Using GIS to Understand Political Representation and Sovereignty in Quebec McGill University (starting July 1, 2006) Dartmouth College (current) Department of Geography Hanover, NH 03755 benjamin.forest@dartmouth.edu I propose to develop a student course project on political representation and national sovereignty, using Quebec as a case study, for my undergraduate Political Geography course at McGill University. I previously developed a similar exercise (attached) using the Houston area for my Political Geography course at Dartmouth. My new position and the unique politics of Quebec mean, however, that the project needs entirely new data and a new framework. Moreover, the crosscutting linguistic, political and sovereigntist political preferences in Quebec offer an excellent illustration of the need for spatial thinking in political geography. I am requesting $1500 to gather these new data, to develop the exercise to accompany them, and to make them available to other political geographers, particularly in Quebec. Politics and Representation in Canada and Quebec In my Houston exercise, the major political divisions fall along ethnic (African American, Latino and Anglo) and party (Democrat and Republican) lines. In Quebec, however, the social and political divisions are somewhat more complex. The major ethnic division is linguistic (French/francophone and English/anglophone), but the party divisions are more complicated. There are seven significant parties in Quebec at either the provincial or national level: the Parti Québécois (PQ), the Bloc Québécois (BQ) 1, the Action Démocratique du Québec (ADQ) party, the Liberal Party (LP), the Conservative Party (CP), and the New Democratic Party (NDP). The PQ, BQ, and the much smaller ADQ are separatist parties, seeking to create a sovereign Quebec. The other major parties are federalist (to varying degrees), meaning that they seek to keep Quebec within the Canadian federation. The vast majority of PQ and BQ members are francophone, while the vast majority of English speakers typically vote for one of the federalist parties. Thus the PQ and BQ are relatively homogeneous in terms of language, while the other parties have the support of both francophones and anglophones. Political representation in Canada is also slightly different than in the US. The 125 members of the National Assembly (Quebec s provincial legislature) are elected from ridings (districts) using a simple plurality system, but unlike the US, there is no equal population requirement. Indeed, to provide regional representation to the sparsely populated northern sections of the province, Quebec permits up to 25% population 1 The PQ operates as a party within the provincial legislature, while the BQ operates at the national level, running candidates for the federal parliament. The LP, CP, and NDP also maintain separate federal and provincial organizations.
variance in ridings. Also unlike the US, a Boundary Commission rather than an elected political body adjusts the ridings. Data and Software The analysis of these social and political divisions requires two distinct types of data: Socio-economic data (particularly language preference) from the 2001 Canadian Census, and election data. The exercise will include results from the most recent federal (2006) and provincial (2003) elections, as well as results from the last sovereignty referendum (1995). (The sovereignty movement lost by less than 1%.) These social and political data exist at different scales and in different spatial units, making their analysis a task ideally suited for GIS. I would also like to add data on a variety of natural and economic resources, the built environment and urban infrastructure. These data would be of particular interest in the second part of the exercise, dealing with Quebec sovereignty. ArcGIS has a Redistricting add-on module, which can be easily installed on workstations in McGill s existing GIS lab. Redistricting Montreal & Redrawing National Boundaries The student exercise will have two parts. The first will be very similar to the Houston one, and for the sake of simplicity, will be limited to the island of Montreal (1/3 anglophone, 2/3 francophone): Students will be assigned to one of several groups, each with a different political agenda, and will need to produce a gerrymandered set of ridings that reflect the interests of their group. Students representing political parties, for example, will seek to maximize the number of ridings in which they hold a majority. Federalist parties will also seek to minimize the number of ridings held by the PQ and ADQ. A nonpolitical group might, for example, seek to minimize population deviations between ridings. Advanced undergraduate and graduate students may also use these data to develop predictive models of federalist-sovereigntist support, and to address issues and questions of ecological inference. The second part will use data from the entire province, and will pose an even more provocative question: If a narrow majority of voters in Quebec voted for sovereignty (as they nearly did in 1995), how would one draw the boundaries of the new nation to keep the majority of federal voters in Canada? More formally, what would the boundaries of Quebec look like if one applied the principle of self-determination to the sub-provincial level? This second part thus takes the exercise beyond traditional issues of electoral geography, into geopolitical questions of nationalism and democratic self-determination. Here, data on natural and economic resources would be of particular interest. What, for example, would be the natural resource cost of different national boundaries? Would an independent Quebec retain control over a proportional level of economic resources if one 2
