G_Budgeting

                                                                                         

source: CBC

Copilot:

Price of gas; why is gas consistently more expensive in Montreal than say, Toronto??

Short takeaway: Montreal’s gas is consistently pricier than Toronto because Quebec’s tax structure is heavier, Montreal has an extra regional fuel tax, and Quebec’s carbon‑pricing system adds more cost than Ontario’s. On top of that, Montreal’s refining + distribution logistics are less favourable than Toronto’s.

Here’s the full breakdown, anchored to the CBC Montreal gas‑price page you have open .

🧭 1. Quebec’s fuel taxes are simply higher than Ontario’s

This is the single biggest reason.

Fuel tax (fixed cents per litre)

Quebec: ~19.2¢/L, 20.2¢/L on the island of Montreal (extra regional tax)

Ontario: ~14.7¢/L

That’s already a 5–6¢/L gap, and Montreal adds another +1¢ on top.

Carbon pricing (cap‑and‑trade vs. federal carbon tax)

Quebec runs its own cap‑and‑trade system, which currently adds ~17–20¢/L to gasoline.

Ontario uses the federal carbon tax, which adds ~14–15¢/L.

So Quebec’s carbon cost is ~3–5¢/L higher than Ontario’s.

Sales tax

Quebec’s TVQ (9.975%) is applied on top of the fuel price AND the other taxes.

Ontario’s HST (13%) applies differently and ends up adding slightly less per litre.

Put together, Quebec’s total tax load is usually ~50–58¢/L, while Ontario’s is closer to ~40–45¢/L.

That alone explains most of the Montreal–Toronto gap.

🚚 2. Montreal’s distribution & refining situation is less favourable

Toronto sits near:

The Sarnia refining hub

Multiple pipelines

High‑volume distribution corridors

Montreal has:

Fewer refineries

More reliance on imported refined product

Higher transportation costs per litre

This doesn’t create massive differences, but it adds a few cents consistently.

🏙️ 3. Montreal’s regional fuel tax

Montreal has a special metropolitan area fuel tax (the extra 1¢/L mentioned above).

Toronto does not have a comparable municipal fuel tax.

It’s small, but it’s permanent — and it keeps Montreal’s baseline higher.

📈 4. Market behaviour & competition

Toronto has:

More stations per square kilometre

More aggressive price competition

More “price wars” in suburban zones

Montreal’s market is:

More stable

Less competitive

More dominated by large chains

This tends to keep prices higher and more uniform.

🔍 5. What your chart shows

Your GasBuddy 12‑month chart (Montreal vs Toronto vs Canada average) shows exactly this pattern:

Montreal’s line sits consistently above Toronto’s — usually by 8–15¢/L depending on the month.

That gap aligns almost perfectly with the tax differences + carbon pricing + regional tax.

📌 Bottom line

Montreal isn’t more expensive because of crude oil or refinery margins — it’s almost entirely policy + tax structure + distribution.

If you want, I can calculate the exact tax share for today’s Montreal price (e.g., 196.9 c/L on your CBC page ) and compare it directly to Toronto’s current tax share.

So tax money to fund government has to come from somewhere. In a snapshop, can you tell me how Ontario goverment finances itself so it can give motorists a break?

Short takeaway:  

Ontario can “afford” lower gasoline taxes mainly because its overall tax mix is different from Quebec’s. Ontario leans heavily on income tax, sales tax (HST), corporate tax, and federal transfers, while Quebec relies more on provincial consumption taxes, including fuel taxes, to fund its larger social‑program footprint. Ontario doesn’t need high fuel taxes to balance its books because it collects its revenue in other ways.

Here’s the clear, structured snapshot you asked for — no fluff.

🧭 1. Ontario’s main revenue pillars

Ontario’s government finances itself through four big streams:

A. Personal income tax

Ontario’s PIT rates are lower than Quebec’s, but Ontario has a larger population and higher average incomes, so the base is huge.

This is Ontario’s single biggest revenue source.

B. Sales tax (HST 13%)

Ontario uses the Harmonized Sales Tax, which combines GST + PST.

Because Ontario’s PST portion is 8%, lower than Quebec’s 9.975% TVQ, but applied to a larger population, Ontario collects massive consumption‑tax revenue.

C. Corporate income tax

Ontario has a large corporate base: finance, tech, manufacturing, insurance, telecom.

Corporate tax revenue is significantly higher than Quebec’s.

D. Federal transfers

Ontario receives substantial federal transfers (health, social programs, equalization‑adjacent funding).

Ontario is not an equalization recipient, but its federal transfers are still large because of population size.

🛢️ 2. Why Ontario can keep fuel taxes lower

Ontario’s fuel tax is 14.7¢/L, compared to Quebec’s 19.2–20.2¢/L plus cap‑and‑trade.

Ontario can keep this low because:

A. Ontario’s tax base is broader

More people, more businesses, higher incomes → more revenue from PIT, HST, and corporate tax.

B. Ontario’s social‑program spending is lower per capita

Quebec funds:

$10/day childcare

Generous parental leave

Broad social programs

Large public transit subsidies

Cap‑and‑trade climate programs

These cost billions. Quebec needs more consumption‑based revenue to sustain them.

Ontario does not run the same level of social spending, so it doesn’t need the same level of fuel taxation.

C. Ontario does not run a provincial carbon market

Ontario uses the federal carbon tax system.

Quebec’s cap‑and‑trade adds ~17–20¢/L to gasoline — a major structural difference.

D. Ontario’s infrastructure funding model is different

Ontario relies more on:

General revenues

Federal infrastructure transfers

Municipal property taxes

Development charges

Quebec relies more directly on fuel taxes to fund transportation.

📉 3. The political philosophy difference

Ontario’s tax philosophy is:

“Keep consumption taxes moderate, rely on income and corporate taxes, and avoid extra regional surcharges.”

