Duane Bratt: Gerrymandering electoral map will erode Alberta democracy
Author of the article:
By Duane Bratt ([url]https://edmontonjournal.com/author/duane-bratt/[/url])
Published Apr 20, 2026
I hope that I am wrong. But I fear that I am right. And if I am right, it would be a major erosion of democracy in Alberta.
The trigger for this was a government motion on Thursday that would create a new process to adjust the electoral boundaries of Alberta. But it is not an arm’s-length process whose purpose is to find the best, balanced, and fair boundaries, but likely a deliberate attempt to manipulate ridings to the benefit of the UCP.
Electoral boundaries need to be adjusted every decade because of population growth/decline and also because it is not equal across the province. Some areas see a growth in population, but other parts see a decline. In addition, you need to balance equality of votes, size of ridings, geographic features, communities of interest, Indigenous representation, and measuring population growth. It is not an easy job.
Historically, it is something that Canada and the provinces do very well. Typically, an independent panel will do the work, submit its report to the legislature, and have it adopted without controversy. This builds public trust in the electoral process and constrains the narrow self-interest of parties and elected politicians. It is boring politics at its very best.
In contrast, we see places like Hungary and the United States where politicians draw the boundaries to benefit the government of the day. They draw extreme maps that may allow for geographic contiguity, but in very weird shapes. It is called gerrymandering because in 1812, Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry approved a very partisan map that resembled a salamander.
A typical form of gerrymandering is to dilute urban ridings with rural voters. This is because, in Alberta, across Canada, and in many other democracies, progressive parties do better in cities and conservative parties do better in rural communities. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with hybrid ridings (combining parts of urban and rural).
There are clear circumstances where a community of interest might cross city boundaries. For example, how different is Chestermere from Calgary or St. Albert from Edmonton? But that is not the case when you add rural communities that may be 30, 50, or 100 kilometres away from a city riding.
In Alberta, an Electoral Boundaries Commission (EBC) was formed in March 2025. Chaired by a former justice (Dallas Miller) with four panellists equally appointed by the UCP and NDP. Despite a huge surge in population (concentrated in Calgary, Edmonton, and Airdrie), the EBC was only allowed to add two additional seats (from 87 to 89).
The EBC produced a unanimous interim report in October 2025. It recommended additional seats in Calgary, Airdrie, and Edmonton, and the amalgamation of ridings in central Edmonton, central Alberta, and northern Alberta.
Then things get strange. When the final report was delivered to the legislature it was really two reports: a majority one and a minority one. This was unprecedented. The majority report (Justice Miller and the two NDP panellists) was roughly the same as the interim report with a few tweaks. But the minority report (the two UCP panellists) greatly expanded the use of hybrid ridings in Lethbridge, Red Deer, Edmonton, and Calgary. It is not an exaggeration to say that the minority report was gerrymandered to benefit the UCP by significantly diluting urban voters.
The UCP government has responded by throwing out the EBC report and initiating a new process led by an MLA committee (chaired by Leduc-Beaumont UCP MLA Brandon Lunty, three additional UCP MLAs, and two NDP MLAs) advised by a new independent expert panel that resembles the EBC but with different people.
There are two possibilities for this new process. First, it was to simply address a particular recommendation made solely by Justice Miller to add two additional rural seats (going from 89-91 seats). Second, it is to completely redraw the electoral map based on the minority report.
Unfortunately, it is this second possibility that I fear will occur. Since becoming premier, Danielle Smith has systematically attempted to weaken any political counterweights. We can see this with fighting the federal government; firings in arm’s-length agencies like Alberta Health Services and AIMCo; intervention into municipalities; sustained criticism of doctors, universities, and judges; and use of the notwithstanding clause.
But going after the integrity of the electoral system is even worse. It opens the door for mistrust in elections, court challenges (and likely further attacks on judges), and strains on the capacity of Elections Alberta. All in the midst of referendums and a potential separation threat.
Thursday was a bad day for democracy, and possibly setting up an even worse day for democracy.
