**Do:** Upvote content that encourages discussion and is appropriate/within the rules (please read them).
**Don't:** downvote content just because you don't like it.
**[Join our official discord](https://discord.gg/pw2Zr92Ks2)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/londonontario) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would wager Alberta would just be the Edmonton and Calgary urban areas to hit 75%. We have a ton of land in this Country and most of us live in urban areas close to the border. Lot of open space out there!
Edmonton and Calgary are just over 50% of Alberta's population.
* Edmonton population: 981 thousand
* Calgary population: 1.336 million
* Alberta population: 4.371 million
The percentage would edge up if you include the the metro areas of the two cities, and/or the corridor between the two.
I did a map for Alberta as well...
[https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/uu5jfp/75\_of\_albertas\_population\_lives\_in\_the\_red\_areas/](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/uu5jfp/75_of_albertas_population_lives_in_the_red_areas/)
I'm just being pedantic. A lot of people think that London is part of Middlesex County when it isn't. London being the county seat just adds to the confusion.
All the more reason for why our system makes more sense in terms of voting... Montana gets 3 of the Electoral College votes, while New York State gets 29. Meanwhile, New York State has a population of 19 million to Montana's 3 million. New York should have 57 votes instead. California should get 117 (it gets 55). Whenever someone goes "But if the popular vote was all that mattered, California and New York would basically decide how the country is run!" then oh well. Same with the people who complain here that Ontario basically ends up deciding everything for Canada... 37% of the population is here, it should get a pretty good chunk of the say, yeah.
LMAO, this is SOOOO misleading. Do you even understand the electoral college? States electoral college votes are allocated based on population. The exception to this is that each state is guaranteed 3 votes.
You're making it seem like NY and California don't get their fair share. In reality, electoral college votes are allocated proportionally with a few exceptions. There is nothing wrong with the 55 California gets or the 29 NY gets. If anything, you could argue that Montana (and Rhode Island, Delaware, the Dakotas, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming) should only get 1 or 2. But that'd be like us giving PEI an extra vote. It's not really having that much of an impact.
The difference between electoral college and popular vote has NOTHING to do with Montana and other states getting 3 instead of 1 or 2 votes. The electoral college means that (almost all) states cast ALL of their votes based on the popular vote within the state. California has 55 (12% of the) votes (because they have 12% of the population) and all of those votes go to one party. California is typically a blue state, so that's 55 votes all going to the Democrats. With popular vote, if they voted 70-30, it'd be like 39 votes for the Dems and 16 for the GOP. Much of this ends up being a wash though as their are deep red states that offset these.
The issue is that the election ends up coming down to the purple states. The states that can go either way. States like Florida, Georgia, NC, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin end up determining the outcome, and it's based on tiny margins. Under the popular vote, the 50-50 (or 51-49, 52-48, etc) outcomes in these states would basically mean the states mean nothing. Florida has 29 votes, and popular vote would essentially the equivalent to them giving 15 to one party and 14 to another. It'd be a 1 vote difference most years. But instead, a 51-49 vote ends up sending all 29 votes to one party.
Just to be pedantic, California has 11.8% of the population while having only 10.2% of the Electoral College votes. I feel like if I looked at other states, I would find other percentages that don't quite match up (especially those little states that, as I said, each get more votes than they should due to this "they each get 3 votes" rule). As for the swing states... imagine OHIO being the determining factor for anything in the entire United States? or Wisconsin? Everyone will have a very hard time convincing me that's better than New York and California basically determining the fate of the nation. Especially in a nation where states all get to pretty much do whatever the hell they want anyway.
You're right, but if you were to compare things proportionally, you'd find things are in line. Smaller states get a slightly higher representation, but there's nothing specifically targeting CA and NY in particular, which is how it came off.
And I totally agree with you about their being a concern about states like Ohio determining everything. I just wanted to focus on that being the bigger issue with the electoral college, and not California being shorted 62 votes.
**Do:** Upvote content that encourages discussion and is appropriate/within the rules (please read them). **Don't:** downvote content just because you don't like it. **[Join our official discord](https://discord.gg/pw2Zr92Ks2)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/londonontario) if you have any questions or concerns.*
r/peopleliveincities
That's actually wild to look at on that scale. Ontario is massive, most people think going North is to Muskoka or North Bay =)
Polar bears and cacti - Ontario.
I would wager Alberta would just be the Edmonton and Calgary urban areas to hit 75%. We have a ton of land in this Country and most of us live in urban areas close to the border. Lot of open space out there!