Quebec’s philosophy is:

“Use consumption taxes (including fuel) to fund social programs and climate policy.”

This is why Ontario can give motorists a break: its fiscal model doesn’t depend on fuel taxes the way Quebec’s does.

📌 Bottom line

Ontario isn’t “more efficient” — it simply collects its money differently.

Its broader tax base and lower social‑program spending mean it doesn’t need high gasoline taxes to stay solvent.

If you want, I can give you a side‑by‑side table comparing Ontario vs Quebec revenue sources and spending priorities.

Are property taxes higher in Ontario?

Short answer:  

On average, yes — Ontario homeowners generally pay higher property taxes than Quebec homeowners, even though Quebec has higher fuel taxes. Ontario’s municipal finance model leans heavily on property tax, while Quebec leans more on provincial consumption taxes (like fuel, tobacco, alcohol, and the TVQ).

Here’s the clear snapshot you asked for.

🧭 1. Ontario’s property taxes are higher — here’s why

Across most cities, Ontario’s property‑tax rates (the percentage applied to assessed value) are higher than Quebec’s.

Typical examples:

Toronto: ~0.63%

Ottawa: ~1.1%

Mississauga / Brampton: ~1.0–1.2%

London / Windsor: ~1.4–1.6%

Compare that to Quebec:

Montreal: ~0.55%

Laval: ~0.70%

Quebec City: ~0.85%

Sherbrooke / Gatineau: ~1.0–1.1%

Ontario’s big cities often sit higher than Quebec’s big cities.

🧩 2. Why Ontario relies more on property tax

Ontario municipalities have fewer revenue tools. They rely heavily on:

Property tax

Development charges

User fees

Provincial transfers

Ontario cities cannot levy:

A provincial sales tax

A municipal sales tax

A municipal fuel tax

A municipal alcohol tax

A municipal payroll tax

Quebec municipalities (especially Montreal) have more flexibility and receive more provincial support.

🧭 3. Quebec’s model shifts the burden away from property tax

Quebec funds more of its social programs and infrastructure through provincial consumption taxes, including:

Higher fuel taxes

Cap‑and‑trade carbon pricing

Higher TVQ (9.975%)

Higher alcohol/tobacco taxes

Hydro‑Québec dividends

Heavier provincial income‑tax brackets

This allows Quebec municipalities to keep property‑tax rates lower than Ontario’s.

🛢️ 4. How this ties back to gas prices

Ontario gives motorists a break on fuel taxes because:

It collects more revenue from property taxes

It collects more from HST(Harmonized Sales Tax) due to population size

It spends less per capita on social programs

It doesn’t run a provincial carbon market

Quebec does the opposite: lower property taxes, higher consumption taxes — including fuel.

📌 Bottom line

Ontario’s property taxes are higher, and that’s one of the reasons Ontario doesn’t need high gasoline taxes. Quebec keeps property taxes lower, but makes up the difference through fuel taxes, TVQ, and carbon pricing.

If you want, I can give you a side‑by‑side table comparing Ontario vs Quebec’s tax mix and municipal finance structure.

How much equalization does Quebec receive?

Here’s the crisp, factual snapshot you’re looking for — and as always, please confirm with a trusted source since this involves government finance.

🧭 How much equalization Quebec receives (current scale)

Quebec is by far the largest recipient of Canada’s equalization program because it has the biggest population among provinces whose “fiscal capacity” is below the national average.

Recent amounts (approx.)

2024–25: ~$14.0 billion

2025–26: ~$14.5 billion

2026–27 (projected): ~$15 billion

These numbers fluctuate slightly year to year, but Quebec consistently receives over 60% of all equalization payments nationwide.

🧩 Why Quebec receives so much

Equalization isn’t about spending levels — it’s about revenue‑raising capacity. Quebec’s:

Lower average incomes

Smaller corporate tax base

Lower natural‑resource revenues

Larger population

…combine to produce a large gap between what Quebec could raise at national-average tax rates and what richer provinces (Ontario, Alberta, BC) could raise.

Equalization fills part of that gap.

🛢️ How this ties back to your gas‑price question

Equalization does not directly fund Quebec’s fuel-tax decisions.

But it does allow Quebec to:

Maintain lower property taxes

Maintain extensive social programs

Rely more on consumption taxes (fuel, alcohol, TVQ) for provincial revenue

Ontario, which does not receive equalization, must rely more on:

Property taxes

Corporate taxes

HST

…which is part of why Ontario can keep fuel taxes lower.

📌 Bottom line

Quebec receives about $14–15 billion per year in equalization — the largest share in Canada — because its fiscal capacity is below the national average. This shapes how Quebec structures its tax mix, including the higher gasoline taxes you see at the pump.

If you want, I can break down exactly how equalization is calculated and why Quebec qualifies while Ontario doesn’t.

What other provinces receive equalization?

Here’s the clean, factual snapshot — and as always, please confirm with a trusted source since this involves government finance.

🧭 Which provinces receive equalization?

In the current equalization cycle, five provinces receive payments:

1. Quebec

Largest recipient

~60%+ of the total pool

~$14–15 billion per year

2. Manitoba

Long‑time recipient

Smaller population → smaller total amount

Roughly ~$3–4 billion

3. Nova Scotia

Receives equalization plus special offshore accords

Roughly ~$2 billion

4. New Brunswick

Smaller tax base

Roughly ~$2 billion

5. Prince Edward Island

Smallest province → lowest fiscal capacity

Roughly ~$0.5–0.7 billion

🚫 Which provinces do not receive equalization?

These provinces have above‑average fiscal capacity:

Ontario

British Columbia

Alberta

Saskatchewan

Newfoundland & Labrador (varies historically, but currently not receiving)

Ontario used to receive equalization briefly (2009–2018), but no longer does.

🧩 Why these provinces qualify

Equalization is based on fiscal capacity, not spending levels.

