Friday, December 10, 2010

REMINDER

<- Click here to see the full postSorry, no extra data today!

Reminder, we've moved to: http://www.ridingbyriding.ca/

Sunday, May 9, 2010

forum

- Sorry, no extra data today!

again, data has been moved here from the forum
- Sorry, no extra data today!

POST DATE MAR 18

Historical

1999
PC - 31
Lib - 13
NDP - 5

1995
PC - 42
lib - 11
ndp - 7

1990
NDP - 35
Lib - 18
PC - 7
- Sorry, no extra data today!

POST DATE MAR 17

1 riding is mostly outside the new province but contains a small municipality within it (Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock)
3 ridings are split around half-half in terms of population (Dufferin-Caledon, York-Simcoe, Wellington-Halton Hills)
The Niagara and Hamilton regions have 7 ridings
Halton has 3, plus the Halton Hills
Peel has 8 plus Caldeon
York has 7 plus it's portion of York-Simcoe
Durham has 4, one shared with Toronto, and Brock
Toronto has 22 plus the one it shares with Durham.
This makes for 45 ridings completely within the new province plus the three "halfs" mentioned above, for a total of 46.5 ridings, rounded up to 47 (including Brock)

8 of the whole ridings have PC members. 8 have NDP members. 29 are Liberal. All of the half ridings are represented by the PC Party, making for an approximated legislature of:
30 Liberal
10 PC
7 NDP

The Remainder of Ontario would have:
42 Liberal
15 PC
3 NDP


Federally, the new province would have the following representation (using the same addition of half members)
25 Lib
16 CPC
6 NDP
- Sorry, no extra data today!

POST DATE MAR 17

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&geocode=&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=101714683938336514556.000481fb3a726b98da6a1 I shall be posting this map and making a longer post about the idea of a "Province of Toronto"
- Sorry, no extra data today!

POST DATE MAR 17

http://www.toronto.ca/mayor_miller/spee ... speech.htm
11 billion dollars. That's the gap between what Toronto pays in taxes, and gets back in federal and provincial spending. At least it was in 2005.

Lets do some calculations.
The 2005 budget for Ontario had a 1.4 billion dollar deficit.
The 2005 budget was 82 billion dollars in revenue (and 83 in spending)
Canada's 2005 budget was 222 billion dollars in revenue, with a 13 billion dollar surplus (spending was at 209)
in 2006, Ontario had 38.9% of Canada's population. 222 X .389 = 86. and 209 X .389 = 81.
in 2005/2006 Ontario sent 23 billion dollars more to the federal government than they got back.
Logically, we can presume half of that is revenue and half is spending. Lets round down to 22 billion.
Therefore. Ontario sent 97 billion dollars to the feds, and got back 70 billion.
97 is 43.7% of 222, while 70 is 33.5% of 209.
97 + 82 = 179 while 70 + 83 = 153
Therefore, if Ontario were a country, in 2005, it would have had a surplus of 26 billion. This includes the 22 billion we sent to Ottawa, and our share of the 13 billion dollar federal surplus.
This year. Federal revenue is at 231 billion and spending at 281 billion.
231 X .437 is 101, while 281 X .335 = 94
Meaning that Ontario's share of the federal deficit is minus 7 billion dollars (IE we are in surplus)
Ontario's deficit this year is 25 billion.
I cannot find specific numbers for Ontario's revenues and exp. this year. however as seen in 2005 it is likely close to federal numbers. 85 in revenue and 110 in exp. is reasonable to expect.
Therefore, the total revenue and exp. of Ontario, if it were a country, would be 186 VS 204, or an 18 billion dollar deficit
Toronto, remember, has about 20% of Ontario's population
186 X 0.2 = 37 while 204 X 0.2 = 41
37 - 41 = -4
Toronto, remember, sends 11 billion dollars more to the government than it gets back.
-4 + 11 = 7
Therefore. Toronto's suprlus this year, if Toronto were a country, would be 7 billion dollars.
Now, it has been stated 1% sales taxes bring in $400 million a year in Toronto. The HST is being introduced at 13%.
0.400 X 13 = 5.200
7.000 - 5.200 = 1.800
Last year, Toronto's new and hated taxes brough in 46 million dollars. Lets round up to 50.
1.800 - 0.050 = 1.750
1.750 billion - 1,750 million
The TTC (Toronto Transit) budget was 1,400, total. That includes about 400 in city subsidy, leaving 1,000 unfunded
1,000 - 1,750 = 750
750 million = 750,000,000
Toronto has 2,500,000 citizens
750,000,000 / 2,500,000 = 300
300 dollars.

So, lets review.
If Toronto were it's own country, it would be in surplus this year (despite the recession, and the billions and billions in deficit we are in) and that surplus would be SO large, we could cancel the new hated taxes, end ALL sales taxes, and make the ENTIRE TTC free, as well as send a cheque for $300 to each person in Toronto.

I have sources for all the numbers I've presented if anyone needs them.
- Sorry, no extra data today!

POST DATE MAR 15

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/nort ... 567619.stm

I'll make a blog post about this a bit later on

42% - Irish
39% - British
18% - Northern Irish

55% - UK

forum

- Sorry, no extra data today!

I'm moving over data from the forum.


POST DATE MAR 14

34% - PC
30% - WAP
23% - LIB
10% - NDP


From Environics, as per http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Torie ... story.html

I will be turning this into a projection tonight.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

www.ridingbyriding.com

-

Reminder, we have a new website www.ridingbyriding.com


Sorry, no extra data today!

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Looking Back

-

One of my first posts on the blog. It contains a spelling error, but the projection was dead on - sadly.

http://nixtuff.blogspot.com/2008/01/racession.html

I note that I have not edited the post in any way shape or form since I posted it at the start of 2008.


Sorry, no extra data today!

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Rob Ford to run for mayor! ...Maybe

<-

An article in today’s Star suggests Rob Ford may well run for Mayor after all. There is still plenty of time to get into the race if he wants to, in fact I’d say there are at least 6 more weeks to ‘enter’ the race without risking getting in ‘too late’, if not a full 10 weeks. Regardless, we must look as to how this will impact the race.

I still maintain that my list of plausible candidates from earlier stands, that Mammoliti is not one of them, and that there still is a gap in the middle of the right wing that is probably just waiting to get filled.

Lets first examine who Rob Ford is. For anyone from outside Toronto, I will explain this using three words. Reform / Canadian Alliance. Rob Ford is the most right-wing person elected to Toronto city council, perhaps ever. He is not just your standard Stephen Harper neocon, he is very ‘populist’ in nature, focusing his attention not on lower taxes but on wasteful spending, especially from office budgets of politicians.

So, how would Ford fare in the election? Well, he would lose. If there was even the slightest inkling that Ford could win, the rest of the city would rush to get behind another candidate – any other candidate – that Ford would be crushed. The question is how much support he could get. My feeling is he could get anywhere from 10% to 20%, depending on if another right candidate enters the race, possibly going as low as 5% if he makes gaffes. Where would these votes come from? Not the core that is certain. There are however enough people in the inner suburbs that could and would support Rob Ford. Remember that he does consistently win his own ward.

Why run? Ford has never proven he is in touch with political reality. He probably thinks there is an off chance he can win. There are, however, two ‘bigger’ reasons that I see. One, to embarrass Mammoliti, whom he will easily trounce in the popular vote, and Two, to perhaps build a party-like organization of right minded people in Toronto. If the latter, he may work with the Toronto Party to do this.

