The Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission (AEBC) issued their interim report. It is thorough, thoughtful and should be required reading. Local ridings will undergo significant changes. How did the commission arrive at these new boundaries?
Alberta is a representative democracy with MLAs representing respective ridings. Ideally each riding would have exactly the same number of constituents. That would give each MLA the same democratic power. That would be fair, but practically impossible. After all people move all the time, within or between cities and provinces. To allow for this each riding has some flexibility, but should not deviate more than +-25% from the average riding size found by dividing the total population by the number of ridings. Currently there are 4,062,695 Albertans/87 ridings = 46,698 Albertans/riding.
“Equitable work is a part of equal effective representation. ”
The AEBC is made up 5 members; a judge and two appointees from the government and opposition. An independent bipartisan committee. The motives of the committee aren’t in question. They are grappling with difficult questions of how best to ensure effective representation and study many considerations. Our electoral boundaries must be reviewed every 8 to 10 years. A necessary exercise as Alberta has seen the highest population growth of any Canadian province since 2010 at +14%.
This growth in not even across ridings. Some ridings have seen huge population increases. Calgary South-East has 55,300 new residents—from 36,848 in 2009 up to 92,148 last year. Calgary-McCall has 23,616 new residents—from 40,997 in 2009 up to 64,613 last year. Albertans in these ridings have seen their representation diluted over the past 8 years because their vote counts for less. Other ridings have seen drops in population over the past 8 years. Albertans in these ridings have better representation because their vote and voice counts for more. Changing electoral boundaries is meant to get these numbers closer to the average riding size. But change one boundary and consequently adjacent ridings change. Subsequently our local electoral boundaries in SE Alberta have had to change even though our local population growth has been negligible.
The biggest challenge facing the AEBC is grappling with the long-term urban-rural migration. More and more people are leaving small towns for cities. This is not due to globalization, but to ever increasing efficiency by Alberta farmers. In 1931 31.7% of the Canadian population were farmers. By 2006 only 2.2% of our population were farmers. The fewer farmers—the less services they need—the less work in small towns. Fewer prospects leads to more rural people leaving for larger population centres. We have all seen this.
This massive internal migration poses challenges for creating fair electoral ridings, especially as the AEBC cannot add to the overall number of ridings. Ridings can be geographically small and densely populated like typical ridings in cities. They can be geographically large with low population density. Or they can be blended urban-rural ridings like the current outgoing Cypress-Medicine Hat riding.
Which type of riding is preferable? People disagree because it’s not clear. It’s a judgment call with far-reaching repercussions. The AEBC asked for feedback to help guide them. Some rural Albertans felt that only a primarily rural riding would ensure that their concerns would be heard. They felt in blended ridings urban voters would outnumber them thus nullifying rural concerns. That is reasonable, but to create primarily rural ridings as more and more people leave for cities means progressively geographically larger and fewer rural ridings. And as the report concedes on page 18, “at some point increasing geographic size impedes a rural MLA’s ability” to serve the riding.
The AEBC minimized blended ridings because of the lack of common interests in blended ridings. and has proposed turning Medicine Hat into a larger urban riding surrounded by two geographically giant rural ridings.
The new proposed SE Alberta ridings. One urban riding (Medicine Hat) surrounded by two geographically massive ridings (Taber-Vulcan & Brooks-Cypress).
The negative effects of this trade-off was articulated by Drew Barnes when the AEBC visited Medicine Hat on January 26 to gather public input. Mr. Barnes spoke of the difficulty in travelling the large Cypress-Medicine Hat riding and that any increase to its geographic size would adversely affect the MLA’s ability to provide access to those Albertans. He also saw the benefit of the current blended riding with urban and rural concerns and asked that the status quo be maintained. Obviously the AEBC could not reconcile his request with other considerations, but the words of a sitting MLA should carry considerable weight.
I believe blended ridings are preferable. Urban migration makes effective rural representation difficult regardless of which type of riding we choose. But at least two blended ridings make our local MLA’s jobs easier and equitable. The rural MLAs for the new Taber-Vulcan and Brooks-Cypress ridings would spend long hours travelling the massive districts just to meet constituents, while the new Medicine Hat MLA would not.
Population size can’t vary over 25% of the average. Perhaps we need a similar rule to control the geographic size of ridings. Population size and the practical work of the MLA should both be considered and be equitable to other MLAs. Equitable work is a part of equal effective representation.
Blended ridings would also encourage urbanites to think of rural concerns rather than focus only on issues pertinent to them. That would moderate their thinking and help bridge the growing urban-rural divide. Rural areas need effective representation and I believe that blended ridings are the best choice we have. It’s hardly perfect, but it’s better than the alternative.
The AEBC is torn about the new proposed ridings. It recognizes that enough SE Albertans thought the current blended riding worked well so it is looking for feedback and could reconfigure local districts into two blended districts if they get public feedback.
Update: After hearing submissions from the public, including my own, at meeting in Brooks, the commission revised their plans and chose an alternative plan for two blended riding for Medicine Hat and area instead of their initial proposal.