As the lone rural wolf commenting on Dave’s blog, I was asked to present a guest feature for him on the Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission. I have mixed feelings on the issue as a whole. I have written before about the significant electoral reforms that are needed in the Alberta and Canadian system beyond gerrymandering, and I’m certainly more passionate about those issues. However, as these types of changes are outside of the purview of the Boundaries Commission it would be inappropriate to address them here.
To be clear from the outset, I am not advocating for the creation of more rural electoral districts - I’m not so naive as to see the disenfranchisement Edmonton and Calgary voters feel by only having half of the seats (though this rises to roughly 65% when you include other urban areas such as Airdrie, Fort McMurray, Lethbridge, Red Deer etc), however, I do emphatically support effective representation which may result in some electoral divisions, particularly in the north, being given “special consideration” as they will be well below the 25% population threshold.
Chair Walter of the Commission introduces every public hearing with the same disclaimer—that the Commission is guided by Canadian Law which requires electoral districts to give Albertans the right to effective representation. Effective representation is the crux of the argument for constituencies in rural and remote areas. Extremely large electoral divisions are neither effective, nor efficient. Rural and remote areas face challenges of accessibility that frankly, those in the Edmonton/Calgary corridor do not. Communications issues plague much of the province and there are areas where efficient internet is minimal or non-existent. The closure of the City Centre Airport (a closure I still support and will NOT enter into debate here for) left many northern airports on life support, making air travel unfeasible. That leaves driving, and all the budget in the world cannot make up for the human-time it takes to travel massive constituencies. Until one has lived in an Alberta community outside of the big urbans, they cannot fairly assess what type of political representation is effective.
It is my assertion that those who focus on the rural electoral divisions are kind of missing the point. The Commission is charged with providing effective representation. Surely an MLA representing well above the 25% population variance is just as ineffective as an MLA who spends the majority of her or his time travelling to and around their constituency. That should be the focus of Edmonton and Calgary voters… Don’t disenfranchise the rural electorate because the system sucks – fight for what the system is supposed to do for you: Effective Representation.
Friday, October 02, 2009
guest post: a reasoned defence of rural representation.
----
Born and raised in Edmonton, Shannon recently moved to northern Alberta. She received her BA in Political Science from the UofA in 2005 and is currently working in local government. She is an avid follower of various political blogs and a fervent supporter of electoral reform for all levels of government in Canada.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
"Until one has lived in an Alberta community outside of the big urbans, they cannot fairly assess what type of political representation is effective."
Applause.
I live in a rural riding that happens to the riding of the Premier, in the 20+ years I have lived here I have yet to see any true representation on issues by my MLA. Also in my opinion the increase of rural riding's are more for the protection of the P.C party then anything else.
Not sure I buy the "if you haven't lived here you can't judge it" mentality. The GOA has made heavy investments into SuperNet, videoconferencing and a host of other high tech solutions that MLAs in large rural ridings could use to minimize their own travel time.
Also, the tail can only wag the dog for so long. Urban areas continue to attract more and more people and the power imbalance cannot be sustained forever.
I encourage anonymous to do some research on the supernet... Widely known as one of the biggest failures in government expenditure rural connectivety continues to be an issue that plagues rural areas.
@Anonymous @11:12
Yes, the government has made heavy investments into SuperNet, but many Albertans still do not have access to internet at all. It still doesn't cover many remote areas.
As for your power imbalance statement. I agree that representation for the cities need to be increased. But at the same time the absolute number of rural constituencies should not decrease. I would rather see more MLAs added the the legislature to represent urban areas (even with their additional costs) than see seats taken away from rural areas, creating even larger and more unmanageable ridings.
K.W.M. I'll agree with your your statement about it being over 20 years since Fort Saskatchewan - Vegreville had an effective MLA if you live in the area that was Cloverbar - Fort Saskatchewan. If you live in the area of the riding that use to be Vegreville - Viking I'll have to disagree and say it's been 16 years since you had an effective MLA.
I think Shannon makes some very valid points about the efficacy of electoral representation. It's not one that is going to be magically fixed by a one-size-fits-all solution. However, the balance between geographical-space representation and population-based representation is a tenuous and sensitive one.
To speak to the SuperNet comment: how effective has that project actually been? Communites less than an hour away from Edmonton are without high-speed access. I have doubts as to how well it works even farther away from here.
The Rural Minority face many challenges as their population gradually decreases in relation to the urban majority and as some here have said, not the lest of which is (high speed) communications. Even here in rural SW Ontario (which cannot be compared with rural Alberta or even northern Ontario) high speed internet is still “unavailable”! As for representation, with our small numbers we cannot expect “more” but we can and should expect “better”
http://ruralcanadian.blogspot.com/
http://democracyunderfire.blogspot.com/
Denny, aren't you a big NDP fan? Take a look at Manitoba's electoral map. They relegate the entire northern half of the province to a single seat. Now I'll grant that north AB is somewhat more populous, but still. There is no justification for rural areas retaining their existing seats if the population numbers no longer support it.