What kind of Mayor would he be? In general, very right-wing. I do not, however, think he would “destroy” the TTC. Rossi is more of a threat to that. Ford would lower funding, that is certain, but he does not seem to have the same ‘hate’ for the transit system that others do.

So, what are the numbers? As I see it:

Smitherman – 40%

Pantalone – 25%

Rossi – 20%

Ford – 10%

Others – 5%


Sorry, no extra data today!

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Projection

-

129C 95L 50B 34N - 11MAR2010

visit ridingbyriding.com for more details


Sorry, no extra data today!

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

International politics.

<- More below the fold!

You will notice that from time to time I focus on different aspects of international politics. There are certain areas of the world in particular that I plan to or wish to focus on. Northern Ireland, clearly, is one. I do however want to note that I write from a Canadian prospective, for a Canadian prospective. I’ve had people from the various countries I write about tell me my explanations of political issues in their homeland is “simplistic”, and this is true. I am not writing political analysis about Northern Ireland for a Northern Irish audience. I am writing it for a Canadian audience. This means from time to time I will make comparisons that are rough at best. For example, saying that in the UK, their Tories are like our Tories, their Liberals are like our moderate Liberals, and their Labour party is like our NDP plus Trudeauites is very simplistic, but also allows someone who may not follow UK politics to get a very basic understanding of what is going on.

I wish to therefore give a short and basic run down of politics in various areas I wish to focus on below the fold.




First off, Northern Ireland. You can find some basic election date on Wikipedia. The CAIN database is also full of useful nuggets of information. I want to note here something about Wikipedia. I am not endorsing the political analysis on it – it is very easy to say “most people think this” and not be caught, true or not. I am however endorsing the numbers. These numbers don’t make it to the page unless they are sourced. I myself am one of the more active contributors to election result numbers to Wikipedia, and I suggest someone looking for raw data use Wikipedia, while someone who wants a more detailed account of why should perhaps look elsewhere.

There are a number of parties in Northern Ireland. On the Unionist side there is the UUP, the Ulster Unionist Party. They are very old, and for many years formed the government. They were, in fact, in government from 1921 to the end of the NI Parliament in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was this government that people were protesting during the Bloody Sunday protest. In the 70’s however the UUP began to moderate it’s stance. This is when the DUP, or Democratic Unionist Party was formed, it struck a much more hard line for Unionism. In the past few years, however, the DUP has been a key part of Government, and it too has had to moderate it’s tone, leading to a new party, the TUV or Traditional Ulster Voice to spring up. The TUV has yet to be tested in either a UK or NI election.
On the Nationalist side there is the SDLP, or Social Democratic and Labour Party. This party was formed at the start of the troubles to represent nationalist and catholic interest. The largest nationalist party however is Sinn Fien. They are the political wing of the armed IRA members who fought the troubles. SF has overseen the disarming of the IRA and now participates in Government.

A little bit of history as well. Starting about a thousand years ago or so, England began invading Ireland. They would take hundreds of years to subdue the island, but eventually did. By then, most of the English were Protestant while the Irish remained Catholic. This turned the situation into a religious divide, with Protestants on one side and Catholics on the other. Following world war 1, an election was held in Ireland. The result was as follows

To split it; In the 26 counties that now make up the Republic of Ireland:
Sinn Fien – 69
Nationalist – 2
Unionist – 2





ERROR

Projection Update

-

129C 97L 48B 34N


Sorry, no extra data today!

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Summarized Projection

-
CANADA
130C 95L 48B 35N

ATLATIC
15L 12C 5N

QUEBEC
48B 19L 7C 1N

ONTARIO
47L 45C 14N

PRAIRIE
23C 3N 2L

ALBERTA
26C 1L 1N

BRITISH COLUMBIA
16C 10L 10N

TERRITORIES
always always always 1C 1L 1N unless I say otherwise

The full projection will be posted within 15 minutes to www.ridingbyriding.com


www.ridingbyriding.com

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

So when is the next election?

-

Not soon, at least not likely. Word on the street is that neither the NDP or Liberals want an election. Looking at the most recent projections, it is no surprise why. The NDP is down slightly, or at best, will only match their 2008 election results. The Liberals are up, but only as far as 2006 (an election they lost) The Tories meanwhile are back at 2006 levels.

In short, there is no real reason for any of the parties to want an election. The Liberals certainly don't want to lose an election, even if they can gain 20 to 30 extra seats. The Tories certainly don't want to lose a seat, especially when you consider that much of the anti-Conservative feeling is, in reality, anti-Harper feeling. Harper knows that unless he can win an election with a majority, there is a very good chance he will be out. He will have had four chances (2004, 2006, 2008, 2010) and if he can't win a majority in that time, I don't see him remaining. Even Chretien, who lead 3 majorities, was only given 3 chances (1993, 1997, 2000) Ignatieff, meanwhile, could certainly remain Liberal leader if he can bring them back up to 100 seats, but his party does not want to suffer it's 3rd consecutive defeat (Something that's not happened since the 50's) The NDP meanwhile, at least under Layton, has decided that they want to make another serious run for Government. While this is not as ridiculous as it first sounds (especially considering the Liberals had their worst election ever last time, in terms of popular vote) polls show there is not a chance it is going to happen any time soon. Thanks to the prorogue issue, the Tories are no longer leading by a dozen points. Even though recent polls have shown a minor bounce back (even to as high as an 8 point lead) this not enough to guarantee Harper his Majority.

But wait, there's more! An article on the Toronto Star shows that at least 75 MP's (from all parties) who were first elected in 2004 will qualify for Pensions this June, this includes some top-notch Conservatives, and Liberals as well as Jack Layton himself. Some other big names include Ujjal Dosanjh, Bill Siksay, Jim Prentice, Rona Ambrose, Steven Fletcher, Mike Chong, Navdeep Bains, Ruby Dhalla, Peter Van Loan, Helena Guergis, David McGunity, Pierre Poilievre, Gordon O'Connor, Pablo Rodriguez, Rob Moore, and Michael Savage. Many of these people, if they are not big names on to themselves, are brothers or children of current or former premiers, etc. I don't think many of these people will desire a quick election. There is also the practical concern of money. The Tories are swimming in it, but the Liberals could always use more time to collect more donations. The simple fact that neither of the two parties are ranting "Election! Election! Election!" to the media, like they both were in turn before this mess, tells me that a spring election, at least one on purpose, is not likely. If this does hole true throughout the spring, however, it means that a fall election is nearly a certainty.

I for one hope for a fall election so that I have time to finish my new website!


Sorry, no extra data today!

We now have a forum

-

Well we already had a forum, which only really saw use during election time. Here is our new one:

http://s1.zetaboards.com/rXr/index/


Sorry, no extra data today!

Contact Us

-

To get a hold of us, you can e-mail ridingBYriding@hotmail.com

I will be getting an e-mail tied directly to the website as well shortly.


Sorry, no extra data today!

Also add our twitter

-

ridingBYriding

I promise this one will not turn into my personal account like nixtuff did


Sorry, no extra data today!

We are now RidingByRiding.Com

-

Check it out!

http://www.ridingbyriding.com

We are also http://www.ridingbyriding.ca as you can tell by the auto-redirect!


