Path: utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!dgibbs
From: dgibbs@bnr-fos.UUCP (David Gibbs)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Canada: one or two cultures?
Message-ID: <814@bnr-fos.UUCP>
Date: 28 Jul 89 17:14:29 GMT
References: <615662921.9256@myrias.uucp> <568@UALTAVM.BITNET> <27944@watmath.waterloo.edu> <1989Jul24.220904.22318@tmsoft.uucp> <1989Jul27.131633.14903@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <1989Jul28.003559.25233@tmsoft.uucp>
Reply-To: dgibbs@bnr-fos.UUCP (David Gibbs)
Distribution: can
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 64

In article <1989Jul28.003559.25233@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes:
>In article <1989Jul27.131633.14903@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu
>(John DiMarco) writes:
>>ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) writes:
>>
>>>                        Federally, each province doesn't get
>>>an equal vote.  The same number of MP's should come from each
>>>province.  Then you would see some changes. 
>>
>>Yep. Things would change, alright. For one, I'd move to PEI! :-)
>>
>>Quite frankly, if the same number of MP's came from each province, residents
>>of less populous provinces (PEI, for example) would have much more clout
>>than residents of more populous provinces. 
>
>No they wouldn't.  The residents would have the same clout.  The only
>difference is that in one province there might be 0.5 million people
>voting for 1 M.P. and in the other province there might be 50,000
>people voting for 1 M.P.  The difference comes in the amount of work
>that each M.P. would have to do, for example, if each M.P. were to try
>to talk to each voter.
> 

>Elizabeth


  The general principal in federal elections is one person one vote,  with
the hope that all the votes will be about equal.  If we distribute the
M.Ps equally by province we don't get that.  Lets use your figures of
.5 Million per M.P. (say Ontario) and 50,000 (P.E.I?).  These probably
won't be accurate, but should justify my point.  Let's say you and
10,000 people get together to fight for a certain point.  In P.E.I,
that is probably enough to elect an M.P. (only about half the eligible
voters vote) so you would have just under 50% of the needed amount, or
at worst, you would have 20% which gives you a big headstart.  You will
put an M.P. in.  Now lets say you are in Ontario with your 10,000 people.
What M.P. is going to notice you?  You comprise at best 2% of the vote.

  And the difference is not between .5 million and 50,000 -- that is only
a difference of one order of magnitude.  The actual population figures
for Ontario (estimated 1987 data based on 1986 census from a 1989 
almanac) are about 9,270,000 and for P.E.I are 127,000.  If we work
with say 20 M.P.'s per province (this wouldn't too drastically change
the size of parliament, and makes for easy figuring). Would give figures
of 463,500 (about .5 million) for Ontario, and 6350 for P.E.I.  That
is a bit steeper difference.  My 10,000 people could probably elect 
two or even three M.P.s in P.E.I.  
  
  Obviously each resident of P.E.I. has a lot more clout.  

Also, if we give all of the provinces the same number of M.P.s, what
do we give the teritories?  Do we give them the same number as the
provinces?  (I think one of the territories had a population about
1/5 that of P.E.I, in which case it would have 1270 people per M.P.)
Do we ignore them altogether?  
 
  Even with the current system, anyone in the more urban provinces
has less clout per voter than in the less urban, and a voter in
P.E.I has the most clout.  And anyone in a city has less clout.
 
-David

(Remember Canada in supposed to be a nation of Canadian citizens,
 not a union of semi-independent provinces.)