Battle River-Crowfoot’s redistribution highlights the age-old problem of arbitrarily drawn lines

By Nerissa McNaughton Southern Alberta Newspapers on July 19, 2025.

Political leaders have a habit of redrawing borders, taking inspiration from a map while disregarding (and in most cases not even talking to) the people affected. Global examples from colonial times are many, but this issue also hits much closer to home.

In Canada, federal electoral districts are reviewed on a decennial cycle (10 years), using census data to redraw districts based on population patterns. This is mandated by the Constitution of Canada and the process is as follows: the Chief Electoral Officer uses the Representation Formula to base how many MPs will be assigned per province. Once completed, the data goes to independent electoral boundaries commissions and boundary revisions are drawn, if deemed necessary.

The Battle River-Crowfoot riding is a prime example.

Battle River-Crowfoot was created by combining parts of the previous Crowfoot district (1968-2015) and the Vegreville-Wainwright district (2004-2015). This redistributed district runs from Toefield at its northernmost tip and borders Medicine Hat on its southern end. Simply put – the district is now huge.

Instead of two separate districts with an average of 10 cities/counties each, Battle River-Crowfoot consists of 52,589 square kilometres and officially includes: The City of Camrose; the towns of Bashaw, Castor, Coronation, Daysland, Drumheller, Hanna, Hardisty, Killam, Oyen, Provost, Sedgewick, Stettler, Three Hills, Tofield, Trochu, Viking and Wainwright; the villages of Acme, Alliance, Amisk, Bawlf, Big Valley, Bittern Lake, Carbon, Chauvin, Consort, Czar, Delia, Donalda, Edberg, Edgerton, Empress, Forestburg, Halkirk, Hay Lakes, Heisler, Holden, Hughenden, Irma, Linden, Lougheed, Morrin, Munson, Rosalind, Ryley, Veteran and Youngstown; the summer villages of Rochon Sands and White Sands; the municipal districts of Acadia No. 34, Beaver County, Camrose County, Flagstaff County, Kneehill County, Paintearth County No. 18, Provost No. 52, Starland County, Stettler County No. 6 and Wainwright No. 61; and Special Areas nos. 2, 3 and 4.

The fact that all voters in this riding must rely on an Elections Canada office in Camrose is a clear example of the practical challenges and frustrations. For some residents in the southern part of the riding, such as those in special areas, traveling to Camrose means covering hundreds of kilometres. Acadia to Camrose alone is a three hour and 30-minute drive.

Yet, that’s not the only issue.

Is it reasonable to represent such a large, diverse region under a single umbrella, let alone expect a riding whose average age is 43 and whose median income is $51,650 (aka the very overburdened Sandwich Generation) to turn out in droves to vote? Residents question whether their voices are being heard or if their concerns hold weight in a riding already so heavily tilted toward one political outcome.

Studies indicate that socio-economic challenges, coupled with logistical barriers to participation (such as long distances to polling stations), are major deterrents to voter turnout. For example, some residents may feel voting at a distant station is not worth the effort, particularly when the result feels like a foregone conclusion.

The size of the newly defined Battle River-Crowfoot riding forces us to question whether it’s feasible to capture the unique needs of such a sprawling and diverse region. Redistribution may have combined communities that share geographic proximity, but their socio-economic and cultural diversity makes representation challenging. From larger municipalities like Drumheller to smaller hamlets in special areas, no single representative can address every concern effectively. Additionally, the discontent stems from more than just geography or politics. It’s rooted in the feeling that rural Alberta’s concerns are often overshadowed by urban priorities, both provincially and federally.

However, the bigger question is whether voter turnout will continue its downward trajectory. For a riding with over 84,000 eligible voters, the critical issue isn’t only who wins but how many residents cast their vote.

12
-11