Sorry, no extra data today!

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

We have a website!

-

Thats right, we have a real .com website (and a .net too) I am confidant the name I've chosen is one that will gain me more traffic than http://www.threehundredeight.com so I don't want to release the name until I have the .ca pinned down (it takes a bit longer to approve a .ca) When that happens I will begin mirroring posts both here and there for about a month or a few weeks, followed by moving the "main" content over there, and using this blog for more summary like posts (numbers, no commentary)

~Teddy


Sorry, no extra data today!

Friday, February 26, 2010

Summarized Projection

-
126C 102L 47B 33N

Sorry, no extra data today!

Province Watch

-

New Brunswick
Next Election: September 27 2010
Latest Polls - Tory lead of 10%
Legislature: 32L 22P 1I

Prince Edward Island
Next Election: October 3 2011
Latest Polls - Liberal lead of 26%
Legislature: 23L 3P

Ontario
Next Election: October 6 2011
Latest Polls - Lib/PC tie
Legislature: 71L 24P 10P 2V

Newfoundland and Labrador
Next Election: October 11 2011
Latest Polls - Tory lead of 61%
Legislature: 42P 4L 1N 1V

Saskatchewan
Next Election: November 7 2011
Latest Polls - SKP Lead
Legislature: 38S 20N

Manitoba
Next Election: 2011
Latest Polls - NDP lead
Legislature: 35N 19P 2L 1V

British Columbia
Next Election: May 14 2013
Latest Polls - NDP Lead
Legislature: 49L 35N 1I

Nova Scotia
Next Election: 2013 apx
Latest Polls - NDP lead
Legislature: 32N 11L 8P 1V

Quebec
Next Election: 2013
Latest Polls - PQ/PLQ tie
Legislature: 67L 50P 4A 2I 1Q 1V

Alberta
Next Election: 2013
Latest Polls - PC/WAP Tie
Legislature: 68P 9L 3W 2N 1I



Sorry, no extra data today!

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Mayoral Candidates lay down ideologies.

-

Toronto's three main candidates for office have all positioned themselves for their run for mayor.

Smitherman has promised a shake up of City Hall. He is reportedly debating making TTC an essential service. In many ways he looks ready to be the successor to David Miller and Mel Lastman, committing to changing those things that cannot be easily explained. Calling for "Clean Government" is easy, making it happen is not.

Rocco Rossi has managed to position himself much further to the right than many had pegged. Rossi now appears perfectly poised to become the #1 right-wing candidate, and should no opponent emerge within the next 60 days, people like Minnan-Wong won't stand a chance.

Pantalone meanwhile has started making public commitments to being responsible fiscally. This is very important for him to do as the Miller administration (to which he is tied) had some of biggest fiscal problems in Toronto's history.


Sorry, no extra data today!

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Senate Reform pt 2.5

-

A quick note. After working out some examples, I am starting to see what a mess my "solution" to minority parliaments would be with regard to the Senate. Therefore, I propose that minority or majority, the senators be appointed, for the term of the legislature, by the Premier/Prime Minister (IE the Governor General / Lt. Governor) and not by the Legislature as a whole. Examples to come shortly.


Sorry, no extra data today!

Monday, February 22, 2010

Senate Reform pt 2

-

So, how would I rebalance the Senate? I say we must keep with our tradition of 24 seat regions. The answer therefore becomes to rebalance our regions. There are proposals on the table to make BC a 24 seat region, but I feel this is a very bad idea. Alberta is close behind in population and it would be grossly unfair to give BC 24 (or even 12) senators while Alberta has only 6. The answer, in my mind, is to redesign the current “West” region of the Senate. There are two ways we may do this. The first is to turn the “West” region into a “Prairie” region, and exclude BC; The next is to truncate the “West” and exclude Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The end result is the same. BC has 12 senators. Alberta has 12 senators. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have 6 each. Due to the simplicity of it, and due to the fact that there is also a proposal on the table to give BC 12 seats, I prefer the Prairie option. To review, this would do the following to the Senate
NEWFOUNDLAND – 6
MARITIME REGION – 24 -->
NS – 10
NB – 10
PE – 4
QUEBEC REGION – 24
ONTARIO REGION – 24
PRAIRIE REGION – 24 -->
MB – 6
SK – 6
AB – 12
BRITISH COLUMBIA – 12
NUNAVUT – 1
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES – 1
YUKON TERRITORY – 1
Grand total – 117

This would add 12 senators to our current Senate. While it would slightly dilute the power of the Senate, I believe that Quebec (at least under a Liberal government) would be willing to accept this than risk EEE eventually gaining enough support to pass somehow.

So how would these Senators be chosen? The key as I see it is that they need to be elected though a form of electoral college. Most importantly, I wish to divide up this last part with regards to which government elects these senators.

1/6th of our Senators should be chosen by the Federal Parliament, while 5/6ths by the provinces. That means from Manitoba, 1 Senator would be chosen by the House of Commons while 5 would be picked by the Manitoba Legislature. Ontario would pick 20, while Canada would pick 4. Residency requirements would remain, so Ontario’s 4 ‘federal’ Senators must be from Ontario, but they should be chosen not by the Premier and his Legislature, but by the Prime Minister and his House of Commons.
(Note that the 3 maritime provinces do not have a number of senators that is a direct multiple of 6. I suggest solving this by rounding. PEI would have 3 and 1, while NS and NB would have 8 and 2. The Territories only have 1 seat each. Since they are territories and not Provinces, I recommend they be appointed by the Feds)

So how would this work? I propose the following:

All Senators sit until a qualified replacement is chosen. If a senator passes away or resigns while in office, that seat remains vacant until a qualified replacement is chosen. So what exactly does one need to be “Qualified”? Firstly, you need to fit the requirements of sitting in the Senate. At current that means owning some property ($5,000 worth I think) being a resident of the province in question, a Canadian citizen, and being at least 35. At current it also means being under 75, I would not be opposed if this remained, but it would be easier if this were removed. The next thing, and I feel this is key to preventing abolitionist provincial government from obstructing the work of the Senate, is that Senators must serve. This prevents, for example, and NDP government appointing a batch of Senators who have committed to not showing up for work. This would mean that such NDP governments would have a difficult choice if either appointing Senators that work, or, allowing the opposition’s Senators to remain. It is needed, I feel, to make the Senate function properly.

So how are these Senators chosen? After each Throne Speech (generally after each election, but it can happen more often – Canada is going to have such a speech once our Parliament resumes, and Ontario is going to take a short break of a week or two and do the same) the Legislature will meet to chose the Senators. The first round will be a simple block vote. In (political) reality, this means each party will present a slate. Lets take Ontario as our example. The Ontario Liberals would present 20 Senate candidates to the Provincial Parliament. The Ontario PC Party would present 20. And hopefully, the Ontario NDP would also present 20. The Legislature will then vote, and any list getting a majority of votes is declared elected. Since the Ontario Liberals hold a majority of the seats, this means all 20 of their Senators will be elected.
So, what in Minority situations? That is where it gets interesting. In that case, we go to a second, and final round. In that round, senators are chosen using proportionality in a caucus like manner. This means that the entire Legislature will vote for which slate they prefer, and results will be distributed based on a PR scheme.

Federally assigned Senate seats would be assigned in the same manner, except with the slates being nation wide. In my next post I will provide examples.



