It's easy to say that a country with the longest boarder in the world has a population all within X amount of km's from the boarder. Thunder Bay is quite close to the boarder, but the communities surrounding it are still out in the middle of nowhere. I don't understand how the boarder automatically translates into high population density.
Fair enough... my father grew up quite close to the border in Manitoba but could hardly be said to be close to anything dense (even Winnipeg was far away). But my point was that the total land area of Canada, a huge part of which is the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, is a misleading impression of where the people are.
It is this sort ignorant mentality that makes the rest of Canada feel misrepresented. These communities are not "exceptional cases" but the people who live a modest life, and represent true Canadians. Just because a community doesn't adopt urban sprawl and clear cut everything in site does not justify writing it off in terms of policy. I grew up in Etobicoke and have been living up here for 5 years now.
But they are exceptional cases. Arguing they're "just the same" as Toronto is exactly the kind of mentality that gets them ignored, because the bigwigs in Toronto say "oh well, guess we're all the same" and fail to take into account the special conditions of non-urbanites.
I should make clear there is no stigma that should go with being "exceptional". All it means is what the word itself means: atypical, unusual, etc. which from a population-based perspective is simply true. Take it as a positive or negative if you want: I mean neither. There is nothing more or less "true" about this lifestyle, and I say this as someone with cousins in Brampton and Mississauga as well as Fort St. John, B.C.
Toronto is a polluted orgasm of suburbia and a perfect example of how not to populate an area. All the parks and trails back home I used to enjoy are now row housing.
Agreed! It's a hellscape: my mother lives in suburban Oakville (though I'm not from there originally) and there is literally nothing within a 3-km radius of her house but other completely identical houses. Nothing I said should be taken as some form of endorsement of urban sprawl, which I detest. My only point was that any plan for reaching out to people who don't live in cities must first acknowledge that they are not the usual case, that they require special accommodation. If you fail to do that, city folks won't recognize that they do have different needs.
As for electronic voting, I have objections to that that are basically independent of all this talk about population density. Aside from the obvious potential for voter fraud, I think it doesn't offer proper assurance to voters that their votes has been correctly handled, and there is a huge possibility for corruption on server side.
Remember the Diebold executive in 2004 who promised to "deliver the election for President Bush", and the strange correspondences between machine-voting breakdowns and Democratic-leaning precincts?
I think that the greatest potential for abuse is in those voting districts where most of the people are—in the cities—so I would seek to exclude such places from online voting. If you live close to a voting station, go there and vote. If you don't, only then should we think about loosening the rules a bit and using online voting. Otherwise (in my view) we're asking for trouble.