of Quebec... and about a third of Quebec's population. Cities like Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver have more MP each than the smaller provinces do.

We're a country of natural resources with a big and diversified territory. Some of the areas with low population aren't necessarily underdevelopped, and those MP representing 30k people can often represent more heterogenous interests than MP representing 100k people in far more homogenous city neighborhood often just a few sq. km in size.

It's true the system limits the number of viable parties and makes it nearly impossible for fringe parties to ever get seats despite sometime getting over 5% of the vote globally, but as for stability, or giving a lot of power to regions over the cities, it's not really true.

The low population/outer regions actually always complain that the power always resides with the areas of dense population and that their voices aren't heard, and the West always complained that the central areas held all the power (both are true, with nuances I'll spare you). Through most of the 20th century, power in Canada has largely resided with the central (and most urbanized, and richest) region (Ontario-Québec), with the rest struggling to get itself heard. Most prime ministers, and the majority of cabinet members, used to come from central Canada (often alternating between a PM from QC and one from ON). There was a time when the picture was indeed fairly stable, Ontario was largely liberal (with pockets of fiscal conservatives, and socialists), Québec alternated between being largely liberal and occasionally conservative and that pretty much determined the strength of the liberal governements.. or of a usually short-lived minority Conservative government. The strongest Conservative government we got, for 8 years (in the Reagan years) was Mulroney's, and it's the result of a wave sweeping Québec, the Maritimes and Alberta/the West and parts of Ontario, isolating Toronto... and the wave was the result of very different factors regionally. It's only with the debacle of the Conservatives in 1993 - a real tsunami - following the fiasco of the last constitutional round (and other regional issues) that's started to change, and radically so.

I will use the example of OK since I know a bit about the state and having used it as an example before means the two big numbers are fresh in my mind: Roughly 4 million people spread over 200,000 km². That works out to a population of 20/km², and by the standards of the Great Plains and Mountain West (about half the Continental US) is actually a fairly dense population. Montana is nearly twice as large but 2000 people short of a full million, so its density is about 2.5/km². Yet that half of the nations area accounts for the majority of our livestock and agricultural production (i.e. it feeds the country) as well as our fossil fuel production (i.e. it fuels the nation.) There is also probably a crapton of ore buried up in the Rockies, but they are a bit less inviting than the Appalachians so much of it is still there. Oh, and most of our national parks and other wilderness is there, too.

I am sure you know what I mean; Canadas development is similar to America in many respects, for many of the same reasons: Dense old eastern section, somewhat populated Pacific coast, lots of fairly sparse space between the two. That wide open space, however, as well as what lies within it, is vital to the nation in many ways, not to mention that its low population density and great size makes it a prime migration target for the more older more crowded regions. Giving it representation purely on the basis of population would under-represent it to the detriment of the nation as well to the region. So neither nation does that.

less likely to have huge differences in seat results between an election and the next, even if the popular vote difference is huge.

That would be a myth too as far as Canada is concerned. Stability was the result of the enduring strength of the center-left Liberal party far more than of the system. The voting picture can be utterly volatile since the 90s (far more so than, say, in the US).

There are very radical changes at some elections, even if the popular vote doesn't always change that much (regionally yes, globally not always that much).

Conservatives had 1 out 75 seats in Québec back in 1980, in 1984 they won 58/75... A landslide, after promising many things to Québec on the constitutional front. For his second term, Mulroney still held 169 of the 308 seats in Canada.

In the 1993 election, Mulroney retired in utter disgrace and the Conservatives went from that 169 seats to a whooping 2 seats, straight from one of the strongest governments of the century to being 10 seats short of even being recognized as a party by the Chamber... The oldest party in the country. It's exactly as if the Republican party virtually collapsed overnight in the US (and thought near impossible in Canada, much as that would be in the US) Regional parties emerged, the morally and fiscally ultra-conservative Reform in the West (the "old" Tories were wiped out from Alberta after over 50 years of holding the majority of seats there) and Bloc Québécois in QC. Overnight the picture totally changed, with 2 Conservatives, 177 Liberals, 54 Bloc Québécois (out of the 75 seats in Québec) 52 Reformists from the Prairies, mostly Alberta and 9 NDP (social-democrats, pretty far left for a Canadian party). A regional (and separatist) party was all of a sudden the Monarch's loyal opposition, as embarrassing as that was for them (the Queen might see worse soon). In 1997, the Reformists gained a few seats and the BQ lost about 10 then regained them later.