Sorry, no extra data today!

Senate Reform

-

Another issue I wish to touch on is that of Senate Reform. With Harper verging on a Majority in the upper house, the possibility of Canada getting some form of Senate Reform is no longer out of the question. One thing I fear, however, is what the wrong kind of Senate Reform can do.

Back in the heyday of EEE (Equal, Elected, Effective) we had a far different political reality than we did today. During the 80’s, when EEE was first proposed, we had an NDP and PC Party that, together, shut the Liberals out of the West, and a Liberal Party that relied on its ability to rack up seats in Quebec to solidify its otherwise meager showing in English Canada into a strong Majority. For much of this period, the PC Party was even carrying the Atlantic. During the 90’s when the Reform Party rode EEE, they were dominating the West while the Liberals were dominant in Central Canada. Let’s take a look at this based on EEE with 10 seats per province.

Reform, and in fact most of the larger EEE proponents usually view EEE taking the form of a block vote. This is how Alberta has elected it’s Senators so far. This means each voter would get 10 votes to cast, and 10 candidates would be elected. Since it can be expected that many voters will cast a simple party line ballot, this results in a very high chance that one party can win all 10 seats. Lets use the 1997 election as our example. We would see the Reform Party winning 40 senate seats from the 4 western provinces. The Remaining provinces could be interesting. The Bloc did beat the Liberals in Quebec but only by a point. In a realistic scenario, voters would either pile on the votes to a single federalist party, or more likely given the political reality of the day, the Liberals and PC Party might even each only present a limited number of candidates (I will go with 7 and 3 for this example) and recommend their voters vote for these 10 people. I will presume they all get elected. In New Brunswick, the PC Party beat the Liberals by 2 points. This might not sound like much, but it is enough in a block vote scenario to give the party all 10 seats. The Liberals swept PEI, and would win all 10 seats here. Meanwhile, Newfoundland was won by the Liberals only by a single point. When things get this close you start to see true splits in block voting, and it is likely a few very popular Tories would have beat the lowest of the no-name Liberals. I will again go with a 7-3 split. Lastly, Nova Scotia, where the PC Party and NDP nearly tied; this could result in a split of 7-3 or even 5-5. I will use 5-5 for this example. Now, to add it all up, we see the following results.
Reform – 40 (BC, AB, SK, MB)
Liberals – 34 (10 ON, 10 PE, 7 QC, 7 NL)
PC Party – 21 (3 QC, 3 NL, 5 NS, 10 NB)
NDP – 5 (NS)

Given what we now know about the Reform Party and it’s dealings with the PC Party during the 90’s it is very easy to see a 1997 EEE Senate become a bastion of right-wing support. Under EEE, it only takes a single province outside the west to agree with the west (in terms of whom they elect) to create a majority (or at least a tie) in the senate. In every election from 1974 to 1984 inclusive, all 4 western provinces voted for the same party (the PC Party) In 1972 and 1988, they split between the PC Party and the Tories. Only in 1993 did the Liberals win 2 western provinces.

Another key part of the reasoning behind EEE was that there are “Urban” provinces, like Ontario and Quebec, and “Rural” provinces, like the other 8. This is no longer true. Most provinces have its citizens living in its largest metropolitan area: Ontario, with Toronto; Quebec with Montreal; BC with Vancouver; Nova Scotia with Halifax; Manitoba, with Winnipeg; and even PEI, with Charlottetown. The others either split the majority between two large cities such as Alberta, with Edmonton and Calgary, and Saskatchewan with Regina and Saskatoon; have a large plurality, and not a Majority in the single area, like Newfoundland and Labrador, with St.John’s, or have no single focal point for the population, like New Brunswick. Now that 50%+1 of Canadians in each province live in “urban areas” there are no longer the same “Rural Provinces” that there once were.

One key reason, however, that EEE has been dropped is Quebec. In order to change the seat allotments in the Senate, the provincial government of Quebec needs to sign off. Quebec will not do this. During the 90’s there was a time when many in the west hoped that Quebec would leave. This would have left Ontario, with 50%+1 of the population, and the rest of Canada, with 80 of the 90 Senate Seats. While this does make sense from a certain prospective, within the last 15 years, Ontario has started to use its might to say “enough is enough”. The province normally expected to make concessions to keep Alberta and/or Quebec happy is no longer willing to bend over and just let it happen. Ontario is saying no. Ontario is also unlikely at this point to accept a EEE senate.

It’s not that Ontario or Quebec have a problem with a senate that is Effective, or even Elected, it is the final E of Equal that is a non-starter. Even in British Columbia, where 13% of Canadians live, there are doubts that having 10% of the Senate Seats would somehow make the province more powerful on a federal stage.

Next, we need to look at the idea of an Elected and Effective Senate. The two are closely tied to one another, as they work best (or worst) together. When should we elect our Senators? If we elect them at the same time as the members of the House, are we not just creating a mini-house in the Senate? Our Senate has the power to block supply, so what of a party that massively wins the popular vote, but fails to win that support evenly across the country. Ontario and Quebec have 66% of the Canadian Population, should we put the fate of those 66% in the hands of the other 33% because the way we happened to cut up our country has drawn more lines over there than they did over here? Compare the physical size of any of the maritime provinces, and even the Island of Newfoundland, to the size of any other province. The argument could be made on the grounds of history, but what of Alberta and Saskatchewan that were cut out of Prairie on an imaginary line 105 years ago. This brings us back to Equal, how many seats should each province have? If it’s equal we run into problems of “why” and “no”, and if it is rep by pop we run into problems of a “mini house” in the Senate. For the answer, I say we need to go back to the original Confederation debates.

At the meetings that created Canada, there were many topics of discussion. Federal-Provincial powers was one, taking up a reported 40% of the discussion time. “Everything Else” beyond this and one other issue reportedly only took up 20% of the time. So what took up the missing 40%? The Senate. That’s right, debate on the Senate has been going on since before Canada was a country. Senate Reform even was proposed during our first Parliament, and so has also been discussed for nearly as long as Canada has been around. In that time various proposals have aimed to make the senate various things. Some aim to turn the senate into something they have in Australia or the US. Others aim to abolish the chamber. Some have managed to get passed like the idea that Senators must retire at age 75. In order to have a successful reform of the Senate we must look at what it was designed to do.

I don’t plan to write an essay here, so I will say in short, that the whole point of our Senate was to represent the provinces at the federal level. The provinces were quite willing to give the Federal Government a lot of power, so long as they would be integral parts of that Federal Government. This is something that we’ve overlooked in the decades since, while our Senate has become a chamber for partisanship and “sober second thought”. Perhaps the latter phrase was something John A Macdonald, a Federal Government leader wanted out of the chamber, but it was certainly not what the provinces had in mind. In the end, we now have a senate that is neither a chamber of the Provinces, a place for real thought, or is in any way effective.

So then, how do we make the Senate representative of the provinces? A direct election, I argue, is not the way. Federal parties running on Federal platforms will only create a senate of Senators with nation-wide ambitions. Tying Senate elections to Provincial elections will only distract from Provincial issues as Senators try to campaign on the issue they can do something about – Federal issues. The only answer, I argue, is for an indirect election of our Senators.

