"Do-Over" needed on Proposed Riding Map

Sometimes, best intentions are not enough. And, despite the best intentions of the six commissioners tasked with redrawing the New Brunswick electoral map, they need to return to the drawing board and significantly revise their proposed boundary map of New Brunswick.

While some parts of their proposal have merit, as in the urban core of Saint John or in Madawaska County, other parts of this proposal, especially in Central New Brunswick, dramatically fail in providing ridings that adequately represent residents.

Determining riding boundaries is a complex and challenging task. Not only do riding boundaries need to contain the relatively same number of voters (a five percent variance), they also need to meet various tests to ensure that the resulting ridings are representative of their communities of interest. In New Brunswick, this means that both urban and rural voters and our linguistic communities are represented fairly. Further, ridings should be as geographically compact as possible and have strong internal ties, usually based on social, economic and transportation links.   

This already daunting task is further complicated by the decision to reduce the number of ridings from 55 to 49, meaning that every region of the Province will lose representation regardless of the population differences from the last census. 

While the commissioners may have succeeded in providing numerical equality, they have (mostly) failed at ensuring that rural and urban voters are fairly represented. This is failing is most profound in the Capital Region, where large parts of urban Fredericton are being spliced off and attached to nearby rural areas. The result is that there are only two urban ridings, one rural riding and five mixed urban/rural ridings. Such a proposal disrespects the right of both urban and rural residents to have boundaries that reflect their communities of interest.

I had the opportunity to participate in a riding redistricting process that examined how the nine provincial ridings in York, Sunbury and West Queens counties could be reduced to the eight ridings that would be allocated under the new electoral quotient. In addition to respecting urban and rural differences, we took into account that the Saint John River acted as a natural dividing line within these counties.

Even though we lacked the resources available to the Commissioners, we were able to come up a proposal that contained four urban ridings (Fredericton and the Village of New Maryland, one mixed riding (the Town of Oromocto, the Village of Lincoln and surrounding rural areas), and three rural ridings (York, York North and Grand Lake). Each of these ridings in our proposal met the requirement for numerical equality.

The failing of the Commissioners to consider the urban and rural differences are also repeated in Bathurst, where a single urban riding is being split into a mixed riding.

It is also important that any proposal on riding boundaries meet a test of "face validity." This technical term means that, on first viewing, the proposed boundaries should make sense to a knowledgeable observer. While not a firm rule, this approach relies on common sense and an assessment of the reasonableness of the decisions made to determine riding boundaries.

For example, since the Town of Woodstock is the central market area for that part of the Saint John River Valley, what is the logic in having this town at the southern extremity of proposed riding of Carleton and half surrounded by the proposed riding of York?

This error is compounded in the neighbouring riding of Carleton-Victoria, where the communities of Florenceville-Bristol and Centreville find themselves on the edge, rather than in the centre of a provincial riding.

There are many other proposed ridings that fail the test of face validity, either because they combine distinct and unconnected communities in large unwieldy ridings or ignore historic physical and administrative boundaries.

While I would argue that all New Brunswickers share common values and viewpoints, and that we are committed to working through our problems together, there is also a need to respect the voices of our rural and linguistic communities in structuring the body that is intended to represent their interests in our democratic institutions.

 

In her comments to the media on the release of the proposed riding map, Commission Co-Chair Annise Hollies expressed her view that "all of New Brunswick is rural." With this attitude in mind, it is not surprising that due care has not been taken to ensure that both rural and urban voices are adequately represented in these proposed riding boundaries.

 

In their boundary proposal, the Commissioners do not provide an analysis of the proposed ridings by the urban and rural populations. This breakdown of population is important for New Brunswickers to understand the electoral impact of the differences within these ridings.

 

In a riding that is two-thirds urban and one-third rural, for example, the potential for voters in the rural part of this riding to feel disenfranchised is very high. The same would be true in a riding that was two-thirds rural and one-third urban.

The Commissioners will be travelling the Province to receive feedback on their proposal. These meetings are likely to be both well-attended and heated, especially in those regions where the Commissioners have erred in their judgement.

 

Rather than preparing to make incremental changes to their proposal, it would be my recommendation that the Commissioner prepare for a significant overhaul of their proposal. Not only do they need to take local feedback into consideration, they also need to be more respectful of urban and rural differences. By committing to a more thorough process, which may necessitate further consultation, the Commissioners should be prepared to resubmit a better proposal to the people. Representation matters.

 

-   30 -

This article was originally published in the January 19, 2013 edition of the Telegraph-Journal.