The issue is that the map doesn't account for population density. Toronto has high population density but it shows up as a very small dot compared to large country-side-right-leaning regions that will take half the territory of a province.
I'm not sure population density matters here. The GTA clearly shows up as red on the political map and green on the mobility map. As mentioned, there are plenty of places where it does not hold true. In fact, some of the largest ridings of all (Northern Quebec, Yukon, NWT) are not Conservative leaning, yet are on the green side for mobility. But there still does seem to be a trend towards the mobile regions leaning to the right.
The point is that that "dot" of Toronto GTA represents more human beings than all of Alberta.
You're judging by "geographic space taken up". Your conclusion is actually that geographic land area leans to the right, or more prosaically, that liberals move to cities and that coincidentally, oil was found in a right-leaning province.
The original assertion referred to neighbourhoods, which do tend to grow inversely to the population density. In my experience, a resident of Toronto might consider their neighbourhood to be just a block or two. While rural residents think of their neighbourhood as a many kilometre wide radius. Census/electoral divisions are a decent proxy for what we are trying to measure here, I feel. Certainly for the medium-sized rural divisions that are most relevant to the discussion.
I believe I understand what you and the parent are getting at, but it appears to be of a different discussion.
