Formation of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin millions of years ago predicted the distribution of conservative voters in Canada

Formation of the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin millions of years ago predicted the distribution of conservative voters in Canada


I remember seeing an article about this before (maybe for the US)... I can't find that particular one, but here's another: "The Relationship Between Geology and Voting Patterns" https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/337186bd22f8404ea60cec7753dde9d6


The black belt. Ancient shores of an ancient sea. Some of the most fertile soil in the country


Very cool article thanks for sharing!


Of course. Oil = Money = Conservatives = Giving away oil practically free to foreign companies


And saving none of it. While preaching fiscal responsibility to the rest of Canada. Spent all our Ralph Bucks on beef jerky and fireworks, like Ricky from Sunnyvale Trailerpark.


I’m originally from AB and this is soooo accurate it stings


I’ve lived here my entire life. I feel like half the province has the same worldview and spending habits as Kenny Powers. Edit: things are slowly changing, but there’s definitely a lot of Terry and Deaners once a person leaves the big cities.


I'm tearing out my plumbing for scrap. You know I don't use this stuff Bubbles


Hey, I spent my Ralph Bux on textbooks for university


Probably more likely: Good Farmland = Farmers = Traditionalists. Not much oil in Manitoba (nor in SW Ontario, SE Quebec, or NB, where the CPC also did well).


All good points. Still it's fair to say that what drives conservative ideology in western canada is a different mix than in central and eastern Canada.


Having lived in both, it is actually pretty similar, it is just that the proportions are a little different. Farmers from Orangeville or Leamington are not meaningfully different than the ones fromBrooks or Wainwright. Neither are the pro-business capitalists from Markham or Signal Hill. The difference lies in the fact that in Ontario there are slightly more capitalists than farmers in the CPC, whereas in the Prairies the capitalists are solidly outnumbered by the farmers. It is an oversimplification, there are more than two demographics in the CPC, but this is a Reddit post and not a dissertation, so I'll leave it at that.


Oil seems a stronger candidate, if we have to reduce it to a single factor (which is a silly thing to do). Let's not forget that the NDP started right smack dab in the middle of Saskatchewan with Tommy Douglas (out of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation - between the two they led SK for half of the last century). Farming communities may not be particularly modern, but they have traditionally been cooperative and communitarian, and have supported many socialist politicians.


>Oil seems a stronger candidate, if we have to reduce it to a single factor (which is a silly thing to do). I think oil and agriculture both correlate with support for the Conservative Party. The exception is Newfoundland, which mostly votes Liberal despite having a large oil offshore industry. >Let's not forget that the NDP started right smack dab in the middle of Saskatchewan with Tommy Douglas (out of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation - between the two they led SK for half of the last century). Farming communities may not be particularly modern, but they have traditionally been cooperative and communitarian, and have supported many socialist politicians. 70 years ago, yeah. But politics has changed considerably since then. Urban vs rural is now a key dividing line in politics across the western world, with most rural areas leaning right (particularly ones with economies based around agriculture or oil). Saskatchewan is one of the most rural provinces, and has voted Conservative (or Sask Party) in every federal and provincial election for the past 15+ years. And unfortunately there's no sign of that changing any time soon.


I agree entirely! The argument I wanted to make was that while farmers currently lean very conservative in the prairies, it hasn't always been that way and isn't inevitable. So, saying that geographic features dating back millions of years led directly to voting patterns via good farm land doesn't seem convincing.


Oh gotcha, that makes sense!


\*fortunately You're mostly right on the other parts, but mostly what values are seen in the Prairies is a desire for community by choice not coercion. People will gladly help people if they're asked, just don't force them to do so. You'll see significantly more charity from conservative voters than you will from liberal voters, as well as a strong tendency for self-responsibility over complaining. Farmers don't complain about 80 hour work weeks, but lordy lordy, couldn't possibly have some office worker put in 45 hours as it would affect their life/work balance! This is a reality that people just don't want to deal with, and a true dividing line.


Interesting perspective! I can understand people having conservative values or preferring less government taxation/spending, and thus leaning conservative politically. But at the same time, I think it's a mistake for any place to only vote for one party every time (especially at the provincial level), as Saskatchewan has been doing lately. Every party has blindspots and weaknesses, and sometimes you need to elect people who bring a different perspective, and can fix mistakes that a previous government has made. That's part of the reason I think it's unfortunate that Saskatchewan now seems to have become a 1-party province, both federally and provincially.


