I do not think I am going to make another projection on the seats at this time because I can not find a consistent set of polling numbers that jive over the regions.
Clearly there was some strong shifts against Harper after the leaders debate, but I am still left with the following questions:
Which people are going to vote? We know that only about 60-65% of Canadians are going to vote. The polling companies are not weeding the non voters. They do weed out the undecided, but there it is not clear if they are voters or non voters.
Will Harper being outside of majority territory push him back up?
Will the NDP continue to gain on the Liberals?
Where will all those Green voters go?
I am also looking at the work by Werner Antweiler at UBC and it is making me rethink my whole paradigm with seat projections.
So, I could make a random gut based guess at the moment, but instead I am going to re examine my model and see if there where the trend in the polls is going.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Interesting research from UBC
UBC Reports | Vol. 54 | No. 10 | Oct. 2, 2008
Re-engaging Non-voters Key to Election Victory: UBC Study
By Lorraine Chan
The fight for the elusive swing vote may not be the key to a party’s victory, says a UBC researcher. Data shows that victory rather lies in turning non-voters into voters.
In the first study of its kind, UBC economist Werner Antweiler looks at the voter migration patterns of the three most recent federals elections in Canada and the three most recent provincial elections in B.C.
His findings suggest that the real deal-breakers during a tight electoral race reside within the large pool of non-voters who are “tethered” to a party, but decide to abstain from voting.
“The swing vote alone doesn’t decide elections,” observes Antweiler, an associate professor at UBC’s Sauder School of Business.
“In my view, it comes down to giving the people who normally vote for a party a reason why they should come out and vote again for that party,” he says. “What carries much more weight is non-voters turning into voters, and voters turning into non-voters.”
More than eight million eligible voters stayed at home in each of the last three federal elections. In 2000, 2004, and 2006, only about 60 to 64 per cent of eligible voters cast their ballots.
Using sophisticated statistical techniques, Antweiler analyzed aggregate riding-by-riding election data to track the inflow and outflow of voters from each party and from the pool of non-voters. His findings were recently published in the journal Electoral Studies.
Antweiler says previous research shows that Canadian voters tend to exhibit a degree of “tethered partisanship.”
“People’s political choices don’t change much over their lifetime. They would rather abstain than switch support to a less-favoured party. Most voters don’t float and drift; they’re tethered.” To test his theory, Antweiler looked at the 1996, 2001 and 2005 provincial elections in B.C. He found that in 2001, disaffected NDP voters did not massively switch their preferences to other parties, but merely abstained. That year, 124,000 of the people who voted NDP in 1996 stayed home. However, the NDP regained much of its vote in the following provincial election in 2005. About 208,000 voters who sat out on the previous 2001 election turned up to vote, or voted for the first time. The 2001 non-voters who voted in the 2005 provincial election split their preferences roughly 30 per cent and 70 per cent between the B.C. Liberals and the NDP, respectively. “The results indicate that NDP sympathizers who abstained in 2001 returned to their original preference in 2005.”
Compared to the B.C. provincial scene, the federal elections yielded much more complex findings, says Antweiler. Voter migration patterns varied widely from region to region. In addition, the 2004 merger between the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance Party birthed the Conservative Party of Canada.
This “severed” tether forced voters to find new homes, notes Antweiler.
In Ontario, most of the Canadian Alliance voters shifted loyalties to the new Conservative Party, but about 30 per cent of the Progressive Conservative voters in 2000 drifted to the Liberal Party in 2004. This gain for the Liberal Party, however, was offset by 13 per cent of its 2000 voters staying at home in 2004. In Western Canada, the disruption for the new Conservative Party was even more significant, but it mattered less for seats in the House of Commons. About 13 per cent of Canadian Alliance voters simply abstained, “presumably unhappy or uncertain about the direction of the new merged party,” says Antweiler. More dramatically, the base of the Progressive Conservatives collapsed in Western Canada. Only about 36 per cent of those who voted Progressive Conservative in 2000 cast their ballot for the new Conservative Party in 2004; the rest went elsewhere or abstained. Antweiler says the high volatility of the vote in Quebec means that many federal elections are won and lost in this province. His findings show that in 2006, only about 60 per cent of Liberal Party voters in 2004 cast their ballot again for the Liberal Party in 2006, while another 23 per cent withdrew their support by not voting.