This still leaves open the problem of seats. Shall we give PEI the same number of seats as Ontario? Or shall we go with the current method of having all 730,000 people in New Brunswick have 10 senators while all 4,000,000 people in British Columbia only have 6. I say there is a better answer and it is found in the original compromise that created the Senate. You may be and hopefully are aware that the Senate has 24 senators per region. Ontario and Quebec are each single-province regions, while the Maritimes are a multiple-province Region. Remember, in 1867, this was the entire Canada as we know it. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick wanted 24 senators each, but Ontario and Quebec were unwilling to give up control of half of Canada to these newcomers. They settled on a compromise, rather than have an equal number of Senators per province, they would have an equal number of Senators per “Region” and this would allow us to draw the regional boundaries to best suit our needs. Sadly, this never occurred. The last time we redrew the regional boundaries was in 1915 when PEI sued the government saying it should have more MP’s than Senators (4). At that time, the government decided to nearly double the number of Senators from the growing Western provinces by making all 4 of them a single 24 seat region. I argue that this was, and should have always been, a temporary measure.

This brings us back to the present and the problem of how to best represent the various provinces. One thing that we have today that we did not in the distant past is a good statistical model. We can now project how many people we expect each province to have in 30 years, and even in 50 years. We can even get rough estimations of the population of each province 100 years in the future. The one thing that is clear when we do this is that the current gap between the 4 largest provinces (Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta) and the 6 smaller ones will not be closing, rather, it will be increasing. We also see that it is quite possible that BC or Alberta (or both) will overtake Quebec in terms of population at some point in the next 50 to 100 years. Ontario it seems will remain where it has been since Confederation, and hold near 40% of the Canadian population for the foreseeable future.

With this information, it is impossible to ask BC and Alberta to get by with a total of 12 Senators. So, how do we rebalance the Senate? How do we pick our Senators? I will examine that in my next post (I will also examine a few alternate proposals to my own, including one that has been drawn up by an Australian friend of mine)


Sorry, no extra data today!

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Letters

-

In order to be more concise with my writing (and to enable me to quickly and shortly post updates to twitter – I am getting a new account) I am reducing my 3 letter acronyms for political parties down to a single letter. I am also standardizing the 3 letter ones. They will be as follows.

Federal, modern
C = Conservative
L = Liberal
N = New Democratic
B = Bloc
G = Green
1990s
C = Canadian Alliance
P = Progressive Conservative
R = Reform
1970s
S = Social Credit
R = Ralliment Creditites
1920s/30s/40s
F = Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation
C = Conservative
P = Progressives
U = United Farmers
R = Reconstruction
Earlier
P = Patron of Industry

Provincial
Quebec
P = Parti Quebecois
L = Parti Liberal Quebec
A = Action Democratique Quebec
Q = Quebec Solidarie
V = Parti Vert (Greens)

Historic
E = Equality Party
N = Nouveau Parti Democratique
R = Ralliement Creditiste (or National)
N = Parti Nationale Popularie
U = Union Nationale
I = Rassemblement pour I’independence Nationale
B = Bloc Popularie

The remainder of the provinces are very similar to federal, with only the following things being of note.
A = Acadian Party (NB)
F = Family Coalition Party (ON)
C = Confederation of Regions (ON, NB)
M = Communist – under various names (MB)
B = Labour (NS, NB, MB)
A = Alberta Alliance (AB)
W = Wildrose Alliance (AB)
W = Western Canada Concept (AB, SK)
R = Representative Party (AB)
R = Reform Party (BC)
S = Saskatchewan Party (SK)
Y = Yukon Party (YK)
P = Liberal-Progressive Union (MB)
S = Socialist (BC, MB)
D = Social Democrats (MB)
R = Reform Liberals (NL)
U = United Newfoundland Party (NL)
B = Labrador Party (NL)
A = Coalition (AB)
P = Progressive Democratic Alliance (BC)
M = Marijuana Party (BC)


Sorry, no extra data today!

Quebec Polls

<-More below the fold!

New Leger polls are out showing provincial and federal polling data. I've combined this newest poll with the past two to get a better average. I have used the breakdown between Francophones and Non-Francophones

Francophone
Provincial
(P)PQ - 47
(L)PLQ - 31
(A)ADQ - 9
(Q)QS - 7
(V)PV - 4

Federal
B - 47
L - 20
C - 16
N - 16
G - 6

Non-Francophone
Provincial
L - 73
P - 9
B - 6
A - 4
Q - 4

Federal
L - 43
C - 21
N - 18
B - 8
G - 6

More below the fold

I've done this so I can examine the difference between federal and provincial numbers.

Among Francophones you can see both the Bloc and PQ at 47%. These are, for a large part, the same voters. The Greens have 6% federally and 4% provincially, again, mostly the same voters. What is more interesting are the other parties.

The NDP takes 15%, while QS has only taken 7%, about half that. Meanwhile, the Tories have 16%, but the ADQ only has 9%, roughly 2/3rds of the vote. The provincial Liberals suck up these voters, taking 31% compared to the federal party at 20%.

Among non-Francophones, we see the PQ at 9% and the Bloc at 8%, while the Greens have 4% on both levels. These parties have the best relation between federal and provincial support levels. Both the ADQ and QS are tied at 4%, while the CPC and NDP have 21% and 18% respectively (this is within the margin of error) This translates to 1/5th support. Again, we see the PLQ sucking up the difference, taking an astounding 73% of non-francophones, while the federal party has only 43% support.

I will be keeping track of future polls to see if these support ratios stand.

Friday, February 19, 2010

PR. Part 4 (final)

-

So now that the examples are all up, I'd like to take a look at how history would be different if we had such a system.

In 2008 the Greens would have qualified for 3 seats.

in 2000, the Alliance would have won 9 seats in Ontario, 1 in Quebec, and 1 in the Atlantic. If this had happened, we may have never seen the merger. At the same time the PC Party would have on 4 seats in Ontario, 1 on the Prairies, and 2 in Alberta.

1997, as noted, would have turned the majority into a minority.

1993 would have been different for sure with both the NDP and PC Party qualifying for official party status. The PC Party wold have won at least 1 seat in each region, and may not have dropped off the radar as they did using our system.

In 1988, the NDP would have won 3 seats in Quebec. It is possible, given history, that they would have taken a huge bite out of the Bloc in 1993.

1980 would have seen the number of Liberals elected from the west go from 2 to 6, and may have helped, in some way, to step the anti-Liberal tide from the area. Social Credit would have also made their last stand here, with 2 final stats, behind the NDP in Quebec with 3.

1979 would have seen Joe Clark with 6 Tories from Quebec.

Lastly, 1972 would have been a more clear Liberal win.

Provincially...
The first real changes we see are in New Brunswick. In the 1991 election, CoR leader, Arch Pafford would have almost certainly won a seat from the list, and the CoR may have remained as a Reform-like party in the Atlatnic. In 1987, when the Liberals shut out all other parties, the PC Party would have won 5 seats, and hence, the things CoR needed to grow in the first place may have never occurred.

As we go further and further back we can see how important many of these chances would/could have been.

The Saskatchewan Party may have never formed.
The Alberta Alliance may have taken off years before its successor did.
Social Credit won a seat in Alberta in 1997 and may have used that as a platform to stage a comeback.
The Greens would have a seat from BC.
The 1996 BC election would have resulted in a tie
The Greens would have a seat from Ontario.
Back in the 70's the NDP would have never formed the official opposition. Even small changes like this may have meant that Bob Rae would never become Premier. Rae was popular before his government screwed up. It is possible that he would have followed Broadbent, became NDP leader, and may well have won huge numbers of seats in 1993. This just goes to show that any of these small changes could have had huge impacts on history.




