Brampton West almost equals six-and-a-half Labradors

What would the federal election results have been had the winning party in each riding received a weighted share of the ridings based on the population of each riding compared to the national average? For example, the winning party would have received 0.257 seats for winning Labrador--the least populated riding in Canada. In Brampton West, Ontario, the winning party would have received 1.660 seats. Brampton West is the most populated riding.

The actual results for each party were as follows:

Conservative: 143 seats

Liberal: 76

Bloc Québécois: 50

NDP: 37

Independents: 2

Total: 308

The weighted results for each party would be as follows:

Conservative: 146.015 seats

Liberal: 75.861

Bloc Québécois: 49.025

NDP: 35.331

Independents: 1.767

Total: 308

Please note that there are no seats for the Green Party as these results are based on the redistribution of seats based on the population of each riding, not on the percentage share of the votes.

I do notice a few things:

Based on population, one could fit almost six-and-a-half Labradors into Brampton West. Labrador is not protected by a section in any of Canada's Constitution Acts. It is also not a stand-alone province or territory.

There is very little difference between the actual and weighted seat distribution amongst the parties.

If the Conservative government were nicer to Ontario by giving the province more seats, the Conservatives could get more seats--maybe even one in Toronto.

Within Ontario, there are huge disparities in riding populations such as between Kenora and Brampton West. Even with a 106 riding distribution, the Conservatives are at a slight disadvantage under the current distribution of seats.

I could write about reducing the riding disparities between and within each province. However, I prefer that Canadians could vote through some form of proportional representation. The existing antiquated First-Past-the-Post voting system doesn't work for me.

If you would like an Excel copy, please email me. The images are broken up so that you can view them.

Update: For information on my Senate reform proposals, see the following links:

Could a reformed House of Commons and Senate work together? Revised

Canadian House of Commons and Senate Reform

How I will vote

From the beginning of the campaign until now, my party preference has not changed. It doesn't mean that in the future that my vote will never change. On the contrary, I may choose any of the parties including the Conservative Party in the next election.

Here is my analysis of the political parties during this election:

Conservative Party:

Stephen Harper is a leader who is determined to do things his way. He has been lucky that the economy has been good up until a few weeks ago. The US mortgage lending crisis has affected other countries including Canada. Harper's failing is that he seems to not trust his own cabinet minsters and Conservative members of parliament. If he cannot trust them, then he will not trust Canadians. Why should Canadians like myself trust his Conservative Party with my vote? The thing I find worse than one party rule is one man rule. I don't trust Harper to dictate his demands over the beliefs and wishes of the citizens of Canada.

Liberal Party:

Whether or not Stéphane Dion's Green Shift/Carbon Tax plan is good, that was his main plank at the beginning of the campaign. I have a rule that I do not vote for one issue parties. The environment may be an important issue. However, there are other issues that matter to Canadians. It was only after the debates that the Liberals started to talk about other issues. I want to vote for a party that can deal with a multitude of issues. Dion and his Liberals failed to do that in the beginning of the campaign.

The NDP:

I liked how Jack Layton told Canadians that he wanted to be the next prime minister. It doesn't mean that he will this time. It does mean that he and his party are becoming serious about governing in the future. No longer can the NDP afford to be just a protest party as there are other parties such as the Greens and the Bloc Québécois which can fulfill the protest role. While keeping an eye on those who are less fortunate, the NDP will need to reach middle class voters who may have never voted NDP previously. In Canada's changing economic environment, the NDP's traditional union support base can no longer be assured. Also some union leaders such as Buzz Hargrove have given their support to other parties. On policy issues, I will say that the NDP campaign platform is reasonable and workable for the future of Canada's changing economic environment.

The Green Party:

Elizabeth May is a feisty leader. She has advanced Canadians' interests in her party. The Greens have an environmental campaign platform similar to Stéphane Dion's Liberal Party's platform. She supports the carbon tax shift. I do have a couple of concerns. One is that the Green Party is still a one-issue party. Yes, it does have stances on other issues. Nevertheless, it has supported the environment above all other issues to the point of leaving those issues aside except of campaign websites. Also, the Greens have no desire to govern yet. I want to vote for a party that is willing and able to govern.

To no surprise, I will be supporting the NDP with my vote. While I definitely won't be voting for the Conservatives, the Liberals and Greens have not earned my vote. The NDP has. Maybe next time I will support another party. This time, it will be the NDP.