In comparison, the Conservative Party gained new support by attracting more than 500,000 votes from the pool of 2004 non-voters and new voters in Quebec.
Antweiler cautions that the relatively large simultaneous gains and losses of voters for the Conservative Party in Quebec also signify the party’s lack of consolidation in this province.
“Given the unsettled state of voter preferences in Quebec, it is more likely than not that Quebec will be the key political battleground during the forthcoming federal election.” For more information about voter migration research, visit: http://strategy.sauder.ubc.ca/antweiler/votermigration
Monday, October 6, 2008
Some Quick Federal Election Observations
First off, I have upgraded my sign, I have left the world of the bag sign and have a three by four foot coroplast one on my fence now. I am curious to see if it last to election day.
Burma shaving today was not too bad because the negative responses were much more muted, but then everyone seemed more muted today. I am supposed to be out there tomorrow am again, but I am not sure if I will be able to if I am feeling sick.
Ben had a chance to ask a question of a politician again, he asked Keith Martin, Liberal MP for Esquimalt Juan de Fuca, if he was in favour of kids being able to vote. Ben said the answer was very clear and to the point - No - though Keith Martin did say he could join the Liberals and help the party win.....
I like the fact Ben and Daniel are bothing taking an interest in the election. I am not telling them what think and make it entirely clear that they need to explain to me who they support and why and if it is one of my friends, why they are supporting him. I do not accept "Because you are supporting him"
Burma shaving today was not too bad because the negative responses were much more muted, but then everyone seemed more muted today. I am supposed to be out there tomorrow am again, but I am not sure if I will be able to if I am feeling sick.
Ben had a chance to ask a question of a politician again, he asked Keith Martin, Liberal MP for Esquimalt Juan de Fuca, if he was in favour of kids being able to vote. Ben said the answer was very clear and to the point - No - though Keith Martin did say he could join the Liberals and help the party win.....
I like the fact Ben and Daniel are bothing taking an interest in the election. I am not telling them what think and make it entirely clear that they need to explain to me who they support and why and if it is one of my friends, why they are supporting him. I do not accept "Because you are supporting him"
Friday, October 3, 2008
Election preditions on October
Based on more polling data and information on individual ridings, here is where I see things at the moment.
One thing that happens in every election is that almost everyone over estimates the power of incumbency - it is a factor but only a measurable difference in your first election as an incumbent for the party.
Another things that happens is that most people assume one election will look like the next. That someone that polled at 10% in a riding can not win, that someone that won by more than 10% over the number two party can not lose. These are constantly shown to be false in Canadian elections. These two assumptions lead to people making significant errors in how many seats parties will win in an election.
How do I think the election will end? I still believe we will see a large Conservative majority. Harper will be able to build a larger majority than Chretien did in 1997 with the same popular vote because the main opposition party in this election is their support much more dispersed. Preston Manning of the Reform party had his vote concentrated in one region, much as the Bloc has their vote only in region. The Liberal party is all over the country. This means the Liberals are on course to lose a lot more seats than anyone expects in this election.
Another way to measure the relative support level of the parties is to look at the election as if the Green Party vote simply did not exist. If we do this, the Conservative party has about 41% of the vote in the election and the Liberals about 27.5% and the NDP 21%. Looking at the election as a three party race to win seats outside of Quebec means the Conservatives are comfortably into majority government territory.
Another factor to consider in the election is the impact of voter turn out. The supporters of the Conservatives are the most likely to come out and vote, next highest are the core New Democrats and the core Bloc voters. The Liberals have a much lower level of core do or die supporters. The Green vote on election day is very, very hard to estimate because their supporters are young and not nearly as attached to the party or voting as the others.
