by Maurice Y. Michaud (he/him)
As hard as it might be to believe, the map presented here is not satire. It is in fact the 2011 version of Pennsylvania’s 7th congressional district in the U.S. Congress. Colloquially, it became known as the Goofy Kicking Donald Duck district. I don’t know if it’s just me... I can definitely see Goofy but not so much Donald, but whatever!
That bafflingly ridiculous district was the result of what is known as gerrymandering. That’s a practice named after Elbridge Gerry,
who was the 5th vice-president of the United States, and previously the 9th governor of Massachusetts, as well as the representative for Massachusetts’s 3rd district in the Congress of the United States in the late 18th century. As this 2017 article in the Smithsonian Magazine explains, in the early 19th century, in order to ensure that his party would win more representation, Gerry drew a district in Massachusetts that resembled a salamander. That is how the term "gerry-mander" was coined. While it was not the first time that such a manipulation had been done, it certainly became the most famous, and the practice continues throughout most of the United States to this day. In fact, it seems like, for many in that country, this ridiculous way of doing things is perfectly normal.
But speaking of Donalds, in 2026, the sitting president of the United States, sensing that his party might lose its razor-thin majority in the House of Representatives, unabashedly asked Republican governors to redraw their state’s map for the upcoming midterm elections. The scandal is not only that the president openly asked for this to be done in order to repress urban and minority voters, although that’s pretty scandalous. It’s also the fact that the maps were not meant to be redrawn before the next decennial census in 2030.
But the plan may backfire. In response, Democratic governors, even in states where independent commissions rather than politicians have normally been in charge or redrawing the maps, have redrawn their state’s map in their favour. And many political analysts have opined that the president’s low approval ratings may galvanize Democratic voters in Republican-run states to turn up in record numbers to the voting booths to counter the effects of these gerrymandered maps.
Then America wonders why the people from functioning democracies find the USA insane and puerile? But for heaven’s sake! Just because this divisive and unproductive practice has existed for more than two centuries doesn’t mean that it can’t be abandoned!
As mentioned in the introduction of this section, when the first federal election was held following Confederation in 1867, ridings were based on the provinces’ counties, with exception for the largest cities at the time — Montréal, Toronto, Québec City, Halifax, and Saint John — which each had two or three seats. The number of seats each of the four provinces had at the start had been determined by a quotient derived from the population of Lower Canada (i.e., Québec, per the 1861 census) divided by the number of seats it had in the last assembly of the Province of Canada (i.e., 65). This principle remained in force as new provinces joined the union.
The agency we now call Elections Canada was created in 1921, but it only became responsible for redrawing the electoral map in 1964. Before that, its role was simply to ensure the good functioning of elections, and just like in the United States, the redrawing of the electoral map was up to elected politicians. Each province’s equivalent agency obtained the same responsibility around the same time.
Since the 1960s, after each decennial census, a commission, chaired by a judge and composed of experts like political scientists, is struck in each province. The commissioners’ work is not done behind closed doors; they must consult with the public, which can include MPs and MLAs, although their input does not hold more sway than other citizens’. Where the political wing does have more influence is that it determines the mandate of the commission — require that the number of seats be reduced or increased by no more than x — and the legislature must accept its final report. I will address the problems this situation poses further in this article.
Nevertheless, the maps started to look radically different as soon as the agencies took over their drawing, in addition to the fact that the first-past-the-post system (FPTP) was universally adopted between 1967 and 1991. The number of seats within the cities exploded; the merger of rural counties to form single ridings accelerated, thus reinforcing the notion of representation by population, which had been the intention since the 1840s. Furthermore, the consultation process has only improved and become more transparent over the decades.
It needed to become more transparent because the first redrawing under the auspices of Elections Canada was widely controversial. The number of seats in the Commons had gone down for the first time since the 1896 redrawing, albeit by only one. Moreover, the smallest provinces had lost seats, with Saskatchewan leading the way by suddenly going from 17 to only 13, while Alberta had gained only two (from 17 to 19). Even the second largest province, Québec, had lost a seat.
Then, one can look at the new map first used in the 2004 election, which clearly wasn’t ready for prime time because it had to be adjusted considerably before the 2006 election, leading to the conclusion that some redrawings get botched. In that case, whether it was because of the instructions Elections Canada gave the commissioners or the mandate legislators gave Elections Canada is unclear. And the provincial redrawing underway in Alberta is controversial because legislators requested that the number of seats only be increased by two — or 2.3% — despite the population of the province having grown by more than 17% since the last redrawing.
So unlike in the United States, most of the maps since the mid-1960s have been drawn without partisan motives. At least in theory, the only partisan interest that remains in the process in Canada is that politicians can appear before the commissionners — just like you and me. Some might come to the commissioners to advocate for keeping their constituencies small, while others with more libertarian tendencies might argue against increasing the size of government. But when the commissionners submit their final report, they can assert that they have listened to all points of view, impartially evaluated their merit, and did as best they could to integrate the useful contributions within the constraints of the mandate that the legislator had given them.