Sorry, no extra data today!

Thursday, February 18, 2010

PR, part 3

<- Click here to see the full post
Provincial breakdowns below the fold.

Here are the federal breakdowns for elections using my proposed system. Which, as a reminder, is as follows:
>25% of seats are added back as PR list seats. Meaning if there are 100 ridings, you add 25 PR seats.
>Party Lists are limited to half of the PR list seats rounded up, to guarantee the opposition fair representation.
>Seats are distributed on a parallel system, not a top-up system, meaning if you get 50% of the vote, you get 50% of the PR seats, not 50% of the total seats.
>A minimum of 26 ridings needed to form a PR district. This means that Manitoba and Saskatchewan re united into a single electoral district, as is the Atlantic. In the past, it also means the addition of Alberta to the Prairies, and far back enough, even BC to the West as a whole.

I've decided not to include the territories at all. Their voting base is just too small. Even included in with MB/SK, they would add 3 ridings (and 1 PR seat) for very small vote numbers. In reality, this would only add more seats to small parties in MB/SK without truly representing the Territories. Hence, I have decided to dis-include them.

Remember, there is a 5% threshold in each electoral district.

Above the fold, national results. Below, district breakdowns. Note this shows the total seats.

2008
CPC - 176
Lib - 96
BQ - 54
NDP - 51
Grn - 3*
IND - 2

2006
CPC - 157
Lib - 127
BQ - 55
NDP - 42
IND - 1

2004
Lib - 177
CPC - 131
BQ - 64
NDP - 36
IND - 1

2000
Lib - 201
CA - 87
BQ - 46
PC - 21
NDP - 19
IND - 1

1997 (see note)
Lib - 183
Ref - 75
BQ - 51
PC - 35
NDP - 29
IND - 1

1993
Lib - 206
Ref - 68
BQ - 64
PC - 15
NDP - 12
IND - 1

1988
PC - 202
Lib - 106
NDP - 57
Ref - 1

1984
PC - 255
Lib - 68
NDP - 49
IND - 1

1980
Lib - 175
PC - 126
NDP - 46
SC - 2*

1979
PC - 161
Lib - 151
NDP - 37
SC - 10

1974
Lib - 170
PC - 119
NDP - 23
SC - 15
IND - 1

1972
Lib - 136
PC - 129
NDP - 41
SC - 20
IND - 2

Note -
1997 would be the only election in any of these examples where a Majority is turned into a Minority. With 301 ridings, the Liberals won 155 of them, just e seats into Majority territory. 1997 is also the election that sparked the merger on the right, as if the right had been united, they would have won more seats than the Liberals. That becomes clear here as the Liberal Majority is turned into a Minority. The Liberals would need 4 seats to gain a Majority here, and likely would find them with support from the NDP, meaning a Reform-PC-BQ alliance would not be enough to overtake the government.


2008
Atlantic
Lib - 20
CPC - 13
NDP - 6
IND - 1

Quebec
BQ - 54
Lib - 18
CPC - 18
NDP - 3
IND - 1

Ontario
CPC - 62
Lib - 47
NDP - 22
Grn - 2*

SK/MB
CPC - 26
NDP - 6
Lib - 3

Alberta
CPC - 31
NDP - 3
Lib - 1*

British Columbia
CPC - 26
NDP - 11
Lib - 7
Grn - 1*

=============
2006
Atlantic
Lib - 23
CPC - 12
NDP - 5

Quebec
BQ - 55
CPC - 19
Lib - 18
NDP - 1*
IND - 1

Ontario
Lib - 66
CPC - 50
NDP - 17

SK/MB
CPC - 23
Lib - 7
NDP - 5

Alberta
CPC - 32
Lib - 2
NDP - 1*

British Columbia
CPC - 21
NDP - 13
Lib - 11

=============
2004

Atlantic
Lib - 26
CPC - 9
NDP - 5

Quebec
BQ - 64
Lib - 29
CPC - 1*

Ontario
Lib - 101
CPC - 42
NDP - 17

SK/MB
CPC - 23
Lib - 6
NDP - 6

Alberta
CPC - 30
Lib - 4
NDP - 1*

British Columbia
CPC - 26
Lib - 11
NDP - 7
IND - 1

=============
2000

Atlantic
Lib - 22
PC - 12
NDP - 5
CA - 1*

Quebec
BQ - 46
Lib - 45
PC - 2
CA - 1*

Ontario
Lib - 113
CA - 9
PC - 4*
NDP - 3
IND - 1

SK/MB
CA - 17
Lib - 9
NDP - 8
PC - 1

Alberta
CA - 27
Lib - 4
PC - 2

British Columbia
CA - 32
Lib - 8
NDP - 3

=============
1997

Atlantic
PC - 16
Lib - 14
NDP - 10

Quebec
BQ - 51
Lib - 33
PC - 10

Ontario
Lib - 114
PC - 6
Ref - 5
NDP - 3
IND - 1

SK/MB
Ref - 13
NDP - 11
Lib - 9
PC - 2

Alberta
Ref - 28
Lib - 4
PC - 1*

British Columbia
Ref - 29
Lib - 9
NDP - 5

=============
1993

Atlantic
Lib - 35
PC - 4
Ref - 1*

Quebec
BQ - 64
Lib - 26
PC - 3
IND - 1

Ontario
Lib - 111
Ref 7
PC - 5*
NDP - 1*

MB/SK
Lib - 19
NDP - 8
Ref - 7
PC - 1*

Alberta
Ref - 26
Lib - 6
PC - 1*

British Columbia
Ref - 27
Lib - 9
NDP - 3
PC - 1*

=============
1988

Atlantic
Lib - 24
PC - 15
NDP - 1*

Quebec
PC - 73
Lib - 18
NDP - 3*

Ontario
PC - 56
Lib - 53
NDP - 15

SK/MB
PC - 14
NDP - 14
Lib - 7

Alberta
PC - 29
NDP - 2
Lib - 1*
Ref - 1*

British Columbia
NDP - 22
PC - 15
Lib - 3

=============
1984

Atlantic
PC - 29
Lib - 10
NDP - 1*

Quebec
PC - 68
Lib - 25
NDP - 1*

Ontario
PC - 91
Lib - 28
NDP - 23
IND - 1

Prairies
PC - 45
NDP - 13
Lib - 3

British Columbia
PC - 22
NDP - 11
Lib - 2

=============
1980

Atlantic
Lib - 23
PC - 16
NDP - 1*

Quebec
Lib - 84
PC - 5
NDP - 3*
SC - 2*

Ontario
Lib - 62
PC - 47
NDP - 10

Prairies
PC - 39
NDP - 17
Lib - 5

British Colubmia
PC - 19
NDP - 15
Lib - 1*

=============
1979

Atlantic
Lib - 25
PC - 22
NDP - 3

Quebec
Lib - 77
SC - 10
PC - 6
NDP - 1*

Ontario
PC - 67
Lib - 41
NDP - 11

Prairies
PC - 44
NDP - 12
Lib - 5

British Columbia
PC - 22
NDP - 10
Lib - 3

=============
1974

Atlantic
PC - 21
Lib - 17
NDP - 1
IND - 1

Quebec
Lib - 70
SC - 15
PC - 7
NDP - 1*

Ontario
Lib - 65
PC - 33
NDP - 12

West
PC - 58
Lib - 18
NDP - 9

=============
1972

Atlantic
PC - 26
Lib 14

Quebec
Lib - 66
SC - 20
PC - 5
NDP - 1*
IND - 1

Ontario
PC - 49
Lib - 44
NDP - 16
IND - 1

West
PC - 49
NDP - 24
Lib - 12

PR Part 2

<- Click here to see the full post

(quick note. I've decided a threshold of 5% is reasonable, and so have edited the examples to fit within this)

The first thing we must do is design a system that will work for Canada. In some places with PR, they have large PR districts. In Japan, they use multiple-province sized districts. In Iraq, each district is the size of a single province. Other countries use nation-wide districts. Israel, Germany, and Russia are examples of the latter. In order for PR to work in Canada, we need to come up with a system of our own design.