I see the impact of turnout being a negative for the Liberals and Greens and a benefit for the other parties. Based on that, I am estimating the final election day support for the parties to be:
Taking these numbers across the nation we get the following result:
The biggest change from my first prediction for October 14th has been the revival of the Bloc. I now believe they are the party most likely to for the official opposition in Ottawa.
I am now comfortable in predicting a shut out for the Liberals in BC and the higher number of Conservative seats in the Maritimes.
I keep putting my numbers for Ontario through various algorithms and keep coming up with large Conservative numbers - I am at odds with most other people on this and I am not sure what to do about this. I put it down to basis in favour of the previous election results. The Liberals are down a long way in Ontario, the math just keeps pointing towards a lot of loses for them.
| Party | BC | AB | SK | MN | ON | QC | NB | NS | PE | NF | Nt | |
| CPC | 25 | 28 | 13 | 10 | 57 | 14 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 164 |
| LPC | 2 | | | 2 | 31 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 54 |
| NDP | 11 | | 1 | 2 | 18 | 2 | 1 | 2 | | 1 | | 38 |
| Bloc | | | | | | 52 | | | | | | 52 |
| Ind | | | | | | 1 | | 1 | | | | 2 |
| GP | | | | | | | | | | | | |
One thing that happens in every election is that almost everyone over estimates the power of incumbency - it is a factor but only a measurable difference in your first election as an incumbent for the party.
Another things that happens is that most people assume one election will look like the next. That someone that polled at 10% in a riding can not win, that someone that won by more than 10% over the number two party can not lose. These are constantly shown to be false in Canadian elections. These two assumptions lead to people making significant errors in how many seats parties will win in an election.
How do I think the election will end? I still believe we will see a large Conservative majority. Harper will be able to build a larger majority than Chretien did in 1997 with the same popular vote because the main opposition party in this election is their support much more dispersed. Preston Manning of the Reform party had his vote concentrated in one region, much as the Bloc has their vote only in region. The Liberal party is all over the country. This means the Liberals are on course to lose a lot more seats than anyone expects in this election.
Another way to measure the relative support level of the parties is to look at the election as if the Green Party vote simply did not exist. If we do this, the Conservative party has about 41% of the vote in the election and the Liberals about 27.5% and the NDP 21%. Looking at the election as a three party race to win seats outside of Quebec means the Conservatives are comfortably into majority government territory.
Another factor to consider in the election is the impact of voter turn out. The supporters of the Conservatives are the most likely to come out and vote, next highest are the core New Democrats and the core Bloc voters. The Liberals have a much lower level of core do or die supporters. The Green vote on election day is very, very hard to estimate because their supporters are young and not nearly as attached to the party or voting as the others.
I see the impact of turnout being a negative for the Liberals and Greens and a benefit for the other parties. Based on that, I am estimating the final election day support for the parties to be:
- Conservatives - 39.0%
- Liberals - 23.1%
- NDP - 20.7%
- Bloc - 9.8%
- Greens - 7.4%
Taking these numbers across the nation we get the following result:
| Party | BC | AB | SK | MN | ON | QC | NB | NS | PE | NF | Nt | |
| CPC | 26 | 27 | 12 | 10 | 66 | 12 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 171 |
| LPC | | | | 1 | 20 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 40 |
| NDP | 12 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 20 | 3 | 1 | 2 | | 1 | | 45 |
| Bloc | | | | | | 53 | | | | | | 53 |
| Ind | | | | | | 1 | | | | | | 1 |
| GP | | | | | | | | | | | | |
The biggest change from my first prediction for October 14th has been the revival of the Bloc. I now believe they are the party most likely to for the official opposition in Ottawa.
I am now comfortable in predicting a shut out for the Liberals in BC and the higher number of Conservative seats in the Maritimes.