And that’s good news because who actually believes that politicians in Canada are any better than those in the United States when it comes to this matter. If given a chance, wouldn’t they try to pull crazy gerrymandering stunts like their American counterparts? Of course they would! They used to do it before the redistribution process was taken away from them.
That being said, are the commissions and the people who sit on them perfect? Of course not! That’s why they submit a preliminary report and hold public hearings before submitting their final report. People can come forward to point out flaws, like “That little area of the city over there has far more affinity with THIS side of the city than THAT side.” But it can be assumed that the commissioners, who after all are led by a judge, may have made such a mistake in good faith, not because of some kind of hidden political agenda.
As the CBC’s Aaron Wherry wrote in an analysis in August 2022, the elected officials — and, occasionally, some citizens — are not always happy with the maps that result. But on the whole, the results have been deemed fair and reasonable — at least under the circumstances, given how some disparities are baked into the Constitution. And, as the experts Wherry interviewed pointed out, the process could be tweaked in many ways to make it even better.
But without a doubt, when we compare how Canada and the United States draw their maps, Canada comes way on top.
In spite of its name, PoliCan is focused on the history of the electoral process in Canada rather than on politics itself. While obviously linked, these are two distinct concepts. The first — process — is the apparatus that allows people to choose the individuals who will represent them in the legislatures. The second — politics — is the manner in which those who have been elected propose and enact policies and legislation affecting the people they represent. But although closely linked, these concepts are often incompatible, which is why problems inevitably arise when the political class has any say on the process — whether it’s in the determination of how votes are counted or how the maps of the ridings is drawn. So the following criticisms are aimed at politicans as a whole, not at any particular political party.
There’s a very good reason why the participation of politicians, especially those who are currently in office, should be severely limited during the redrawing of an electoral map. The conflicts of interest are so obvious that they shouldn’t need to be spelled out. However, considering the way things have been drifting again in the 2020s, it would seem that they do.
To be fair, let’s not paint all politicians with the same brush. Not all are “mindless, self-interested partisans.” In fact, many if not most legitimately care about the constituents they represent. It’s unlikely they would have entered politics if it were otherwise. I, personally, could give you a list of politicians with whose positions I strongly disagree, but do I doubt their sincerity or commitment to public service? No! Except for a very, very small handful...
That is why I don’t advocate for an outright ban on their participation in the redrawing process. I could imagine a process whereby they would be invited at a very early stage of the commissioners’ work, namely immediately after the running of the numbers of where existing ridings stand in relation to the allowable variance, and be shown this preliminary analysis. It would be a very civil “no surprise” approach, where elected members would be getting a preview of whether their riding will be among those needing to be reshaped in some way, either because of a population shift within their riding or in the ridings around theirs. But before a single new line would be drawn on the map, those elected members who are able to set aside their partisan lens should be asked for their input on what the natural population clusters are within their riding. The genius of having judges as the head of such commissions is that they are trained baloney detectors, so they would see if the elected member’s partisan slip is showing. As well, one benefit of this approach would be that the legislators would discover early on in the process if the mandate they gave the commission through legislation is achievable (although the fact they’re the one giving the mandate is problematic in itself, and will be discussed further).
xyz
Canada and Québec are not heading back to U.S.-style gerrymandering. It might be stereotypical to say, but we’re too polite for that. But just as no form of racism is acceptable, which type is easier to confront: that which is in your face, or that which is systemic? The former type, while it can be ugly, violent and disturbing, leaves no room for doubt or interpretation; the enemy is standing in plain sight right in front of you. The latter type, however, needs to be uncovered and explained, which opens the door to some who are not on its receiving end to deny that it even exists (perhaps because, deliberately or not, they confuse the words systemic and systematic). It is therefore more difficult to dismantle.
In Canada and Québec, gerrymandering is not the problem; political interference is. No politician wants to be seen as openly interfering, but when the population in their area drops (in fact or relatively) and their riding is called to be abolished, they will cloak their speech in terms of wanting to defend “fair representation” for their constituents. The same goes for political parties, when they see that the type of riding in which they tend to be more successful is being called to disappear. They’re hiding their partisan or regional interests, but even if they’re hidden, they’re there, except that it’s harder to call out something that can be denied in the next breath.
Just because it doesn’t sound like manipulation or interference doesn’t mean that it isn’t. But it’s surprising to see so few people willing to denounce this “polite” kind of gerrymandering, perhaps because they themselves are too polite. Or perhaps it’s because they expect nothing else from politicians. And that’s profoundly disturbing.