Article content
Duane Bratt is a political scientist at Mount Royal University.
Author of the article:
By Duane Bratt ([url]https://edmontonjournal.com/author/duane-bratt/[/url])
Published Apr 20, 2026
I hope that I am wrong. But I fear that I am right. And if I am right, it would be a major erosion of democracy in Alberta.
The trigger for this was a government motion on Thursday that would create a new process to adjust the electoral boundaries of Alberta. But it is not an arm’s-length process whose purpose is to find the best, balanced, and fair boundaries, but likely a deliberate attempt to manipulate ridings to the benefit of the UCP.
Electoral boundaries need to be adjusted every decade because of population growth/decline and also because it is not equal across the province. Some areas see a growth in population, but other parts see a decline. In addition, you need to balance equality of votes, size of ridings, geographic features, communities of interest, Indigenous representation, and measuring population growth. It is not an easy job.
Historically, it is something that Canada and the provinces do very well. Typically, an independent panel will do the work, submit its report to the legislature, and have it adopted without controversy. This builds public trust in the electoral process and constrains the narrow self-interest of parties and elected politicians. It is boring politics at its very best.
In contrast, we see places like Hungary and the United States where politicians draw the boundaries to benefit the government of the day. They draw extreme maps that may allow for geographic contiguity, but in very weird shapes. It is called gerrymandering because in 1812, Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry approved a very partisan map that resembled a salamander.
A typical form of gerrymandering is to dilute urban ridings with rural voters. This is because, in Alberta, across Canada, and in many other democracies, progressive parties do better in cities and conservative parties do better in rural communities. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with hybrid ridings (combining parts of urban and rural).
There are clear circumstances where a community of interest might cross city boundaries. For example, how different is Chestermere from Calgary or St. Albert from Edmonton? But that is not the case when you add rural communities that may be 30, 50, or 100 kilometres away from a city riding.
In Alberta, an Electoral Boundaries Commission (EBC) was formed in March 2025. Chaired by a former justice (Dallas Miller) with four panellists equally appointed by the UCP and NDP. Despite a huge surge in population (concentrated in Calgary, Edmonton, and Airdrie), the EBC was only allowed to add two additional seats (from 87 to 89).
The EBC produced a unanimous interim report in October 2025. It recommended additional seats in Calgary, Airdrie, and Edmonton, and the amalgamation of ridings in central Edmonton, central Alberta, and northern Alberta.
Then things get strange. When the final report was delivered to the legislature it was really two reports: a majority one and a minority one. This was unprecedented. The majority report (Justice Miller and the two NDP panellists) was roughly the same as the interim report with a few tweaks. But the minority report (the two UCP panellists) greatly expanded the use of hybrid ridings in Lethbridge, Red Deer, Edmonton, and Calgary. It is not an exaggeration to say that the minority report was gerrymandered to benefit the UCP by significantly diluting urban voters.
The UCP government has responded by throwing out the EBC report and initiating a new process led by an MLA committee (chaired by Leduc-Beaumont UCP MLA Brandon Lunty, three additional UCP MLAs, and two NDP MLAs) advised by a new independent expert panel that resembles the EBC but with different people.
There are two possibilities for this new process. First, it was to simply address a particular recommendation made solely by Justice Miller to add two additional rural seats (going from 89-91 seats). Second, it is to completely redraw the electoral map based on the minority report.
Unfortunately, it is this second possibility that I fear will occur. Since becoming premier, Danielle Smith has systematically attempted to weaken any political counterweights. We can see this with fighting the federal government; firings in arm’s-length agencies like Alberta Health Services and AIMCo; intervention into municipalities; sustained criticism of doctors, universities, and judges; and use of the notwithstanding clause.
But going after the integrity of the electoral system is even worse. It opens the door for mistrust in elections, court challenges (and likely further attacks on judges), and strains on the capacity of Elections Alberta. All in the midst of referendums and a potential separation threat.
Thursday was a bad day for democracy, and possibly setting up an even worse day for democracy.
Article content
Duane Bratt is a political scientist at Mount Royal University.
Comment