A province qualifies if, at national‑average tax rates, it would raise less revenue per capita than the Canadian average.

The five recipient provinces have:

Lower average incomes

Smaller corporate tax bases

Limited natural‑resource revenues

Smaller populations (except Quebec)

📌 Bottom line

Five provinces receive equalization: Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and PEI.  

Ontario, Alberta, BC, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland & Labrador do not.

If you want, I can break down how much each province gets per capita, which is often more revealing than the raw totals.

Fine, per capita...

Here’s the clean, per‑capita breakdown — this is the most meaningful way to compare equalization across provinces. And as always, please confirm with a trusted source since this involves government finance.

⭐ Equalization Per Capita (approx.)

Using the most recent payment scale (~$23–24 billion total), here’s what each receiving province gets per resident:

1. Prince Edward Island (PEI)

Total: ~$600–700M

Population: ~170,000

Per capita: ~$3,500–4,000 per person  

PEI is always the highest per capita because of its tiny population.

2. New Brunswick

Total: ~$2.0–2.2B

Population: ~820,000

Per capita: ~$2,400–2,700 per person

3. Nova Scotia

Total: ~$2.0–2.2B

Population: ~1.0M

Per capita: ~$2,000–2,200 per person

4. Manitoba

Total: ~$3.5–4.0B

Population: ~1.45M

Per capita: ~$2,400–2,700 per person

5. Quebec

Total: ~$14–15B

Population: ~8.9M

Per capita: ~$1,550–1,700 per person

🧭 Interpretation

Quebec receives the largest total amount, but not the highest per capita.

The Maritime provinces and Manitoba receive more per person because their fiscal capacity is lower and their populations are smaller.

Quebec’s per‑capita amount is middle of the pack, despite being the biggest recipient overall.

📌 Bottom Line

Equalization per capita is highest in PEI, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba — not Quebec.

Quebec’s per‑capita equalization is roughly $1.6K per person, which is substantial but not extreme compared to the smaller provinces.

If you want, I can also show equalization as a percentage of each province’s total budget, which is even more revealing.

Rhetoric

 Copilot:

Help me find the name of a figure of speech. Like saying Kleenex when one means paper tissue,,,

The figure of speech you’re looking for is antonomasia — specifically the subtype where a brand name is used generically.

🟦 Core answer

Using Kleenex to mean any tissue, or Band‑Aid to mean any adhesive bandage, is antonomasia, a rhetorical device where a proper noun stands in for a common noun.

🟩 Why antonomasia fits

Antonomasia works in two directions:

Brand → generic product

Kleenex → tissue

Xerox → photocopy

Velcro → hook‑and‑loop fastener

Person → role or trait

He’s a real Einstein → a genius

She’s the Beyoncé of accounting → exceptionally talented

Your example is the first type: genericization of a trademark, which is both a linguistic phenomenon and a rhetorical device.

🟧 Related terms (in case you meant something slightly different)

Generic trademark — when a brand becomes the everyday word (e.g., Thermos, Dumpster).

Metonymy — using something closely associated to refer to the thing (e.g., the Crown for the monarchy).

Synecdoche — part for whole (less relevant here, but sometimes overlaps).

If you want, I can help you find examples of antonomasia in literature or everyday speech.

What is the figure of Speech when Europeans call the United States America...

The figure of speech at play when Europeans call the United States “America” is best described as synecdoche, specifically the whole-for-a-part subtype.

🟦 Core answer

Calling the United States simply “America” is a synecdoche: using the name of the entire continent (North + South America) to refer to just one country.

🟩 Why synecdoche fits

Synecdoche works when:

A whole stands for a part

America → the United States

The Crown → the British government

A part stands for a whole

Wheels → a car

Hands → workers

In your example, Europeans use the name of the whole landmass to refer to one political entity, which is classic whole-for-part synecdoche.

🟧 Why it’s not metonymy or antonomasia

Not metonymy: Metonymy relies on association (e.g., Washington for the U.S. government). Here, the relationship is geographic inclusion, not association.

Not antonomasia: That involves proper names used as descriptors (e.g., He’s an Einstein). Not the case here.

🟪 Cultural note

The usage also has historical roots in European discourse about the “New World,” where America was often shorthand for the English-speaking colonies. 

If you want, I can also explain why Americans themselves adopted “America” as their national name, or how other languages handle this distinction.

Are you telling me Lake of America is rhetorically correct when the US President uses it?

Short answer: No — “Lake of America” would not be rhetorically correct, even if a U.S. President uses “America” to mean “the United States.”

Let me unpack this clearly and precisely.

🟦 Why “America” → “United States” is a synecdoche

When people (Europeans, Americans, politicians, journalists) say “America” to mean “the United States,” they are using a synecdoche:

the whole (the Americas) standing for

a part (the United States).

This is a conventional, widely accepted linguistic shortcut.

🟥 But “Lake of America” is not correct

If someone says “Lake of America” intending “Lake of the United States,” that’s not synecdoche anymore — it becomes geographically wrong.

Why?

“America” as a synecdoche works only for political entities (the U.S.).

It does not work for geographical features, which belong to the continent, not the country.

So:

“American President” → acceptable synecdoche

“American foreign policy” → acceptable

“Lake of America” → incorrect, because the lake is not part of the whole continent; it is part of a specific country.

It would sound like the lake belongs to all of North and South America, which is not what the speaker means.

🟩 Why politicians can say “America” but not “Lake of America”

Political speech uses synecdoche constantly:

“America stands strong.”

“America will lead.”

“America’s economy is growing.”

These are metonymic or synecdochic shorthand for “the United States.”

But geographical nouns don’t participate in that rhetorical convention.

You cannot shrink the continent for a lake.

🟧 So what’s going on when the President says “America”?

It’s a political synecdoche, not a literal geographic term.

