Thread by @akurjata

B.C.'s interior and north could be getting less electoral power in this process. Rural ridings already have significantly less people than urban ones, which in some ways mean those votes count for more. But I'd argue it's not as simple as that #bcpoli
cbc.ca/news/canada/br…

When you consider the way representation works, geography does matter to a certain extent. If you have five MLAs for Urban City, and one MLA for Multiple Rural Communities, even if Rural MLA has fewer constituents you could argue urban voters have more representation

Urban City has five MLAs to work for better roads, advocate for hospital upgrades, or push for a new community center. Rural Communities have one shared MLA who has to do that for all of them

(on the flip side, it might be easier for rural constituents to actually get a meeting with their MLA since there are fewer people competing for their time.)

Anyways, I'm not arguing against redistricting, and the process in B.C. and Canada is thankfully non-partisan compared to what happens in the United States. But I sometimes see people argue for a straight one person/one vote process, arguing that we shouldn't consider geography

But I guess I would ask: if you really believe in a purely population-based approach, would you be comfortable with that system federally, where Ontario and Quebec dominate politics even more. Or a UN system where the U.S. and China have 100s of times more votes than Canada?