I keep putting my numbers for Ontario through various algorithms and keep coming up with large Conservative numbers - I am at odds with most other people on this and I am not sure what to do about this. I put it down to basis in favour of the previous election results. The Liberals are down a long way in Ontario, the math just keeps pointing towards a lot of loses for them.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Leader's Debate
Pointless and irrelevant.
No one did badly enough to suffer, no one did well enough to matter. That means in Canada and the US.
No one did badly enough to suffer, no one did well enough to matter. That means in Canada and the US.
John Horgan the next leader of the BC NDP?
The more I see of John Horgan, the more I am impressed with him. I still disagree with the NDP approach on most issues and think their anti-carbon tax campaign is a huge political mistake for them.
John Horgan has shown he has a strong set of skills as an MLA.
He is a good retail politician, his constituents know him and like him. The NDP is weak on this aspect at the moment as very few of their MLAs are good at that hand shaking thing and meaning it. Of the five lower island NDP MLAs he is clearly the best liked as a person.
He has shown himself to be a strong advocate for his constituency. The NDP has some MLAs that may become good at this down the road, but most of them still seem to be figuring out what it is they can really do as an opposition MLA. Some are clearly retiring after only one term because they seem to be at a loss about why they are there. John Horgan was up and running in 2005.
John is at ease in front of crowd, he can speak in front of a camera and come off relaxed and comfortable. This is not a skill most people can learn, look at Stephen Harper, he will never be relaxed and comfortable in front of any group of people.
In the turmoil and shotgun approach of the NDP opposition to the Liberals, he has been one of the few MLAs that has been able to really score points on a consistent basis. He knows how to play the game of politics.
After the next election when the NDP will be badly defeated by the Liberals - the few polls at the end of the summer indicating something close to a tie are not realistic in my opinion - the party will be looking to get rid of Carole James. Once she has resigned a leadership race will begin. The people I see in the race are:
I do not see any obvious women that would be running for the leadership in 2010/11. I am looking around at who there might be but honestly can not see any woman out there with a serious ambition to make a run for it. I think this is a serious problem that there seems to be no woman in the wings ready to be leader or make a serious run for leader. Any party that does not have a serious woman contender for the top job at this point has a serious problem they need to address.
Best I can come with would be Andrea Reimer, but she is still too young and without experience as an MLA or MP, or Dawn Black and she is 65 now. The other NDP women MPs and MLAs do not seem to have any indication of an ambition to be leader.
I did not include Mike Farnworth because I am not convinced he will make a run for the job.
John Horgan strikes me as by far the strongest person out there for the party. He has the sort of presence that would give the NDP a serious chance at winning the election in 2013 or 2017. Much of course depends on who the next Liberal leader is and if the Liberals retain their position as the only party to the right of the NDP.
John Horgan has shown he has a strong set of skills as an MLA.
He is a good retail politician, his constituents know him and like him. The NDP is weak on this aspect at the moment as very few of their MLAs are good at that hand shaking thing and meaning it. Of the five lower island NDP MLAs he is clearly the best liked as a person.
He has shown himself to be a strong advocate for his constituency. The NDP has some MLAs that may become good at this down the road, but most of them still seem to be figuring out what it is they can really do as an opposition MLA. Some are clearly retiring after only one term because they seem to be at a loss about why they are there. John Horgan was up and running in 2005.
John is at ease in front of crowd, he can speak in front of a camera and come off relaxed and comfortable. This is not a skill most people can learn, look at Stephen Harper, he will never be relaxed and comfortable in front of any group of people.
In the turmoil and shotgun approach of the NDP opposition to the Liberals, he has been one of the few MLAs that has been able to really score points on a consistent basis. He knows how to play the game of politics.