I propose that Provinces, in provincial elections, use a single province-wide district. This will simplify the process to its maximum amount. Provinces rarely have such huge changes in vote distribution as is found on the federal level. The only real instance of a true and drastic change would be the West Island of Montreal. The radical regionalization of the vote like we find in the Reform Party or Bloc does not happen at the provincial level.

Federally, however, I propose that each district be made up of one province, or for smaller provinces, multiple provinces. I propose that BC, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec be PR districts, while a combination of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Territories be a single district; and that Atlantic Canada also be a single district. If done in this way, each district would have the following number of ridings.
Ontario – 106
Quebec – 75
BC – 36
Atlantic – 32
Prairies/North - 31
Alberta – 28

Next, we need to determine the number of PR seats to add. The more we add, the better the chance that we will overturn a majority government; while the fewer we add, the better the chance that regional mis-representation cannot be smoothed over properly. I propose that we add either 20% or 25% of the number of ridings back as PR seats. So that a district with 100 ridings would have either 20 or 25 PR seats tied to it. 20 seats is enough to give you one seat per every 5% of the vote. 25 does it with every 4%. Using 25%, our smallest province, PEI (which has 27 MLAs) would get 7 PR seats, while Federal Alberta (which has 28 MPs) would also get 7. Using 20%, they would only get 5. It would take 14% of the vote to elect one PR member at a factor of 25%, but 20% of the vote to do it at a factor of 20%. While I favor 20% in many ways, I think 25% will sell better, and work better with these smaller districts. I therefore propose that for every 4 MPs, MLAs, MHAs, MNAs, or MPPs each district has, that it gains 1 PR member, rounded up where need be.

A key to making this work in terms of getting fair representation for the opposition is to limit the size of lists. Parties will only be able to submit lists that contain half as many names as there are seats available, rounded up where needed. Therefore, where you have a list of 7 PR members, such as in Federal Alberta, each party will only be able to submit names for half (rounded up) of these 7, or, 4. This limits the amount of members the government can win. Let’s begin looking at some examples.

Newfoundland, provincially, has 48 ridings. I propose that 12 PR members be added. If we were to distribute those PR seats, with no list limit, we would see the following results:
PC – 9
Lib – 2
NDP – 1
This is because the PC Party took 70% of the vote in the last provincial election. Using the proposed list-limit, however, you get the following.
PC – 6 (limited)
Lib – 5
NDP – 1

Combine this with the results from the last election and you get:
PC – 50
Lib – 8
NDP - 2

This brings the total number of opposition seats up to 10 out of 60 (17%) which is more than the 4 out of 48 (8%) they got under the current system. At the same time this allows not only the opposition to get people elected from their lists, but the Government as well. With 6 members, you can elect a Premier, a Deputy Premier, a Finance Minister, Two Women, and a Minority.

Below the fold are examples going back to 1972. Why 1972? Well that was the year we had a federal election that was nearly a tie; a great place to put this electoral system to the test.




Note that these examples show the new totals, added to the ridings elected from our current system.

* = All seats are from the new PR list. The party did not win any ridings.

Newfoundland

2007
PC – 50
Lib – 8
NDP – 2

2003
PC – 40
Lib – 17
NDP – 3

1999
Lib – 38
PC – 19
NDP – 3

1996
Lib – 43
PC – 15
NDP – 1
IND - 1

1993
Lib – 41
PC – 22
NDP – 2

1989
Lib – 37
PC – 28

1985
PC – 42
Lib – 20
NDP – 3

1982
PC – 40
Lib – 15

1979
PC – 40
Lib – 24
NDP – 1*

1975
PC – 37
Lib – 21
RL - 5 (Reform Liberals, or Smallwood Liberals)
Ind - 1

1972
PC – 39
Lib - 14


====================
Prince Edward Island

2007
Lib - 27
PC - 7

2003
PC - 27
Lib - 7

2000
PC - 30
Lib - 4

1996
PC - 22
Lib - 11
NDP - 1

1993
Lib - 36
PC - 4

1989
Lib - 35
PC - 5

1986
Lib - 25
PC - 15

1982
PC - 25
Lib - 15

1979
PC - 25
Lib - 15

1978
Lib - 21
PC - 19

1974
Lib - 31
PC - 9


====================
New Brunswick

2006
Lib - 36
PC - 33

2003
PC - 35
Lib - 32
NDP - 2

1999
PC - 51
Lib - 16
NDP - 2

1995
Lib - 55
PC - 11
NDP - 2
CoR - 1*

1991
Lib - 54
CoR - 11
PC - 6
NDP - 2

1987
Lib - 66
PC - 5*
NDP - 2*

1982
PC - 47
Lib - 24
NDP - 2

1978
PC - 37
Lib - 35
NDP - 1

1974
PC - 40
Lib - 33

--------------------
note
In 1987, the Liberals won every riding. Under the new PR system, they opposition has 9.6% of the seats.
====================
Nova Scotia

2009
NDP - 37
Lib - 15
PC - 13

2006
PC - 28
NDP - 25
Lib - 12

2003
PC - 30
NDP - 19
Lib - 16

1999
PC - 35
NDP - 15
Lib - 15

1998
Lib - 24
NDP - 23
PC - 18

1993
Lib - 46
PC - 12
NDP - 7

1988
PC - 34
Lib - 26
NDP - 4
IND - 1

1984
PC - 49
Lib - 10
NDP - 5
Lab - 1

1981
PC - 44
Lib - 17
NDP - 3
IND - 1

1978
PC - 37
Lib - 22
NDP - 6

1974
Lib - 37
PC - 17
NDP - 4


====================
Manitoba


2008
NDP - 43
PC - 24
Lib - 4

2003
NDP - 42
PC - 25
Lib - 4

1999
NDP - 38
PC - 30
Lib - 3

1995
Lib - 37
NDP - 28
Lib - 6

1990
PC - 36
NDP - 24
Lib - 11

1988
PC - 31
Lib - 25
NDP - 15

1986
NDP - 36
PC - 32
Lib - 3

1981
NDP - 41
PC - 29
Lib - 1*

1977
PC - 40
NDP - 29
Lib - 2

1973
NDP - 37
PC - 26
Lib - 8


--------------------
note
1990. A 3 seat margin becomes a 1 seat margin.
1986, again, 3 seat margin becomes 1.
====================
Saskatchewan