As much as they have been one party, it's also because the other parties aren't offering anything at all that the people want. At both provincial and federal levels, there are no offerings of policy that is beneficial to those in AB or SK. The Liberals could have had their majority by pushing through pipelines. Would have got them the West and they wouldn't have lost much if anything in the East. Could have ended transfer payments. Could have done, well, anything really. The Canadian Milch Cow has been true for over a hundred years.


Yup absolutely. As an Albertan, no other party has really done anything for Alberta, or gives us any reason to vote otherwise. I'm a person who tends to be left leaning. But even the left side political parties at the federal level have all been awful for Alberta, or never really gave us any serious considerations. Also there big differences in how parties operate federally and provincially policy-wise. The Provincial NDP in Alberta is quite a bit different from the Federal NDP, in policy and execution. Well also obviously, provincial NDP is more in-touch and actually communicates better with Albertans. For a lot of Albertans the Federal NDP comes off as out of touch with the prairies and people who don't really try to understand the issues here logically. Even so, with oil involved and the fact that we are hurting from that clown fiesta pipeline situation that never should have happened. Chances of not voting conservative here are very slim.


Interesting about the provincial NDP, since the NDP is the only party where the provincial parties are tied to the federal one.


Not much oil in Eastern Fraser Valley of BC, or the outskirts of Major cities in Ontario — both of which went deep cpc/ppc. It’s an urban/rural split, pure and simple. The one complication is that some of the remote areas have many First Nations voters, which don’t follow the same pattern because reasons.


Farmers are heavily dependent on gas prices as they consume large amounts of fuel in their equipment. It's one of their largest expenses.


True, but also sort of irrelevant. Farmers don't vote Conservative because of gas prices. Before the Carbon Tax, the Libs didn't do any less than the Cons for oil, and the farmers still voted blue. Besides, when you look internationally and historically, farmers are almost always more religious and socially conservative. From the English Civil War to the rise of Da'esh, it is the cities that want to change the social order, and the rural areas that want to preserve it.


I think you're right, but I'd like to know what 'traditionalist' means, and why a traditionalist feels aligned with the cons. My thinking is that the meaning has to do with values and whose responsibility it is to uphold those values. So values like personal safety, health, and social community are in the realm of church and family for the traditionalist-minded person, and not the government. But I don't think that the cons party acts accordingly. It seems more like they put safety and health in the hands of insurance companies and other private for-profit interests. I guess they feel that social community is the individual's responsibility, which is great cuz there's an app for that. And as for farming life, I really wonder if there's a belief that the cons improve the situation for the farmer, because it seems to me that the cons have seed and chemical companies' interests first.


It’s code for ‘racism’


No. Fishingiswater has it right. It is about the church and the family as the arbiters of moral values rather than academia and the government. I grew up on an Ontario farm, and I've lived in farm towns in Manitoba and Alberta. I can promise you that virtually every single one of those farmers would rather see their little girl come home from college with a black boyfriend than a white girlfriend. I mean, the boyfriend is going to raise some eyebrows because 'traditionalist' generally means 'suspicious of things that are different,' but he wouldn't face the same kind of ire as someone who is actively violating the moral standards of the community.


_Petrolia, Ontario enters the chat_


Not exactly. The OG farmers of the prairies were also Canada's OG socialists who set up institutions like universal healthcare, farmers cooperatives, and the wheat board. SK and MB only really turned to cult-conservatism with the advent of the oil sands.


Note I said "Traditionalists," not "Free Market Proponents." Farmers aren't so monolithically Conservative because of their economics (although certain policies, e.g. carbon taxes, can unify them). Farmers are Conservative primarily because of their social values. Farmers can be fine with socialism, as you pointed out, but they get very shirty about the state and/or academia trying to displace the church and community as the arbiters of **moral** values.


Rural ridings go conservative isnt a geological phenomenon, and this map doesn't show what the votes were like in Edmonton and Calgary which are the two biggest cities in that area. A second riding in Edmonton has gone NDP, Calgary Skyview went Liberal, and Edmonton center currently a coin flip between a Liberal and a Conservative with the NDP a close 3rd. Edmonton Strathcona, which has been NDP for a long time, is now the safest NDP riding in the entire country.


Winnipeg is largely red too, you just have to really zoom in to see it


I always suspected there is something in the water. Must be methane [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LBjSXWQRV8)


The swamp was drained and all that remained was conservatives floundering in the muck.


Yeah floundering in muck to push resources out so you can keep your manicure clean and make money as middle men and service industry.


Thank you for your heroic altruism. Next time I see my aesthetician I will sing songs of your bravery in the war against the earth.