By 2001 and largely because they realized under the Reform platform and banner they had peaked and were stinking way too much of the US moral right for Canada, the party absorbed the remnants of the old Tories and took its name, and gradually pushed to the fringe its moral, evangelical or right-wing catholics. The unification of the economic right, coupled with the enduring strength of Bloc Québécois (and disgust with the liberals in Qc) from one election to the other resulted in a series of minority governements - both liberal and conservative, some lasting no more than a year, with the strength of the social-democrats varying greatly. In the meantime, Alberta got richer and more relevantly bigger, and thus got more seats (and now the power has shifted west... but total lack of support in Qc and Ontario prevented it for a while). We seemed destined to be stuck in that unstable situation forever (especially since the country was doing quite well nonetheless), and at the start of the last campaign it really look more of the same, but the picture changed completely in three wees. Bloc Québécois went from 49 seats to 4 when it was expected to retain most of them. The Conservatives who are the old Reform in disguise minus the most radical elements got close to "their" Mulroney years score with 166 seats. The Liberals who had 177 seats 15 years ago now have 34 and are in a serious crisis. The social-democrat NDP had 9 seats 15 years ago, and never had been able to find support in Qc until a recent by-election where it got its first, but overnight in 2011 it went from that single seat to 59 seats in Qc, and a total of 103 in the country, becoming the official opposition facing a majority conservative government. And it's not over... the NDP got elected largely because of the popularity of its leader in Quebec (people voted for the leader, often having no idea or interest who their MP was), only to see the guy die of cancer before the parlimentary session even began. Their leadership race is still ongoing with a solid candidate from Qc, but the party has its roots in BC and industrial Ontario and the chances of the guy are really up in the air...so go figure what will happen in 2015, especially if the NDP don't choose the guy from Qc.

The situation is hardly more stable on the provincial level, where we went from decades of having two dominant parties (one separatist and center-left, one federalist and liberal) to the rise of a fiscal right that very nearly went from having a handful of seats for many years to coming a few seats short of forming the government 2 elections ago (and relagating the separatists to third party for the first time since 1976) only to collapse in the following election and finally to disappear this year, where the separatist party (PQ) has gone through several leadership and orientation crisis in the last years - all this resulting in absurdly keeping in power the Liberals by default rather than choice, for the first time in a majority government after a few minority ones, despite them enjoying an historical and enduring low popularity... and now we have a fairly weak PQ just out of its biggest crisis yet, a second separatist party - this one socialist, massively impopular liberals, a new fiscal right/reformist party (CAQ( found by an ex-PQ minister and that is actually an alliance of federalist and separatist forces from the right that got spectacular poll results two months ago (to the point of being the "sure bet" next majority government of most commentators) to an equally spectacular (and very fast) decline in favour, and the separatist leader deemed finished by New Year's day - people were even foreseing the end of the party after this year's election... - but weeks later she's rebounded, to the point the polls have her and PQ win a short victory if the elections are next spring.