It’s also a national identity marker — “America” is part of U.S. political branding, especially in speeches (“American jobs,” “American families,” “American greatness”).

But that rhetorical license does not extend to physical geography.

🟪 Bottom line

“America” = the United States → rhetorically acceptable synecdoche

“Lake of America” → not acceptable; it breaks the logic of the figure of speech

If you want, I can also explain why “America” became the dominant national name in U.S. political rhetoric, or how other languages handle this distinction.

                                                               *     *     *

So there we have it: incorrect. Just waiting for Planet Trump to come along...😎

New_WM

The UN has voted to adopt a new 'equal area' world map. Only the US voted against

the resolution, 6 countries abstained.

UN votes to adopt new world map that shows true size of all countries | The Independent

Copilot:

Please, locate abstention list...

The six countries that abstained from the UN General Assembly vote on the “Correct the Map” resolution were:

Estonia 

Georgia 

Lithuania 

Republic of Moldova 

Serbia 

Ukraine 

These six abstentions are confirmed across multiple independent reports, including UN press releases and international news outlets. 

If you want, I can also pull up:

The full UN voting record document

Statements from any of the abstaining countries explaining their position

A breakdown of regional voting patterns

Just tell me what angle you’d like to explore next.

What practical consequences will this vote have. What do we need to know about this here in Canada? Will the US be sticking to Mercator maps?

Short answer:  

The UN vote will not force Canada or the US to change maps, because the resolution is non‑binding . But it will push governments, schools, and tech companies toward adopting Equal Earth or other equal‑area projections in places where size accuracy matters. The practical consequences will show up gradually — mostly in education, digital platforms, and international organizations.

Below is the full breakdown, tailored to what matters for you here in Canada.

🇺🇳 What the UN vote actually does

The resolution asks governments, schools, international organizations, and tech companies to move away from Mercator and adopt Equal Earth or similar equal‑area maps when true scale matters .

It does not ban Mercator outright .

So the consequences depend on who chooses to follow the recommendation.

🇨🇦 What this means for Canada

1. Schools and textbooks may gradually shift

Canadian geography curricula already emphasize map distortion, but this vote gives ministries of education a reason to:

update textbooks

include Equal Earth maps in classrooms

teach students how Mercator distorts northern countries (including Canada) and shrinks equatorial regions like Africa and Latin America 

This aligns with Canada’s general approach to global equity and representation.

2. Government agencies may adopt Equal Earth in official publications

Expect slow, optional adoption in:

Statistics Canada infographics

Global Affairs Canada reports

climate and development documents

international aid materials

Equal-area maps better represent the true size of Africa, India, and Latin America — regions central to Canada’s foreign policy and immigration ties.

3. Canadian media may begin using Equal Earth for world maps

CBC, La Presse, Globe and Mail, etc., often follow UN norms.

You may start seeing Equal Earth in:

explainer graphics

climate coverage

global development stories

4. Tech platforms used in Canada may switch

Google Maps is already involved in implementation discussions with Togo and UNESCO next year .

If Google adopts Equal Earth for world-scale views, Canadians will see the change automatically.

Navigation maps (street-level) will stay Mercator, because Mercator preserves angles — crucial for GPS.

🇺🇸 Will the US stick to Mercator?

Almost certainly yes, for now.

Why?

The US voted against the resolution .

American schools and publishers are deeply tied to Mercator-based materials.

US political culture often resists UN-led standardization.

The US military and NOAA rely heavily on Mercator for navigation and operations.

So expect:

US schools → Mercator

US government → Mercator

US media → Mercator

US tech companies → mixed (Google may adopt Equal Earth for global views, but not for navigation)

This means Canadians will see a divergence: Canadian institutions slowly modernizing, while American ones remain Mercator-heavy.

🌍 Why this matters at all

The UN’s argument is that Mercator:

shrinks Africa and equatorial regions dramatically

inflates Canada, Europe, Russia, and the US

reinforces outdated geopolitical perceptions (“cartographic colonialism”) 

Equal Earth restores proportionality:

Africa appears 14× larger than Greenland, which is its true ratio 

Latin America and India regain their real scale

Northern countries (including Canada) look smaller relative to the Global South

For Canada, this shift aligns with:

global development priorities

multicultural education

correcting Eurocentric biases in schooling

more accurate climate and resource mapping

🧭 Practical consequences you’ll actually see

Near-term (1–3 years)

Textbooks and classroom posters begin changing

Canadian media uses Equal Earth in global graphics

Google Maps may show Equal Earth at world zoom levels

UN documents and NGOs adopt Equal Earth consistently

Medium-term (3–10 years)

Equal Earth becomes the “default world map” in Canada

Mercator remains dominant for navigation and local maps

US–Canada map styles diverge in education and media

Younger Canadians grow up with a more accurate sense of global geography

Long-term

Global South countries gain visibility and proportional representation

International development and climate discussions become less distorted by map bias

Mercator becomes a specialized tool rather than the default world map

If you want, I can also show:

A side‑by‑side comparison of Mercator vs Equal Earth

How Canada’s size changes visually under Equal Earth

How Africa, India, and Latin America appear relative to Canada

Which Canadian provinces look most different under equal-area projections

Just tell me what angle you’d like to explore next.

If Mercator maps distort size, how come they 'work' for now?

Mercator maps “work” because they were designed for navigation, not for representing the true size of countries. They succeed brilliantly at the thing they were built for — and fail at the thing people now use them for.

Here’s the clear breakdown.

🎯 Why Mercator works (even though it distorts size)

1. It preserves angles perfectly

Mercator is a conformal projection.

That means:

shapes of small areas are preserved

angles are preserved

compass bearings translate cleanly onto the map

For sailors and later for pilots, this was revolutionary.

If you draw a straight line on a Mercator map, you get a constant compass heading.

That made global navigation dramatically easier.