Anonymous @ 1:19 So you're saying that because I support the Alberta NDP I should think anything done by the Manitoba is the right thing to do because they have an NDP government? I actually don't agree with a lot of the things the Manitoba NDP does, especially their more Liberal style policies. Or are you saying that because I support the NDP I should support increased representation for urban constituencies at the expense of rural ones because the NDP are more likely to pick up seats in Edmonton than in rural Alberta?
I don't think the rural populations have decreased enough to justify removing seats. True, the population in urban areas has increased significantly, and should have their representation increased. That doesn't have to mean that rural areas should have seats taken away, I think it should mean adding seats to urban areas instead. Representation in urban areas can be increased without decreasing representation in rural areas.
I think some people need to realize that just because they believe something does not mean that everyone else should support it. For k.w.m. to say that because their issues haven't been championed is like me saying that the Liberal MLA who represents me has been useless. People need to accept that oftentimes we are not in the majority, and democracy means majority rule. People twist the word to try to make it suit their own selfish needs, but the greek root of the word is majority. So perhaps some people need to just learn to deal with being in a minority opinion.
uh...the Greek root of the word "democracy" is "demos", which means "people". Literally, "rule of the people". I don't think there's anything about a "majority" in that.
Not that the greeks actually believed in "the people"; they restricted representation to certain classes and families. Peasants didn't qualify.
I'm in the process of writing a paper that deals pretty closely with the idea of "effective representation."
I thought it would be useful to know that that's a legal term that the courts use to describe what is promised by section 3 of the Charter.
My initial understanding is that no one really knows what effective representation entails. They just know what it doesn't necessarily require: perfect equality of voting power.
I think that people are mistakenly interchanging the concepts of "effective" representation and "fair" representation. I think that it is important for a constituency to be actively engaged in making Alberta a better place, and the fact of the matter is is that certain constituencies are represented by partisan politicians who have little or no regard to the needs or desires of their constituants.
If we keep returning these types of majorities of a party who disregards the interests of the majority of Albertans, it doesn't matter if there's 3 seats or 300 seats....
This whole debate misses the point that a vote should equal a vote. Funk all this noise about "effective representation". Why would anyone bother voting if their vote is disproportionate to another person's. The irony is left-wing-nuts that believe everyone & everything should be "fair" are the ones advocating for this effective representation nonsense (which by the way ensures the rural majority can keep electing massive PC majority governments). Funny!
Thanks for the responses guys, i really appreciate the debate around my post.
For Clarity:
I think it's safe to say that the ridings that would be carved up are the Dunvegan Central Peace/Peace River/Lesser Slave Lake ridings. Those are 3 seats. The other 42 "rural" ridings (not in Calgary and Edmonton) which are leading to "the rural majority [which keeps] electing massive PC majority governments" are all within the 25% variance and wouldn't need special consideration. Some of these are well over the 25% variance and traditionally vote overwhelmingly PC(Fort McMurray 63%, Airdrie Chestemere 57%...) I think it is fair to say when/if these ridings are split you will be giving 2 seats to the PCs, which by the way, ensures a massive PC majority government...
Then again being as they aren't in the Edmonton/Calgary area I guess we wouldn't want to give any more seats to those darn rurals...
The Supernet wasn't a private sector service. It was originally built for public sector services with the intention of allowing ISPs to buy capacity and then resell it to private sector consumers. Much of rural Alberta doesn't have the customer density required to make that even remotely profitable. As it stands now, wireless internet is the most viable option but even that has considerable limitations.
Secondly, because rural Alberta is a minority, it needs a slightly stronger voice to prevent being impacted by the urban majority.
There may be a concern that an urban-centric government might give urban centres all the benefits while sticking the rurals with all the impacts.
Keep in mind, when Edmonton or Calgary need power, the generators aren't built in the city, they're built in the rural area. Edmonton neighbourhoods are complaining about electical transmission lines running through the city. Why are those same urban residents not complaining about the transmission lines that already exist? The impacts those residents say might happen to them are happening to the rural residents living adjacent to the transmission lines that already exist.
When they need a new landfill, rural locations are exclusively considered. When they need money, they look to the rural assessment and the oil and gas industry. Everyone wants the economic benefits of a booming oil economy but how many urban residents would tolerate living within sight of an oil derrick? Now, how many rural residents live within emergency response zones from one or more oil industry facility?
Two points: the challenge here is to strike a balance between ensuring equality of voting power at election time, and effective representation between elections. Merging isolated northern ridings to equalize voter power with that in more densely populated areas would reduce the ability of the MLA to effectively represent the population after the election, at least in term of so-called "constituency work". However, the importance of this role has diminished in recent years compared to what it was in our parents' and grandparents' time.
Secondly, many in Calgary and Edmonton fail to distinguish between truly rural areas like those around High Level, Hinton, or any other agricultural area; and the small urban centres in and around mid-sized cities like Red Deer and Grande Prairie. Anyone standing in the downtown of a city like that can hardly call it rural, and certainly there are parts of the County of Grande Prairie adjacent to the city that are more similar to a suburb than truly "rural".
Post a Comment