Thanks for the synopsis; I do not know how familiar with all that Legolas was, but it gave me a lot more comprehensive and informative perspective on a national political dynamic of which my knowledge is woefully vague given that I lived all but the last year or so of my life in the only neighboring country.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Now That Romney Is Officially the Republican Presidential Nominee: Pick the President! - 29/02/2012 08:29:02 PM 1240 Views
I have never understood the point of the Electoral College. - 29/02/2012 11:39:11 PM 688 Views
You don't think like a politician then - 01/03/2012 12:38:36 AM 730 Views
I also have not seen most of that mentioned in the popular vs. electoral debate. - 01/03/2012 02:34:31 PM 615 Views
what about one vote one value? - 02/03/2012 11:51:32 PM 698 Views
That has not really changed. - 03/03/2012 03:30:34 AM 881 Views
a bit simplistic and unrealistic - 02/03/2012 11:44:02 PM 658 Views
When illustrating a point realism is not required and simplicity is a plus - 03/03/2012 03:04:26 AM 672 Views
I have a couple quibbles. - 03/03/2012 05:23:46 AM 699 Views
Oh, certainly, I'm over-generalizing but I was already getting long-winded - 03/03/2012 06:52:04 AM 662 Views
I hate when people do that. - 05/03/2012 09:49:36 AM 641 Views
What a bunch of waffle! - 03/03/2012 10:47:19 AM 799 Views
First you complain of simplicity then of my lack of brevity? - 03/03/2012 11:18:11 AM 593 Views
A simplistic argument doesn't mean it's brief *NM* - 03/03/2012 09:55:51 PM 328 Views
Also I don't like this refrain that implies only the POTUS vote matters - 03/03/2012 03:29:58 AM 817 Views
IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college. - 03/03/2012 05:57:41 AM 619 Views
Re: IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college. - 03/03/2012 07:02:30 AM 656 Views
*is learning* - 04/03/2012 09:49:42 PM 647 Views
Re: *is learning* - 04/03/2012 09:56:16 PM 661 Views
To the extent I can (yet again) claim to speak for Europeans... - 04/03/2012 10:33:01 PM 637 Views
I've fairly limited exposure and that from some years back - 04/03/2012 11:35:12 PM 697 Views
Re: *is learning* - 05/03/2012 12:08:08 AM 699 Views
You could imitate the French. - 07/03/2012 10:40:16 PM 628 Views
That seems... unlikely.... - 08/03/2012 03:03:54 PM 635 Views
I don't know much about Norwegian politics, but you seem to be wrong. - 03/03/2012 06:18:08 PM 668 Views
Do you happen to have that link, please? - 03/03/2012 06:46:31 PM 550 Views
Sure. - 03/03/2012 06:58:07 PM 722 Views
Guess we did not read far enough. - 03/03/2012 10:38:07 PM 668 Views
Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics... - 03/03/2012 11:49:44 PM 870 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics... - 05/03/2012 06:56:24 AM 672 Views
The thing is, regions often have national relevance far greater than their populations would suggest - 05/03/2012 10:21:26 AM 621 Views
Fascinating. - 05/03/2012 10:52:32 PM 651 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics... - 08/03/2012 07:11:12 PM 621 Views
Many valid reasons, including those Isaac cited. - 02/03/2012 02:26:37 AM 768 Views
Most states are ignored anyway - 02/03/2012 11:56:12 PM 845 Views
Why would we do something logical? Dude, you're utterly ridiculous. *NM* - 05/03/2012 04:53:38 PM 365 Views
I'm kind of sad- does this mean Santorum won't be providing wonderful sound bites anymore? - 01/03/2012 02:22:31 PM 613 Views
Nothing has shut him up yet, why should this? *NM* - 01/03/2012 05:27:30 PM 348 Views
Maybe he'll pull a Palin and go touring around the country *NM* - 01/03/2012 07:06:02 PM 317 Views
No, it probably means we will get more and worse than ever. - 01/03/2012 11:25:25 PM 787 Views
Romney or Obama, either way, America loses. *NM* - 02/03/2012 01:10:26 AM 438 Views
Hard to dispute that either; six of one, half a dozen of the other. - 02/03/2012 01:38:07 AM 590 Views
Couldn't agree more *NM* - 02/03/2012 06:52:51 PM 357 Views
It reminds me of when Denver backed into the NFL playoffs. - 02/03/2012 09:36:13 PM 576 Views
I'd agree hope and change was extremely unrealistic - 02/03/2012 11:58:57 PM 586 Views
Romney is damaged - 02/03/2012 11:27:33 PM 602 Views
Obama is rather damaged also; it will probably come down to FL and OH, yet again. - 03/03/2012 02:23:53 AM 705 Views
I'm hoping for Rubio as VP... then FL probably won't matter - 03/03/2012 04:28:08 AM 593 Views
You should put that on your license plates. - 03/03/2012 06:41:34 AM 716 Views
Re: You should put that on your license plates. - 03/03/2012 06:51:00 AM 658 Views
Ax murderers are people, too! - 04/03/2012 08:23:41 PM 614 Views
And what are you basing all of this on? - 03/03/2012 09:54:06 PM 704 Views
The closeness of several states when Obama was far more popular, and UTs heavily Mormon neighbors. - 03/03/2012 11:44:06 PM 651 Views
Wrong - 04/03/2012 08:08:56 AM 777 Views
Higher turnout magnifies the Mormon effect. - 04/03/2012 08:08:09 PM 813 Views
Your reasoning is flawed and if you can't see it there is no hope for you - 05/03/2012 11:39:04 PM 722 Views
Yeah, I think we had that conversation already, several times, in fact. - 07/03/2012 05:36:45 AM 556 Views
Do you have any knowledge of statistics at all? - 07/03/2012 09:04:15 PM 717 Views
I hate this message board - 07/03/2012 09:06:30 PM 511 Views
Some, though it is far from exhaustive. - 08/03/2012 02:29:06 PM 695 Views

Reply to Message