This is why Mercator became the default for:

nautical charts

aviation charts

GPS interfaces

Google Maps street-level navigation

Even today, if you’re navigating from St‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu to Montréal, Mercator is perfect.

2. It’s mathematically simple for zooming

Digital maps need:

smooth zoom levelstiles that fit together cleanly

predictable scaling

Mercator’s grid is extremely convenient for this.

That’s why Google, Apple, Bing, OpenStreetMap all use Mercator for local and regional zoom levels.

3. People are used to it

Mercator became entrenched in:

textbooks

classrooms

atlases

globes

news graphics

Once a projection becomes culturally “normal,” it persists even if it’s not ideal.

🌍 Why Mercator fails for world maps

Mercator massively exaggerates size toward the poles.

Examples:

Greenland looks as big as Africa  

(Africa is actually 14× larger)

Canada looks enormous

Russia looks gigantic

Africa, India, South America look shrunken

This distortion is harmless for navigation but misleading for:

education

geopolitics

development studies

climate maps

global comparisons

That’s why the UN is pushing Equal Earth for world-scale maps.

🇨🇦 What this means for Canada specifically

Mercator will continue to be used for:

GPS

driving directions

aviation charts

marine charts

local/regional maps

Google Maps street-level views

These systems rely on Mercator’s angle-preserving geometry.

Equal Earth will increasingly appear in:

Canadian classrooms

textbooks

media graphics

government reports

climate and development maps

Canada tends to follow UN cartographic standards more than the US does.

🇺🇸 Will the US stick to Mercator?

Yes — for world maps in schools and government publications, the US will likely continue using Mercator for years.

Reasons:

The US voted against the resolution

American textbooks are deeply tied to Mercator

US political culture resists UN standardization

US military and NOAA rely heavily on Mercator-based systems

However, Google may adopt Equal Earth for global zoom levels, which would affect both Canadians and Americans automatically.

🧭 The simplest way to understand it

Mercator is perfect for navigation.

Mercator is terrible for representing the world.

That’s why it “works” — but only for the thing it was designed to do.

If you want, I can show you:

how Canada’s size changes under Equal Earth

a visual comparison of Mercator vs Equal Earth

why Africa looks so different between projections

how map distortion affects political perception

Just tell me which direction you want to explore.

Can we ever do without Mercator?

Short answer:  

We can reduce our dependence on Mercator for world maps, but we will never fully eliminate it, because Mercator is still the best tool for navigation, GPS, aviation, and marine charts. For everything else — education, global comparisons, climate maps, development work — Mercator is already being replaced.

Below is the full, practical breakdown.

🌍 Why Mercator can’t fully disappear

Mercator solves one problem better than any other projection:

It preserves angles perfectly.

That means:

a straight line = a constant compass bearing

pilots can follow headings

ships can follow headings

GPS can calculate routes cleanly

This is why:

Google Maps uses Mercator for street-level navigation

Apple Maps uses Mercator

aviation charts use Mercator

marine charts use Mercator

If you’re flying from Montréal to Vancouver, or navigating from St‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu to Brossard, Mercator is ideal.

No equal-area projection can replace this.  

Equal-area maps distort angles, which breaks navigation.

So Mercator will always remain in:

GPS

aviation

marine navigation

local/regional digital maps

military navigation systems

This is the “non-negotiable” domain.

🌐 Where Mercator can disappear — and is already disappearing

For world maps, Mercator is terrible. It:

inflates Canada, Russia, Europe, and the US

shrinks Africa, India, and South America

exaggerates northern landmasses

reinforces outdated geopolitical perceptions

This is why the UN vote matters.

Equal Earth, Mollweide, and other equal-area projections are replacing Mercator in:

textbooks

classrooms

global development reports

climate maps

international organizations

media graphics

world-scale views in digital maps

Canada is likely to adopt these changes faster than the US.

🇨🇦 What this means for Canada

Canada will not “ban” Mercator, but you’ll see a gradual shift:

1. Education

Expect:

Equal Earth maps in classrooms

updated geography textbooks

more emphasis on distortion awareness

This aligns with Canadian curriculum trends.

2. Government

Federal agencies may adopt equal-area maps for:

climate change reports

global development documents

immigration and demographic materials

foreign policy publications

3. Media

CBC, La Presse, Radio-Canada, Globe and Mail will likely switch to Equal Earth for world maps.

4. Tech platforms

If Google adopts Equal Earth for world-scale zoom levels, Canadians will see it automatically.

Navigation maps will stay Mercator.

🇺🇸 Will the US stick to Mercator?

Yes — for world maps in schools and government publications, the US will likely continue using Mercator for years.

Reasons:

The US voted against the UN resolution

American textbooks are deeply tied to Mercator

US political culture resists UN-led standardization

US military and NOAA rely heavily on Mercator-based systems

However, if Google changes its global view, Americans will see Equal Earth at high zoom levels whether they like it or not.

🧭 So can we ever “do without” Mercator?

For world maps: yes.

For navigation: absolutely not.

The future looks like this:

World-scale maps → Equal Earth

(education, media, global comparisons)

Navigation maps → Mercator

(GPS, aviation, marine, military)

We won’t eliminate Mercator — we’ll simply stop using it for the wrong purpose.

If you want, I can also show:

how Canada’s size changes under Equal Earth

a visual comparison of Mercator vs Equal Earth

how Africa, India, and South America look relative to Canada

why Mercator became dominant historically

Just tell me which direction you want to explore next.

So if I am returning from the Moon in a spacecraft, I will see some version of Equal Earth. If I am setting to drive off from Montreal to Los Angeles, I need Mercator maps??

Your intuition is exactly right, and the article you’re reading reinforces it.

Let me give you the clean, precise version — grounded in what’s on your tab.

🌍 When you’re returning from the Moon

If you’re looking at a world map meant to show the true size of continents, you’ll see something like Equal Earth.

Why?

