Spreadsheets
- A
- B
Description
This spreadsheet uses the same formulas as those for the 279 Formula and adds in the new calculations for rules 3 and 4. The identical Bills C-56 and C-22 would have amended rules 1 and 2 slightly and then added rules 3 and 4 to the 279 Formula. Essentially, the modification under rule 4 have allowed the electoral divisor to increase every decade based on the number of provincial MPs from three decades earlier instead of keeping it stuck at 279 in perpetuity. The census of 2011 would have taken the number of provincial MPs under the Representation Order, 1987 (292) as the new electoral divisor; after the census of 2021, the divisor would have increased to 298 in accordance with the Representation Order, 1996, and so on. Rule 4 would therefore have allowed the House of Commons to expand more quickly upon each decennial electoral readjustment. Rule 3 would have set up two conditions in an IF-AND function. First, any province which does not obtain any additional MPs under rule 2 (the Senatorial and Grandfather Clauses) could do so under rule 3, which could only possibly have applied to Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. Second, however, the under-represented provinces could then only have obtained additional MPs if they had registered populations smaller than that of Quebec, the most populous provinces which obtained additional MPs under rule 2 by way of the Grandfather Clause. Ontario has always had a larger population than Quebec, which means that only Alberta and British Columbia would have met both conditions.
51(1) 3. If the number of members assigned to a province is not increased by the application of rule 2 or section 51A and its population is less than that of the most populous province whose number of members is increased thereby, there shall be added to the number of members assigned to that province such number of members as will cause its electoral quotient — obtained by dividing the population of the province by the number of members assigned to it — to be as close as possible to the electoral quotient of that more populous province without being below it.
The operative conclusion of rule 3 would then have taken Quebec’s de facto electoral quotient as the reference for calculating the additional number of MPs which Alberta and British Columbia would have obtained. Quebec’s population divided by its number of MPs in the 2010s came to 105,373 (7,903,001/75), as opposed to the general electoral quota of 114,279 obtained by dividing the total population of the ten provinces under the decennial census of 2011 by the number of provincial MPs under the Representation Order, 1987 (33,369,423/292). Any result would have to round up so that it would “be as close as possible to the electoral quotient of that more populous province without being below it.” In the 2010s, this rule 3 would have given both Alberta and British Columbia three more MPs each. Ontario would have obtained ten more MPs if it had met both conditions.
This spreadsheet “0. MPs Under Bills C-56 and C-22” replicates the Representation Orders, 1987, 1996 , and 2003 in sheets 1, 2, and 3 and then shows how Bills C-56 and C-22 would have modified the 279 Formula in the 2010s and 2020s in sheets 4 (2010s) and 5 (2020s), respectively. The example below shows the additional calculations made under Rules 3 and 4 in the 2010s.
Rule 3
Rule 3 appears in columns L, M, N, and O. Column N shows Quebec’s de facto electoral quotient as its population divided by its 75 MPs:
=B$8/K$8
From that electoral quotient, column M contains the IF-AND function which determines which provinces obtain additional MPs:
=IF(AND((K4=E4), (B4<B$8)), B4/L4, 0)
Column N then applies normal rounding to the results in column M and shows the new total number of MPs that Alberta and British Columbia would have obtained under this rule 3:
=ROUND((M4),0)
Column O shows for reference the additional number of MPs obtained by Alberta and British Columbia under rule 3 vs. under rule 1.
=N12-H12
The total number of MPs now equals those listed in column K or in column N, depending on whether the province qualified under rule 3:
=IF(M4>K4, N4, K4)
Rule 4
Rule 4 increases the electoral divisor from 279 to the number of provincial MPs from three representation orders ago, so I simply combined rule 4 with rule 1 in cell C14 as follows:
= $’RO, 1987′.M14
James Bowden's Blog 