New Electoral Boundaries

[js97]

Olivia chow will say anything and everything to get her name in the papers... and Rosario is canvassing cause it's the closest race he's been in at least for a decade. He's been MIA living the life the last 12 years, time to step aside for someone more vigorous and with a vision like Sarah Thomson.

 

[js97]

Mount Pleasant after all is chock full of the most reliable demographic for the LPC today: urban professionals who are "too educated to vote Tory too rich to vote NDP."

I would say too educated to vote for the NDP is more like it...

 

[Primavera]

@King of Kensington - did you receive a reply from Olivia Chow?

 

[King of Kensington]

I would say too educated to vote for the NDP is more like it...

Except that any student of voting behavior could tell you that education and income have opposite impacts: more education generally moves people leftward, but political conservatism increases with income.

The Annex area has more Ph.D. holders than anywhere in the city and it is one of the best areas for the NDP.

 

[King of Kensington]

@King of Kensington - did you receive a reply from Olivia Chow?

I did. Olivia Chow wants to keep the whole riding except for everything below Front St. - sending the area east of Bathurst to TC and west of Bathurst to Parkdale-High Park.

I think this is a bad idea. I am making my own deputation that generally supports the new boundaries for central Toronto (for the most part the commission did a very good job for Toronto) with minor adjustments to the MP/TC boundary to better capture the community of interest.

 

[js97]

Except that any student of voting behavior could tell you that education and income have opposite impacts: more education generally moves people leftward, but political conservatism increases with income.

That's a very inaccurate, linear generalization. Very few MBAs, Medical Doctors, and those PHDs with the more technical doctorates would be NDP supporters. That's because these individuals have education and employment in more real world settings, whereas a Philosophy, History, or English Doctorate, limited to applying their specialty in only socially subsidized applications like education, would absolutely make them much more 'left' leaning.

The Annex area has more Ph.D. holders than anywhere in the city and it is one of the best areas for the NDP.

It's actually pretty 40/40/20/ in terms of NDP, Liberal, Conservative split, from observing the last 3 elections (at all three levels).

 

[King of Kensington]

It's actually pretty 40/40/20/ in terms of NDP, Liberal, Conservative split, from observing the last 3 elections (at all three levels).

In 2011, the NDP got 54%, the Liberals 26% and Conservatives 14% in polls 22 to 52. And these include the more Yorkville-ish east Annex but don't include Harbord Village, Seaton Village, etc.

The NDP outpolled the Liberals in the Annex over all three elections, only 2008 was close (the "Green Shift" factor pulled votes to the Liberals and Greens). The Tories are closer to 10% than 20% there, as they have little appeal among the intelligentsia.

The question isn't whether the NDP "only" averaged 40% or whether it was more like 50% over three elections - after all, how does that compare to the NDP's share of the popular vote in the City of Toronto or in Ontario?

 

[King of Kensington]

That's a very inaccurate, linear generalization. Very few MBAs, Medical Doctors, and those PHDs with the more technical doctorates would be NDP supporters.

Is this a factor of education or class interest/aspirations and income? MBA's for instance are more economically "elite" than they are educationally "elite." And most doctors are in the so-called "1%" of earners.

BTW most science Ph.D.'s in Canada work in the public and para-public sectors, not private industry (see http://www12.statcan.ca/census-rece...&Temporal=2006&THEME=75&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=). A plurality work in universities, and while science professors aren't as left-leaning as in the social sciences and humanities, they lean more left than right.

Let's put it this way: I am quite confident that as a small business owner or sales manager who has a college diploma or a Bachelor of Applied Arts degree that makes $125,000 a year is much more likely to vote Conservative and less likely to vote NDP than a research scientist with a Ph.D. who earns the same.

Of course it's not completely linear, but there is no evidence that education itself makes people LESS inclined to vote NDP, as you have suggested.

 

[adma]

In 2011, the NDP got 54%, the Liberals 26% and Conservatives 14% in polls 22 to 52. And these include the more Yorkville-ish east Annex but don't include Harbord Village, Seaton Village, etc.

The NDP outpolled the Liberals in the Annex over all three elections, only 2008 was close (the "Green Shift" factor pulled votes to the Liberals and Greens). The Tories are closer to 10% than 20% there, as they have little appeal among the intelligentsia.

The question isn't whether the NDP "only" averaged 40% or whether it was more like 50% over three elections - after all, how does that compare to the NDP's share of the popular vote in the City of Toronto or in Ontario?

Well, I will allow for 2011 being more fluke than harbinger--however, even "normally", 40-40-20 NDP-Lib-Con sounds plausible only for the *East* Annex, i.e. everything E of Spadina, and that's in large part because of the Dipperphobic blocks and condos btw/Bedford and Avenue Rd...

 

[Jonny5]

The proposed Waterdown-Glanbrook riding surrounding Hamilton is really weird, it brings together about 4 major suburban development nodes that are really far apart from each other.

 

[BurlOak]

I guess the new riding map will not be used if the election occurs anytime in early 2013 (and probably not in late 2013 either).

 

[King of Kensington]

I will be making a depuatation at the hearings at Metro Hall on Thursday. I will be speaking about the 4 central Toronto ridings - Trinity-Spadina, Toronto Centre, Mount Pleasant and St. Paul's. I will be arguing that the Commission for the most part did an excellent job and that I particularly welcome the removal of the wealthy area in TC north of Bloor (as there was little community of interest between there and the lower- and middle-income high-rise communities south of Bloor) and the bringing together the demographically similar northern TC and the eastern half of St. Paul's into one riding. However instead of Wellesley as a boundary (until Sherbourne), I suggest moving it down to Dundas between University and Yonge and then up to Bloor between Yonge and Sherbourne. Wellesley as a boundary violates the community of interest principle as it splits "the village" in half and dilutes the political voice of a minority community.

Thus Bay Street Corridor (above Dundas), which has more of a "midtown" demographic socially and economically, goes to Mount Pleasant, while Church-Wellesley which has more of a community of interest with "downtown" communities stays in TC.

 

[js97]

Let's put it this way: I am quite confident that as a small business owner or sales manager who has a college diploma or a Bachelor of Applied Arts degree that makes $125,000 a year is much more likely to vote Conservative and less likely to vote NDP than a research scientist with a Ph.D. who earns the same.

Well, I was implying that they would be more centrists, Liberals, as opposed to either NDP or Conservative.

 

[dunkalunk]

New riding boundaries have been announced for "Cambridge" While certainly better, I still think there is room for improvement. I don't understand why Kitchener with it's population of ~220,000 needs to be split between three ridings.

Someone over on another forum has drawn up a Google Map with the approximate boundaries.

 

[King of Kensington]

Well, I was implying that they would be more centrists, Liberals, as opposed to either NDP or Conservative.

The Liberals do best among the professions like lawyers and doctors and people with postgraduate degrees (groups that obviously overlap) rather than businesspeople or management.