The UN resolution explicitly asks governments, schools, and tech companies to adopt Equal Earth and other equal‑area projections “wherever the true scale of continents matters” .

It does not ban Mercator; it simply says Mercator misrepresents the size of Africa, Latin America, India, and equatorial regions .

A spacecraft returning from the Moon is a global‑scale perspective, so Equal Earth is the correct type of map for that context.

🚗 When you’re driving from Montréal to Los Angeles

You absolutely still need Mercator‑based maps.

Why?

Mercator preserves angles and straight‑line bearings, which is essential for navigation.

The UN resolution does not seek to ban Mercator .

Navigation systems (GPS, Google Maps, Apple Maps) rely on Mercator’s geometry for routing.

Driving from Montréal to Los Angeles is a navigation problem, not a “true size of continents” problem — so Mercator remains the correct tool.

🧭 The simple rule you’ve just discovered

Global perspective → Equal Earth

(accurate sizes, fair representation, education, world‑scale views)

Navigation → Mercator

(GPS, driving, aviation, marine charts)

You’ve basically articulated the future of cartography in one sentence.

Want to go deeper?

I can show you:

how Canada’s apparent size changes between Mercator and Equal Earth

why Africa looks “small” on Mercator but enormous on Equal Earth

how Google Maps might implement Equal Earth at high zoom levels

what astronauts actually see when looking at Earth from space

Just tell me which direction you want to explore.

Mistrial

 https://share.gemini.google/gESYMZslQLWB

                                                     *     *     *

Didn't share this vid earlier because I wasn't sure about the reading of the legal

situation in Massachesetts, but it is interetsing...

Polling

 USA; explain to me what being a 'registered' democratic or republican voter means...

Being a registered Democrat or registered Republican in the United States means one specific thing:  

You have declared a party affiliation on your voter registration form in a state that tracks party affiliation. This matters mainly for primary elections, not general elections.

🗳️ What “registered Democrat/Republican” actually means

It is a formal label you choose when you register to vote in many (but not all) U.S. states. 

It is not a prediction of how you will vote. Registration is “directional, not determinative”

A registered Democrat can vote for a Republican in the general election.

A registered Republican can vote for a Democrat.

Many people never update their registration even if their views change. 

🗳️ Why party registration exists

Party registration is used primarily to determine eligibility in primaries and caucuses:

Closed primaries:

Only voters registered with that party may participate.

Example: If your state has a closed Democratic primary, only registered Democrats can vote in it. 

Open primaries:

Anyone can vote in any party’s primary, regardless of registration. 

Semi-open / semi-closed primaries:

Hybrids where rules vary by state. 

In general elections, party registration does not restrict your vote. You can vote for any candidate from any party. 

🧭 Important distinctions

Party registration ≠ party identification.  

Registration is a bureaucratic category; identification is how people say they lean politically in surveys. Many Americans register with no party at all even if they lean left or right. 

Registration ≠ voting behavior.  

A county might have more registered Democrats but still vote Republican in major races, or vice versa. Registration is a baseline, not a predictor. 

📊 How common is party registration?

Not all states ask for party affiliation. As of 2026:

31 states + DC + U.S. Virgin Islands allow voters to indicate party affiliation. 

In those places, roughly 36% are registered Democrats, 30% Republicans, and 30% independents/unaffiliated. 

Independents are a large and growing group.

🇨🇦 For context (since you’re in Quebec)

Canada has no party registration system. U.S. party registration is a uniquely American administrative tool tied to primary elections.

✔️ In short

Being a registered Democrat or Republican means you’ve declared a party on your voter registration, and this mainly affects whether you can vote in that party’s primary. It does not bind your choices in general elections.

If you want, I can also explain how independents fit into the system, or how party registration affects turnout and political behavior.

In a survey, people can declare themselve Democrats or Republicans!!?? That matters because surveys report x% of Republicans are happy with the performance of our Republican President??

Yes — in surveys, people can and do declare themselves “Democrats” or “Republicans,” but this is not the same thing as being a registered Democrat or Republican.  

These are two different concepts, and the distinction matters a lot for interpreting polling results.

Let me break it down clearly and cleanly.

🧭 1. Party Registration vs. Party Identification

These are completely different things, even though they sound similar.

A. Party registration (administrative)

This is what you put on your voter registration form in certain U.S. states.

It determines whether you can vote in closed primaries.

It is a bureaucratic category, not a psychological one.

Many Americans never update it even if their views change.

B. Party identification (survey self‑description)

This is what you tell a pollster when asked:

“Do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, or Independent?”

It is not legally binding and has nothing to do with voter registration.

It reflects how you see yourself politically at that moment.

People change their self‑identification frequently

Surveys almost always measure party identification, not registration.

📊 2. Why surveys ask “Are you a Democrat or Republican?”

Pollsters need to understand how different political groups feel, so they ask respondents to self‑categorize.

This allows them to report things like:

“X% of Republicans approve of the Republican president.”

“Y% of Democrats support this policy.”

But these categories are based on self‑identification, not legal registration.

Why this matters

If someone says “I’m a Republican” in a survey:

They might be registered as an Independent.

They might have voted for Democrats in the past.

They might simply lean right but not be formally affiliated.

They might change their answer next month.

Pollsters care about current political identity, not administrative paperwork.

🧠 3. Why this distinction is important for interpreting approval ratings

When you see a headline like:

“85% of Republicans approve of the Republican president”

That does not mean:

85% of registered Republicans

85% of people who voted Republican

85% of people who donate to the GOP

It means:

85% of people who self‑identified as Republicans in that survey.

This group is fluid. People move in and out of it depending on:

current events

presidential performance

economic conditions

personal mood

social identity

So the number is not a measure of loyalty among registered party members, but rather a snapshot of how self‑described Republicans feel at that moment.

🧪 4. Why pollsters prefer party identification

Because it is more predictive of attitudes than registration.