Malgré son nom, PoliCan s’intéresse à l’histoire du processus électoral au Canada plutôt qu’à la politique elle-même. Bien qu’évidemment liés, ces concepts sont distincts. Le premier, le processus, désigne l’appareil permettant à l’électorat de choisir ses représentant·e·s à l’assemblée législative. Le second, la politique, concerne la manière dont les élu·e·s proposent et mettent en œuvre des politiques et des lois qui touchent les personnes que lels représentent. Mais malgré leur étroite relation, ces concepts sont souvent incompatibles, ce qui explique pourquoi des problèmes surgissent inévitablement lorsque la classe politique se mêle du processus, que ce soit sur le mode de scrutin ou le redécoupage de la carte électorale. Ces critiques visent donc la classe politique dans son ensemble, et non un parti politique en particulier.
Il existe une excellente raison pour laquelle la participation des politicien·ne·s, en particulier ceuxes en fonction, devrait être fortement limitée lors du processus de redécoupage d’une carte électorale. Les conflits d’intérêts sont tellement flagrants qu’il ne devrait pas être nécessaire de les expliciter. Pourtant, compte tenu de la tournure qu’ont prise les choses dans les années 2020, il semblerait que ce soit le cas.
As tempting as it might be for the citizens of the Island of Montréal or the Gaspésie region to scream “gerrymandering” when they see their number of seats diminish, the fact is that the population has simply shifted away from those regions or has not increased significantly overall to justify adding new ridings. If we were to give in to those citizens’ demands and allow them to be overrepresented, how do you think the citizens of the other regions will perceive them? Cry babies? Entitled?
Okay, I won’t speak for you but only for myself... Yes, that’s exactly how I perceive them! When I heard that municipal politicians from the Gaspésie region managed to get the National Assembly to pass a unanimous motion in May 2024 that suspended the redrawing of the map for the 2026 election, I saw red! As of April 2023, Bonaventure had 35,898 voters and Gaspé 30,131 voters, placing them respectively at 29.2% and 40.6% below the provincial average.* Alone, my riding of Mont-Royal—Outremont on the Island of Montréal, which would also be losing a seat, has 57,570 voters, or 87.2% of the sum of Bonaventure and Gaspé. That means that Madame Côté’s vote in Gaspé weighs nearly twice as much as mine. I’m okay with that for Ungava, with the same population as Gaspé but that covers more than 855,000 square kilometres, but not for Gaspé that covers just over 33,000 square kilometres.
On December 1, 2025, three judges declared unconstitutional that law passed in May 2024 and ordered Élections Québec to resume its work so that the redrawing could be completed in time for the October 2026 election. A previous injunction had been issued ordering the agency to continue its work in case the appeal came to that result. It didn’t end there, however, because the government appealed the judges’ decision, but again the Superior Court ruled against the government at the end of April 2026. So, about a week later, a new bill was tabled at the National Assembly to increase the number of seats from 125 to 127, thereby allowing the creation of the commission’s two proposed new ridings — one in the Laurentians and another in the Centre-du-Québec regions — while maintaining the ridings in Montréal and the Gaspé as they are.
The commission objected, explaining that even increasing the number of seats to 129 and declaring some ridings protected would only make the imbalance worse. Even Élections Québec objected, mostly on logistical grounds. But to no avail. The bill passed on June 12. So it’s the people on the Island of Montréal and in the Gaspé, with the explicit support of politicians, who are introducing to Québec a new brand of “polite” gerrymandering, under the guise of protecting representation!
It’s nostalgia over reason and, moreover, fair representation. We are told by Montrealers that they once had as many as 36 seats because, after all, they’re the economic engine of Québec, while those in the Gaspé/Lower Saint Lawrence, which once had nearly a dozen seats, plead that it’s where Québec started. That’s their argument to protect their demographic OVERWEIGHT. While it makes sense to protect ridings like Ungava or the Magdalen Islands due to their extreme isolation, having too many protected ridings is like how putting too much boldface in a text to make parts stand out results in nothing standing out. The failure to recognize that the Québec of today in no way resembles the Québec of 50 or 100 years ago has evacuated the brilliant idea of wiping the slate clean, for perhaps the number of seats or, more likely, the electoral quotient is no longer adequate for a population that has grown to 9 million, but unevenly from one region to the next.
Elbridge Gerry died 212 years ago, but the devious practice that bears his name is alive and well in the United States. In Canada, that practice died 62 years ago... thankfully! But seeing how dysfunctional government has become in the USA in part (but certainly not entirely) because of gerrymandering, Canadians and Québécois alike must be vigilent to recognize it in any form it might take and RESIST it at any cost!
* Nelson Sergerie, MaGaspesie.ca (5 December 2024), La Loi qui suspendait la révision de la carte électorale reste en place... pour le moment. (Retrieved 9 December 2024)