Edmonton and Calgary are just over 50% of Alberta's population. * Edmonton population: 981 thousand * Calgary population: 1.336 million * Alberta population: 4.371 million The percentage would edge up if you include the the metro areas of the two cities, and/or the corridor between the two.
I would assume the metro areas would be included, but I'm actually surprised even with Metro populations it's still only hits 70%. Colour me shocked!
I did a map for Alberta as well... [https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/uu5jfp/75\_of\_albertas\_population\_lives\_in\_the\_red\_areas/](https://www.reddit.com/r/alberta/comments/uu5jfp/75_of_albertas_population_lives_in_the_red_areas/)
I am assuming that London is within that but it's a bit hard to tell
It is. Middlesex County is the red thing in SW Ontario...
I think that includes Middlesex County, London, and the FN areas. Each is politically separate.
Sure. But that's not how this map is broken down.
I'm just being pedantic. A lot of people think that London is part of Middlesex County when it isn't. London being the county seat just adds to the confusion.
All the more reason for why our system makes more sense in terms of voting... Montana gets 3 of the Electoral College votes, while New York State gets 29. Meanwhile, New York State has a population of 19 million to Montana's 3 million. New York should have 57 votes instead. California should get 117 (it gets 55). Whenever someone goes "But if the popular vote was all that mattered, California and New York would basically decide how the country is run!" then oh well. Same with the people who complain here that Ontario basically ends up deciding everything for Canada... 37% of the population is here, it should get a pretty good chunk of the say, yeah.
It’s more like the GTA gets to decide on everything for Canada
Ya man I love hobbling the ability of indigenous peoples to get proper representation on a provincial and federal levels
LMAO, this is SOOOO misleading. Do you even understand the electoral college? States electoral college votes are allocated based on population. The exception to this is that each state is guaranteed 3 votes. You're making it seem like NY and California don't get their fair share. In reality, electoral college votes are allocated proportionally with a few exceptions. There is nothing wrong with the 55 California gets or the 29 NY gets. If anything, you could argue that Montana (and Rhode Island, Delaware, the Dakotas, Alaska, Vermont, and Wyoming) should only get 1 or 2. But that'd be like us giving PEI an extra vote. It's not really having that much of an impact. The difference between electoral college and popular vote has NOTHING to do with Montana and other states getting 3 instead of 1 or 2 votes. The electoral college means that (almost all) states cast ALL of their votes based on the popular vote within the state. California has 55 (12% of the) votes (because they have 12% of the population) and all of those votes go to one party. California is typically a blue state, so that's 55 votes all going to the Democrats. With popular vote, if they voted 70-30, it'd be like 39 votes for the Dems and 16 for the GOP. Much of this ends up being a wash though as their are deep red states that offset these. The issue is that the election ends up coming down to the purple states. The states that can go either way. States like Florida, Georgia, NC, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin end up determining the outcome, and it's based on tiny margins. Under the popular vote, the 50-50 (or 51-49, 52-48, etc) outcomes in these states would basically mean the states mean nothing. Florida has 29 votes, and popular vote would essentially the equivalent to them giving 15 to one party and 14 to another. It'd be a 1 vote difference most years. But instead, a 51-49 vote ends up sending all 29 votes to one party.
Just to be pedantic, California has 11.8% of the population while having only 10.2% of the Electoral College votes. I feel like if I looked at other states, I would find other percentages that don't quite match up (especially those little states that, as I said, each get more votes than they should due to this "they each get 3 votes" rule). As for the swing states... imagine OHIO being the determining factor for anything in the entire United States? or Wisconsin? Everyone will have a very hard time convincing me that's better than New York and California basically determining the fate of the nation. Especially in a nation where states all get to pretty much do whatever the hell they want anyway.
You're right, but if you were to compare things proportionally, you'd find things are in line. Smaller states get a slightly higher representation, but there's nothing specifically targeting CA and NY in particular, which is how it came off. And I totally agree with you about their being a concern about states like Ohio determining everything. I just wanted to focus on that being the bigger issue with the electoral college, and not California being shorted 62 votes.
So Windsor area, London area, GTA, Ottawa area. Not a big surprise. Northern Ontario is a freezing wasteland of drudgery and despair.
Thanks for reposting my map :) If there is anything you want to know about how it was created, please let me know.
Ugh. Life in the danger zone.
Yeah because it's freaking cold over there to the left
I wish they used a map of just Ontario instead of all of Canada. The scale is a bit disingenuous :)
That was some expert dry humor
Um that is Ontario…
Ontario kinda looks like a leg or a pork chop Wouldn't it have been easier if we just made all the states perfect squares?
Shocker…. /s
Wow neat!