Comment Anti-Trolls

Jesse:
Pulled a good point off the Macleans comment boards (at which point I pulled the chute, since comment boards are terrible, and I shouldn't read them) about the Conservative Stimulus Scandal.

So, the Conservatives appear to have directed about 55% a lot more money per riding to Conservative ridings than they have to non-Conservative ridings (which is a lot). Two points, one mine, and one from the trolls:

1) Doesn't this mean that, per capita, the hosing is even greater? I think the Liberals have thrown some numbers out along these lines. But Conservative ridings are much less dense.

2) If this had simply been done based on efficiency and ease of getting the money out there, without partisanizing the issue, shouldn't it have gone completely the other way? Liberal ridings, for example, are basically all in cities. Cities have lots of matching funds. Cities have loads of projects that could use money (more roads, more rinks, more bridges, more libraries) and far more expensive projects (airports, for example). I doubt this point is going to get any traction with The People... but I think it's a good one. The money probably should've been 60-40 the other way. Without factoring in the per capita question, which probably would've made it even worse.

Now, is it possible that the Cons manage to come out with some sort of face-saving numbers (since they usually do) and this all goes away because it becomes he-said-she-said for the press? Yes. I think the per capita stuff might help them out a little here once they start trying to doctor something and get it out there (did the home renovation credit and other population-wide measures disproportionately benefit city-dwellers, so this is arguably a make-up plan?). And they seem to be able to get away with pretty much whatever they want. But we'll see.