Unfortunately, this isn’t “Democratic Reform”. It’s just a normal and expected (roughly once per decade) adjustment to a failed system that tends to reward a minority party with majority seats and total power. Any genuine reform will probably require a constitutional amendment.

I have to agree with Randy on this one. I find your comment interesting “It’s a no-brainer for the Conservatives, strategically.”

The presumption is that the government should ipso facto support a change which gives them more power. The assumption behind this presumption is that voters expect and encourage political parties to bloat their power, regardless of what is philosophically or morally best for the country. Perhaps it is time for a kinder, gentler belief that that political parties should work on behalf of the people, not on behalf of themselves.

Maybe it is time to stop voting for the greedy, self-centred political interests. I have.

Let’s keep in mind that even if the bill passes creating these additional seats, it won’t come into effect until after the next census and after the next redistribution commission reports and gets a new map passed etc… in other words those extra seats will happen in 2014 at the earliest – and who knows what political context we will be in by then.

I beg to differ on your prediction of another NDP seat for the Windsor area. I’m from the area and judging by possible electoral maps the new seat would more likely go LIB or Conservative.

The analysis is a little bit simplistic. Adding seats to provinces where a party is strongly supported does NOT translate into more seats for that party. I’m an American, and US political commentators make that mistake all the time. Every census, states that tend to vote Republican at the national level gain districts at the expense of more Democratic leaning states, and there are always predictions of Republican gains in the House that never quite seem to happen.

If you add more seats to an area, its easier for the minority party in the area to gain extra seats, not the majority. To take an extreme example, pretend that Alberta sent only one MP to the House of Commons. The CPC then would win that one seat every election. Add a second seat (one for northern AB, one for southern AB), the same thing. Now add four seats for Alberta, Edmonton, Calgary, rural northern AB, rural southern AB. The CPC regularly takes three seats, but now you have the Liberals sometimes winning Edmonton. The more seats a province has, the greater the odds of a few seats covering local pockets that vote differently from the rest of the province.

More ridings in western provinces means more ridings that happen to cover Liberal and NDP enclaves. Now if you put more ridings in Quebec, that would help the CPC, because you start hitting Conservative pockets in that territory.

There is also the matter that if you create a new riding, that takes territory away from neighboring ridings and changes their composition as well. Plus the results of the next actual election almost certainly won’t replicate current polls.

You really can’t game the system in this way unless you are willing to go all out US style and draw the district lines to give advantages to particular politicians. And I understand that is illegal in Canada. As long as Elections CA draws the lines, the relationship between votes and seats for each party should remain reasonably constant.

The electoral math of the nation has been changing over the last generation, the relative weight of BC and Alberta in the parliament has been steadily rising and will pass Quebec in total number of MPs when the new seats are allocated. Until 1979 Quebec had more MPs than all four western provinces.

The Harper government is the first government in Canadian history to have a majority of its caucus from the west.