I know you can’t possibly fathom this but without our resource sector non of the other industries in Canada have an income. Almost all the other industries are value added or service to the resource sector. Because of that there are as many oil related jobs in Ontario as there are in Alberta and sask. You don’t understand our economy if you think it works without oil gas mining and forestry and agriculture. What ever job you have wouldn’t exist without those industries.


I know you think this is a compelling argument but once upon a time people used this same logic to argue that we needed to keep people enslaved. Just because that’s the way the world is doesn’t means that is how it should be. You should also note that I paid my way through university by working in a resource extraction industry (fishing). And my main take away was that if human society needs to be that destructive to continue to exist maybe it shouldn’t - at least in its present form.


Ahhhh false equivalency very helpful. If you think humans shouldn’t exist there is no point in us having any conversation. I think there can be responsible resource extraction Canada is literally the most responsible extractor of resources on earth. Anything we don’t extract will be replaced less sustainably elsewhere. Have a good day.


A good day to you too.


that is called a dependency, that is bad


All human life is dependant on resources. We can’t live in Canada without our resources. You are dependent on fossil fuels. Regardless of how green you think you are solar wind and hydro don’t produce enough energy to support us through the winter.


It has been said from as early as the 1600’s that geography & climate are the #1 determiners of culture.


Western Canada*


Yes, most specifically Western Canada. It's a freak accident of the Basin containing vast oil and gas reserves, and the inexplicable ways that O&G goes with conservatism like coffee goes with cream.


> inexplicable ways I'm pretty sure that I read before that a lot of Texans came to Alberta when oil was first found, so that has had an influence, plus some of them probably stayed. That's how Ted Cruz ended up being born in Alberta too, although he fortunately didn't stay. But yeah, it also attracts a certain type, and they've created their own echo chamber which seems to have also infected Saskatchewan in recent decades.


Conservatives live in an ECHO CHAMBER…. AMBer… AMber…. amber


Because oil. Where there’s oil, there’s right wing politics and religious fundamentalism. Every time.


Ever been to Newfoundland? Lol


I’ve seen a few of these. I like how there’s often geological correlations with voting patterns.[this one](http://vigorousnorth.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-belt-how-soil-types-determined.html?m=1) in the US is really striking.


I'm pretty sure the blue half of BC is from all the Albertans that have moved here.. their shitty governments ruined their prospects so they moved to BC and are voting for more of the same


As someone who recently moved to eastern BC this seems reasonably accurate.


It's primarily dinosaurs voting CPC these days.


Natural resource and/or fertile farm land equates to generally rural, non tertiary-educated citizens in those areas. Both demographics which sway relatively far right. Really no surprises there.


Farming = conservative is a worldwide phenomenon.


It's really not though? Farmers often lean left in many places (hell, they did here for quite a while). It depends on the country and their current political context.


Correlation DOES NOT equal causation Not to say they couldn’t be related, but just assuming one = the other is lacking critical thought


Idk why you’re being downvoted; there was a post showing 6 map of Alabama’s about its sediment deposit, fertile lands, historical slave population, farm size, African-American population, and result of how it “influenced the election.” That had a lot more explanation in 6 maps, while being strongly correlated and enough basis to argue why it’s a causation. https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/nvgyu5/how_a_coastline_100_million_years_ago_influences/ People forget that the correlation is just a relation or connection of two things, regardless of strong or weak correlation. Causation is if A happens, then B will happen. However, the pattern between the sediment deposit in the prairies and voting pattern is quite interesting.




Except, what's up with South Okanagan-West Kootenay?




Isnt that where the Neanderthals were trapped too? Jokes jokes.


Nah we know now that Neanderthals actually had culture and took care of each other.


I’m shocked that North sask riding went conservative. It’s been left leaning pretty much always just like the rest of northern Canada


Indeed, The maps would have matched better if they hadn't.


Haha that too


There must be something in the oil. I mean.. water*


[Reminds me of this](https://external-preview.redd.it/gDnGQD66c1-X5PCL5dpu2i5js1QIomVIw0b-z_TH53c.jpg?auto=webp&s=e37cf022fecefe507a7d0c83818a64425cc6180b)


Interesting sediment


I’d be ok with the West separating as long as they took me with them (out in Blue BC)


Maybe we can trade Alberta and Saskatchewan to the US in exchange for Washington and Vermont.


Found the guy who has never lived in the US before.


I have actually, I spent a summer in Seattle and a summer in New Mexico. Seattle felt more Canadian than any part of Alberta I've been in, and I lived in Alberta at one point.


All I see is dirt.