applied national self-determination at different scales? How might one draw workable national boundaries in urban areas given the existing built environment and infrastructure? Influence of the SPACE workshop Although I developed the Houston exercise before attending the SPACE workshop in 2005, the experience opened my eyes to the integration of social and physical data. The previous student project was simply about the division of political space, with no attention beyond the electoral consequences. The revised exercise, particularly the second part, will allow students to appreciate the social and economic consequences of political divisions. The workshop also encouraged me to have advanced students use the analytic and overlay features of ArcGIS to make models that might be used to predict support and opposition to sovereignty in future referenda and elections. Budget The exercise will require the development of a new data set, bringing together information from several sources. The compilation of these data constitutes the majority of the project s expense. (McGill has strong graduate training in GIS, so I will be able to hire a qualified graduate student to do this work.) Once the project is completed and I have used it in my Political Geography class (taught in the fall), I will present the project at the Canadian Association of Geographers meeting, and make the data and exercise available on my McGill website. I also plan to translate the materials into French, making it accessible to faculty in Quebec s francophone universities. Item Cost (US$) Notes & $CA cost Data compilation and 40 hours @ $25 exercise development Canadian/hour (salary and $870 benefits for graduate student) Conference travel and $390 $450 Canadian expenses Translation Misc. materials $220 $20 $1,500 Current exchange rate is approximately.87 $US/$CA. 10 hours @ $25 Canadian/hour (salary and benefits for graduate student) $23 Canadian $1,724 3
Geography 23: Power, Territoriality and Political Geography Redistricting Houston Introduction: Each group will create a redistricting plan with six electoral districts for the Houston, TX metropolitan area using ArcMap, a GIS package available in the Geography Department s Rahr Computer lab. Groups will formally present their redistricting plans in a public hearing to a redistricting panel in class on July 27. The panel, as well as opposing groups will have the opportunity to ask questions and to challenge each plan. The data for this exercise comes from actual Census and election data, and are the type of information used in actual redistricting processes. Written Report: In addition to the oral presentations, each group will prepare a 2-3 page written report (due July 27) that outlines, explains and justifies its redistricting plan. The report and presentation should address both the legal and political aspects of redistricting. In addition to the text, these reports should include a map of the districting plan, and a set of Uniform Redistricting Reports. (These reports will enable the redistricting panel to quickly compare the plans.) Groups: The six groups represent: 1) the Democratic Party, 2) the Republican Party, 3) the African American Coalition for Representation (AACR), 4) the Latino Election Council (LEC), 5) the Madisonian Public Interest Association (M-PIA), and 6) the Committee for Political Continuity (CPC). The AACR, LEC, M-PIA and CPC are hypothetical interest groups. The AACR seeks to protect and expand the political representation and power of African Americans, while LEC seeks to do so for Latinos. M-PIA is a group of activists who argue that Madison s anti-factional argument in Federalist #10 is the only sound basis for democratic representation. Finally, the CPC seeks to protect the ability of incumbent representatives to be re-elected. Consequently, the six groups have distinctly different goals for the redistricting of Houston. Each will attempt to convince the redistricting panel that their plan is the most appropriate one. The panel will take a number of factors into account including, but not limited to, the equal population requirement, traditional districting principles, the Voting Rights Act, recent Supreme Court decisions, the political history and context of Texas, and the interests of the people of the state. NOTE: Each member of a group will receive the same grade, so this work should be a true collaborative effort and every member of the group should contribute an equivalent amount of work. (In the event that one member of a group is not contributing equally, the other members should see me immediately.) Every group member should also play a hands-on role in creating the districting plan. Aside from this, however, a group may allocate its work in any way it chooses. For 4