After the next election when the NDP will be badly defeated by the Liberals - the few polls at the end of the summer indicating something close to a tie are not realistic in my opinion - the party will be looking to get rid of Carole James. Once she has resigned a leadership race will begin. The people I see in the race are:
- Rob Flemming
- Gregor Robertson
- John Horgan
- Adrian Dix
- Bob Simpson
- Bruce Ralston
I do not see any obvious women that would be running for the leadership in 2010/11. I am looking around at who there might be but honestly can not see any woman out there with a serious ambition to make a run for it. I think this is a serious problem that there seems to be no woman in the wings ready to be leader or make a serious run for leader. Any party that does not have a serious woman contender for the top job at this point has a serious problem they need to address.
Best I can come with would be Andrea Reimer, but she is still too young and without experience as an MLA or MP, or Dawn Black and she is 65 now. The other NDP women MPs and MLAs do not seem to have any indication of an ambition to be leader.
I did not include Mike Farnworth because I am not convinced he will make a run for the job.
John Horgan strikes me as by far the strongest person out there for the party. He has the sort of presence that would give the NDP a serious chance at winning the election in 2013 or 2017. Much of course depends on who the next Liberal leader is and if the Liberals retain their position as the only party to the right of the NDP.
Immigrants and Canadian Politics
I have been looking back into Canadian history and I think Elizabeth May of the Greens is the first leader of a major national party in Canada that is an immigrant.
It is interesting that as a nation of immigrants we have never had a major party leader that was an immigrant. Not only is Elizabeth May a break through for the Green party, she is a break through for immigrants to Canada.
We have had many immigrant MPs over the years, and representation of immigrants in the parliament has been good over the last number of elections but there is something of a glass ceiling for immigrants in holding the top offices in the country.
Yes, we have two immigrants as Governor General - but it is a ceremonial post appointed by the government.
BC has had two immigrant permiers in the last generation, but they seem to be the exception when one looks at other provinces. BC was also the first province in Canada to elect a permier that was not a Christian - Dave Barrett is Jewish.
I am curious why immigrants are not getting into the leadership in this nation? The last Liberal Leadership race had two candidates run that were born in Italy, Joe Volpe who killed his slim chances with the air of coruption to his campaign, and Maurizio Bevilacqua who pulled out when he saw his chances of winning were very low.
I am not including people as immigrants that came from the UK during the Imperial Era of Canada - anyone coming here before 1945. This includes the following people:
Conservatives:
John A MacDonald - born in Scotland came to Canada at age 5
Mackenzie Bowell - born in England came to Canada at age 8
Liberals
George Brown - born in Scotland came to Canada at age 25
Alexander MacKenzie - born in Scotland came to Canada at age 20
CCF
MJ Coldwell - born in England came to Canada at age 22
Tommy Douglas - born in Scotland came to Canada at age 6
It is interesting that as a nation of immigrants we have never had a major party leader that was an immigrant. Not only is Elizabeth May a break through for the Green party, she is a break through for immigrants to Canada.
We have had many immigrant MPs over the years, and representation of immigrants in the parliament has been good over the last number of elections but there is something of a glass ceiling for immigrants in holding the top offices in the country.
Yes, we have two immigrants as Governor General - but it is a ceremonial post appointed by the government.
BC has had two immigrant permiers in the last generation, but they seem to be the exception when one looks at other provinces. BC was also the first province in Canada to elect a permier that was not a Christian - Dave Barrett is Jewish.
I am curious why immigrants are not getting into the leadership in this nation? The last Liberal Leadership race had two candidates run that were born in Italy, Joe Volpe who killed his slim chances with the air of coruption to his campaign, and Maurizio Bevilacqua who pulled out when he saw his chances of winning were very low.
I am not including people as immigrants that came from the UK during the Imperial Era of Canada - anyone coming here before 1945. This includes the following people:
Conservatives:
John A MacDonald - born in Scotland came to Canada at age 5
Mackenzie Bowell - born in England came to Canada at age 8
Liberals
George Brown - born in Scotland came to Canada at age 25
Alexander MacKenzie - born in Scotland came to Canada at age 20
CCF
MJ Coldwell - born in England came to Canada at age 22
Tommy Douglas - born in Scotland came to Canada at age 6
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)