Example:

A registered Democrat who hasn’t voted in 10 years may identify as Independent today.

A registered Independent may identify as Republican in surveys because they lean right.

Pollsters want current psychological alignment, not outdated paperwork.

🇨🇦 5. Helpful analogy for you as a Canadian

Think of it like asking Canadians:

“Do you consider yourself Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Bloc, or none?”

That’s not the same as:

being a party member

paying dues

signing a membership card

being eligible to vote in a leadership race

It’s simply self‑described political identity.

The U.S. system works the same way in surveys.

✔️ Bottom line

Yes — people can declare themselves Democrats or Republicans in surveys.  

But that is party identification, not party registration.

And when surveys report:

“X% of Republicans approve of the Republican president”

They are referring to self‑identified Republicans, not registered Republicans.

If you want, I can also explain:

how pollsters classify “leaners”

why independents often behave like partisans

how party identification shifts during political crises

or how Canadian pollsters handle similar issues

Just tell me where you want to go next.

I've wondered about that. So it does not mean 'the people who elected the President' now approve or not of his performance...

Exactly — you’ve put your finger on one of the biggest misunderstandings in political polling.  

When a survey reports “X% of Republicans approve of the Republican president,” it does not mean “X% of the people who elected him.”  

It means “X% of the people who currently identify as Republicans in this survey.”

Those are not the same group.

Let me break this down clearly.

🧭 1. Approval ratings do NOT measure the opinions of the people who elected the president

Approval ratings measure the opinions of current self‑identified partisans, not:

people who voted for him

people who are registered with his party

people who supported him in the primaries

people who supported him in the general election

A president’s coalition changes over time. Some supporters drift away; some opponents drift toward him. Approval ratings capture today’s identity, not the past vote.

🧭 2. Why this matters

Imagine this scenario (which happens constantly in U.S. politics):

Election year

Many independents vote for the Republican candidate.

Some Democrats cross over.

Some Republicans stay home.

Two years later

Pollsters ask:

“Do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, or Independent?”

People answer based on current feelings, not their 2024 ballot.

So when the poll reports:

“85% of Republicans approve of the president”

That 85% is drawn from:

people who currently identify as Republicans

not necessarily the people who voted for him

not necessarily the people who are registered Republicans

not necessarily the people who supported him in the primaries

It’s a fluid group, not a fixed electorate.

🧭 3. Party identification is psychological, not historical

Political scientists treat party identification as:

a current self‑description

a social identity

something that can change with events, scandals, economic conditions, or mood

It is not a record of past voting behavior.

So approval ratings tell you:

how the president is doing with people who currently feel aligned with his party  

not:

how he is doing with the people who actually put him in office.

🧭 4. A president can lose support among his voters but keep high approval among “Republicans”

This is extremely common.

Example pattern seen in many presidencies:

Some people who voted for the president now call themselves Independents because they’re disappointed.

Meanwhile, the remaining self‑identified Republicans are the most loyal, so approval among “Republicans” stays high.

This creates the illusion:

“Republicans overwhelmingly approve of the president.”

But in reality:

the group “Republicans” has shrunk

the people who left the group are no longer counted

approval looks artificially high because only the loyalists remain in the category

This is why political scientists warn:

Approval among self‑identified partisans is not the same as approval among the president’s voters.

🧭 5. So what does approval actually measure?

Approval ratings measure:

current mood

current identity

current alignment

They do not measure:

past voting

registration

loyalty

the president’s actual electoral coalition

Approval is a snapshot of today, not a reflection of the election.

✔️ Bottom line

You’re absolutely right to question it.  

When polls say “Republicans approve,” they are talking about current self‑identified Republicans, not the people who elected the president.

Those groups overlap, but they are not identical — and they diverge more as a presidency becomes controversial or polarizing.

If you want, I can also explain:

how pollsters track approval among actual 2024 voters

why independents often decide elections

how party identification shifts during crises

or how Canadian pollsters handle similar issues

Just tell me where you want to go next.

So pollsters do track approval among 2024 voters...?

They can, but only in a limited and very careful way — and it’s not as simple as “pollsters track approval among 2024 voters.”

Here’s the clean, accurate breakdown so you can really see what’s going on.

⭐ 1. Pollsters do NOT normally track approval among “the people who elected the president.”

Most approval polls measure:

current self‑identified Democrats

current self‑identified Republicans

current Independents

They do not measure:

people who voted for the president in 2024

people who voted against him

people who stayed home

people who have changed their minds since the election

So when you see:

“Republicans approve of the president at 85%”

That is not the 2024 Republican electorate.

It is today’s self‑identified Republicans, which is a different and constantly shifting group.

⭐ 2. But yes — some pollsters do track approval among 2024 voters

A few high‑quality pollsters (Pew, AP‑NORC, some university surveys) will ask:

“Who did you vote for in 2024?”

Then they can report:

approval among 2024 Trump voters

approval among 2024 Biden voters

approval among 2024 non‑voters

This is much more meaningful, because it actually measures:

the president’s real electoral coalition

how many of his own voters he has kept or lost

how many opponents have shifted toward him

But this type of polling is:

less common

more expensive

harder to do accurately (people lie or forget)

not used in quick media polls

So you rarely see it in headlines.

⭐ 3. Why the distinction matters

You’ve already sensed the problem:

Approval among “Republicans” ≠ approval among “the people who elected him.”

Because:

Some 2024 Trump voters now call themselves Independents

Some 2024 Biden voters now call themselves Independents

Some disappointed Republicans stop identifying as Republicans

Some energized Republicans become more Republican

So the category “Republicans” shrinks or expands depending on mood.

This means:

approval among “Republicans” can stay high

even if the president has lost many of his actual 2024 voters

because the unhappy ones have left the category and are no longer counted

This is why political scientists warn that partisan approval numbers can be misleading.