example, one person may focus on one issue, two people on another issue, etc. At a minimum, all members should participate in the oral presentation and, each group should review and discuss the final report together before turning it in. Background: The six current Houston districts are malapportioned and need to be redrawn. Groups may use the existing district plan as a template, or they may design a radically different looking plan. The new plans should fulfill Constitutional and legal requirements, and should reflect the political interests of the groups that created them. Incumbents: There are three Democratic incumbents (red) and three Republican incumbents (blue). Their residence and party affiliations are indicated by the push-pins on the current plan map. Data: The demographic data comes from the 2000 Census. The basic political data are the results from the 2002 senatorial race. There was no incumbent in that race, so neither candidate had an advantage in that respect. The Republican candidate, John Cornyn (an Anglo male), beat the Democratic candidate Ron Kirk (an African-American male). See the Uniform District Report at the end of this assignment for further details on the current set of districts. Variables: Table 1 lists all the variables in the data set and includes a brief explanation of each. You may not need to consider every variable listed for your redistricting plan. Software and Data: We will use a GIS application called ArcMap, based on the industry-standard package ArcGIS (produced by the ERSI corporation). The majority of actual political redistricting is done using software based on ArcGIS, so what you are doing for this exercise is very similar to what takes place during the redistricting process. Groups: Democratic Party Republican Party AACR LEC M-PIA CPC 5
Table 1: Redistricting Variables Variable Description DISTRICT The district number (1-6) TOTAL The total population (2000 Census) TOTAL_DEV The population deviation from the ideal (778,262 people) ANG The total Anglo population (white, non-) ANG_P The percentage of Anglo population in a particular district ANGVAP The total Anglo voting age population* BH The total Black and populations combined BH_P The percentage of Black and populations in a particular district BHVAP The total Black and voting age population* BLAK The total Black population BLAK_P The percentage of Black population in a particular district BLAKVAP The total Black voting age population* HSP The total population HSP_P The percentage of population in a particular district HSPVAP The total voting age population* OTH The total Other population (not white, Black and/or ) OTH_P The percentage of Other population in a particular district OTHVAP The total Other voting age population* VAP The total voting age population* TOTALTO The total turnout in the 2000 election** TOTALVR The total voter registration for the 2000 election*** SPANSUR The number of registered voters with Spanish surnames for the 2000 election*** TOTAL02 The total votes from the 2002 Senatorial race **** REP2002 The number of Republican votes in the 2002 Senatorial race**** DEM2002 The number of Democratic votes in the 2002 Senatorial race**** * Voting age population (or is the population >18 years of age, regardless of citizenship. ** Presidential elections like the 2000 race typically produce the highest voter participation. *** The number of voters with Spanish surnames is a measure used by the Department of Justice to assess the proportion of Latino voters. **** The 2002 Senatorial race featured a white Republican candidate (John Cornyn) running against an African American Democratic candidate (Ron Kirk). They ran for an open seat, so neither was an incumbent. Cornyn won the election, taking 54% of the vote in the Houston area and 56% statewide. 6
Table 2A: Demographic Characteristics of the Current Houston Districts District Voting Age Uniform Redistricting Report A (s) Anglo Anglo Voting Age Black + Black + 1 778627 549101 464039 343615 268634 172804 2 778220 541640 360042 267241 402289 262996 3 776695 543191 324826 251450 424865 271978 4 679528 487073 320391 245029 329970 220615 5 857596 623098 349563 275759 420983 282397 6 798905 569449 421032 318181 296390 192113 District Black Black Voting Age Other Other 1 117028 76357 153628 97442 45954 32682 2 151416 104693 253091 159437 15889 11403 3 87897 60027 339780 213384 27004 19763 4 165999 116338 166428 105534 29167 21429 5 194089 131898 230839 152774 87050 64942 6 94452 61663 204822 132043 81483 59155 District Turnout (2000 General) Voter Registration (2000 General) Registered Spanish Surnames (2000 General) Percent Spanish Surnames of Voter Registration 1 272003 395324 34574 8.75 2 212761 366512 54615 14.90 3 198567 333328 79442 23.83 4 270805 371624 46684 12.56 5 269628 386985 41812 10.80 6 258971 370997 40300 10.86 7
Table 2B: Political Characteristics of the Current Houston Districting Plan District Votes (2002 Senatorial) Republican Votes (2002 Senatorial) Democratic Votes (2002 Senatorial) Percent Republican of Votes 1 179672 122187 57485 68.01 2 131975 67349 64626 51.03 3 122766 62439 60327 50.86 4 147028 67643 79385 46.01 5 179873 91498 88375 50.87 6 169651 114216 55435 67.32 Table 3: Demographic Characteristics of the Current Houston Districts (percentages) District Anglo (% of ) Uniform Redistricting Report B (Percentages) Anglo (% of Black + (% of ) Black + (% of Black (% of ) Black (% of 1 59.60 62.58 34.50 48.92 15.03 21.31 2 46.26 49.34 51.69 74.27 19.46 27.96 3 41.82 46.29 54.70 78.22 11.32 16.18 4 47.15 50.31 48.56 67.75 24.43 34.08 5 40.76 44.26 49.09 67.56 22.63 31.15 6 52.70 55.88 37.10 52.05 11.82 16.59 District (% of ) (% of Other (% of ) Other Voting Age (% of 1 19.73 27.98 5.90 8.37 2 32.52 46.73 2.04 2.93 3 43.75 62.55 3.48 4.97 4 24.49 34.17 4.29 5.99 5 26.92 37.05 10.15 13.97 6 25.64 35.97 10.20 14.31 8
Table 4: Deviation Deviation Analysis Ideal District 778262 Houston Metro 4669571 District Deviation 1 778627 0.047 2 778220-0.005 3 776695-0.201 4 679528-12.686 5 857596 10.194 6 798905 2.652 Metro Area Deviation 3.813% Current Houston Redistricting Plan 9