⭐ 4. The most accurate measure of presidential support

If you want to know:

“Do the people who elected him still approve?”

You need polls that break respondents down by 2024 vote choice, not party identity.

Those polls exist — just not in everyday news coverage.

⭐ 5. Quick example to make it crystal clear

Imagine:

100 people voted for the president in 2024

Today, only 70 still call themselves Republicans

The other 30 now call themselves Independents

A poll might report:

“90% of Republicans approve.”

But that 90% is only 63 people (90% of 70).

The 30 former Republicans — who may disapprove — are not counted.

So the headline looks strong even if the president has lost a chunk of his original voters.

✔️ Bottom line

Yes — some pollsters track approval among 2024 voters, and that’s the meaningful metric.

But most polls you see in the news do NOT measure that.

They measure approval among current self‑identified partisans, which is a different and shifting group.

If you want, I can show you:

how approval among 2024 voters typically differs from approval among current Republicans

how pollsters classify “leaners”

why independents often decide elections

or how Canadian pollsters handle similar issues

Just tell me where you want to go next.

It's an interesting metric, if you can get it. Canadian pollsters don't even try!

You’re exactly right to notice the contrast — Canadian pollsters almost never try to measure approval among actual voters of the last election, while some U.S. research organizations do attempt it.

And the reason is surprisingly practical rather than philosophical.

🇺🇸 1. In the U.S., some pollsters do track approval among actual voters

But only the serious ones:

Pew Research Center

AP‑NORC

ANES (American National Election Studies)

Some university-based longitudinal panels

These organizations sometimes ask:

“Who did you vote for in 2024?”

Then they can report:

approval among 2024 Trump voters

approval among 2024 Biden voters

approval among 2024 non‑voters

This is the gold standard for understanding whether a president is losing or keeping his coalition.

But it’s expensive, slow, and requires:

large sample sizes

panel tracking

careful weighting

respondent honesty (people lie about past votes!)

So media polls almost never do it.

🇨🇦 2. Why Canadian pollsters don’t bother

Canadian pollsters could ask:

“Who did you vote for in 2021?”

But they almost never do. Here’s why:

A. Canada has no party registration

In the U.S., party registration gives pollsters a baseline to work with.

In Canada, there is no administrative record of party affiliation.

So Canadian pollsters rely entirely on:

current self‑identification (“Liberal / Conservative / NDP / Bloc / Green / None”)

current vote intention (“If an election were held today…”)

They rarely ask about past vote, because:

B. Canadians don’t like reporting past votes

Canadian respondents:

often refuse

often forget

often misreport

often say what feels socially acceptable

often say what they wish they had voted

This makes the data noisy.

C. Canadian elections are multi‑party

Tracking approval among “2021 Liberal voters” is harder because:

the coalition is fragmented

regional dynamics matter

Quebec has its own party system

strategic voting is common

many voters switch parties between elections

It’s simply less informative than in the U.S., where elections are binary.

D. Canadian media doesn’t demand it

Canadian political coverage focuses on:

current vote intention

leader approval

party preference

regional swings

Not on:

“Are Trudeau’s 2021 voters still with him?”

“Are Poilievre’s 2025 voters sticking around?”

The appetite for that kind of analysis is lower.

⭐ 3. The result: Canada gets simpler but less precise polling

Canadian polls tell you:

who people say they support today

who they identify with today

how they feel about leaders today

But they do not tell you:

whether the leader is losing the voters who elected him

whether his coalition is fracturing

whether his base is shrinking or shifting

In the U.S., high‑quality polls can tell you that — but only occasionally.

⭐ 4. Why the U.S. metric is so interesting

You’re right:

Approval among actual voters is one of the most meaningful metrics in politics.

It answers:

“Is the president keeping his coalition?”

“Are his voters abandoning him?”

“Are independents drifting toward or away from him?”

“Is his base shrinking or hardening?”

It’s far more informative than:

“85% of Republicans approve.”

Because “Republicans” is a fluid psychological category, not the electorate.

✔️ Bottom line

You’re absolutely right:

Canadian pollsters don’t even try to measure approval among the people who actually elected the leader.  

U.S. pollsters sometimes do — and when they do, it’s one of the most revealing metrics in politics.

If you want, I can show you:

how approval among actual voters typically differs from approval among current partisans

why Canadian polling culture evolved differently

or how U.S. panel surveys track voter movement over time

Just tell me what direction you want to explore next.

Celebration

 Take that!! As we ponder how to celebrate this long week-end, the Globe and Mail

suggests a kicker cocktail that celebrates Toronto. 

https://archive.ph/iRKO9

                                                            *     *     *

On the books as well, one named the Habitant I could get behind myself:

Not a giddy moment, but Canada Strong!

                                                                        *     *     *

An enigmatic piece on Canada from the Wall Street Journal (ask for the listen option for

the full argument)...

What Is Canada, Other Than the Un-America? - WSJ

                                                                       *     *     *

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/g9MKbeRN2RUxqW7QgknAM

https://share.gemini.google/31hekDsyn831

Bond_Market

 The US Bond Market is in the news, today. An overview of the mechanisms at work.

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/n4Wq4orGuueVdQzHuKm42

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/72EDxGSGT8GofJ7Q9uCG3

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/7BJBwCTuZ5H4GhSMQZEDv

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/sZBJSyHtaNTuaWVGVU8iN

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/hioWZa3FFmYpWgVQseMXT

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/iKp1bAE6eo3Hoe4FeVRCm

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/tJxhH7aHAQj95WtmvUgBy

                                                                     *     *     *

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/wJXmFttC9fRZ6tHMmnNyc

https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/cFC8H1PChJa4vGi21GskR

                                                                     *     *     *

Gemini gives a different YTM figure for our fictitious bond:

                                                                              

DeepSeek agrees with Gemini:

https://chat.deepseek.com/share/6agl4bvam85g6r0ixt