2007
SKP - 44
NDP - 28
Lib - 1*

2003
NDP - 37
SKP - 34
Lib - 2*

1999
NDP - 35
SKP - 31
Lib - 7

1995
NDP - 49
Lib - 16
PC - 8

1991
NDP - 64
PC - 14
Lib - 5

1986
PC - 45
NDP - 33
Lib - 2

1982
PC - 63
NDP - 17

1978
NDP - 52
PC - 23
Lib - 2*

1975
NDP - 46
Lib - 20
PC - 11


====================
Alberta

2008
PC - 84
Lib - 15
NDP - 4
AA - 1*
Grn - 1*

2004
PC - 73
Lib - 22
NDP - 6
AA - 3

2001
PC - 85
Lib - 15
NDP - 4

1997
PC - 74
Lib - 24
NDP - 4
SC - 1*

1993
PC - 61
Lib - 41
NDP - 2*

1989
PC - 69
NDP - 21
Lib - 14

1986
PC - 72
NDP - 23
Lib - 6
RPP - 3

1982
PC - 85
NDP - 8
WCC - 4* (Separatists)
IND - 2

1979
PC - 84
SC - 9
NDP - 5
Lib - 1*

1975
PC - 79
SC - 9
NDP - 4
Lib - 1*
IND - 1


====================
British Columbia

2009
BCL - 59
NDP - 45
Grn - 1*
IND - 1

2005
BCL - 56
NDP - 42
Grn - 1*

2001
BCL - 87
NDP - 8
Grn - 4*


1996
NDP - 47
BCL - 41
Ref - 4
PDA - 2

1991
NDP - 59
BCL - 23
SC - 12

1986
SC - 56
NDP - 29
BCL - 1*

1983
SC - 42
NDP - 29

1979
SC - 38
NDP - 33

1975
SC - 42
NDP - 24
Lib - 2
PC - 1

1972
NDP - 44
SC - 14
Lib - 7
PC - 4


--------------------
note
In 1996 the NDP won a government despite the Liberals having more votes. Our current system gave the (NDP) Government a 3 seat lead over the Opposition. This proposal results in a tie.
====================
Quebec

2008
PLQ - 80
PQ - 63
ADQ - 12
QS - 1

2007
PLQ - 57
ADQ - 52
PQ - 47

2003
PLQ - 91
PQ - 55
ADQ - 10

1998
PQ - 90
PLQ - 62
ADQ - 4

1994
PQ - 92
PLQ - 61
ADQ - 3

1989
PLQ - 108
PQ - 44
Equ - 4

1985
PLQ - 115
PQ - 38

1981
PQ - 96
PLQ - 57

1976
PQ - 84
PLQ - 36
UN - 16
RC - 1
PNP - 1

1973
PLQ - 116
PQ - 17
RC - 5


====================
Ontario

2007
Lib - 83
PC - 35
NDP - 14
Grn - 2*

2003
Lib - 81
PC - 33
NDP - 11

1999
PC - 70
Lib - 46
NDP - 12

1995
PC - 97
Lib - 41
NDP - 24
IND - 1

1990
NDP - 87
Lib - 48
PC - 28

1987
Lib - 111
NDP - 28
PC - 24

1985
PC - 64
Lib - 60
NDP - 32

1981
PC - 84
Lib - 45
NDP - 27

1977
PC - 70
Lib - 44
NDP - 42

1975
PC - 62
Lib - 47
NDP - 47

--------------------
note
In 1975, the NDP took 2 more ridings than the Liberals, however under the proposed PR system, they would have tied, meaning the Liberals remain as Official Opposition.



Up next, federal results.













Wednesday, February 17, 2010

For Mr.Benoit

<- Read the full response to Mr.Benoit

Today, I, and everyone in my building (I live in a university dorm, in perhaps the most Liberal riding in English Canada) got a flyer from the Conservative Party. It showed Harper and Iggy, noting that Harper is good and Iggy is bad. Thats great and all, except it was not from the Tories after all, it was from Mr. Leon Benoit, MP. I am no stranger to this particular MP, he sends me a lot of mail just like this. I decided to help him out and respond, so in the space provided for comments I let him know that I do not live in his riding, and that if he wants to use his franking privileges most efficiently, my riding is not one he should be targeting, especially not my building.

I offered to help him, and gave him a link to this post. I will respond to him below the fold.


Mr. Benoit. Thank you again for your letter. As I said, however, sadly, my building is not one you should be wasting your money targeting. As niXtuff blog offers election projection services for free to the public, I've decided I will also offer these services to you and your party, at a 50% discount. Below is a list of Ridings that you SHOULD be targeting.

According to my calculations, your party is already winning St.John's South in Newfoundland. Avalon is within grasp too. Radom-Burin-St.George's however is a great place to drive hard for an extra seat.

In PEI there is a chance you can pick up Malpeque

Nova Scotia is somewhat of a lost cause, but money can keep South Shore from going NDP

In NB, Moncton is a good pick up

Quebec is going to be problematic no matter what you do. Best Case Scenario, you hold on to your current seats. Dump your funding into ridings like Roberval, Pontiac, and Beauport. The others are far more safe.

I'll get back to Ontario later.

BC is another place you'll be struggling to hold on. BC has voted against the government more often than any other province (look it up, its true!) They don't like people who are perceived to abuse power. You will need to spend to hold on. I recommend Fleetwood-Port Kells, Richmond, Surrey North, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast, and Vancouver Island North. Don't waste money in Saanich-Gulf Islands, it is more solidly Tory than you think.

In Alberta, there are three ridings you should focus on. Edmonton-Strathcona, Edmonton-Centre, and Calgary West. That's right, Calgary West. Don't laugh. When your party loses it you'll see. I would stop the Liberals there while I had the chance. Spend like there is no tomorrow.

Saskatchewan. Any spending here is mostly wasted. The NDP might make a showing in Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, and you might want to knock off Goodale again, but neither riding will change unless the polls do in some radical way. (I am telling you all this presuming you want a Majority - these are the ridings you need to win to do it). Ignore this province.

Manitoba is somewhat of a similar story. Do not underestimate the power of the Liberals in Winnipeg South. I would also not write off Winnipeg North. You are not in a position to take it just yet, but when you do, NDPers will be stunned.

Northern Ontario is one place where you can make gains. Thunder Bay-Superior North is one riding you could steal. Sault Ste Marie is another.

Toronto is mostly a write off. Don't worry about winning a majority without a seat in Toronto. Shit happens. Look at the Liberals in 1980. If you really do want one, the targets are, in order, York Centre, Don Valley West, Scarborough Southwest, Etobicoke Lakeshore (yes, that Etobicoke Lakeshore) and Etobicoke Centre. I would not waste your money within city limits. If it looks like you are going to win a majority, enough people will switch to give you a riding or two

Eastern Ontario is pretty solid and won't move against you or for you very much. If you really have ti spend here, do it in Kingston.

Western Ontario is very similar. London-Fanshaew is winnable, and even London-North Centre is within grasp.

In the Eastern GTA (Durham and York) is also very stable. Ajax-Pickering could fall with enough effort, but I would not waste the cash.

If you want gains in Ontario, it will come from the Western GTA and Waterloo area. Bramlea-Gore-Malton is very hard to knock off, but outside of that, the following ridings should get attention to either help you win them, or help you defend them:
Brampton West. Brampton-Springdale. Guelph. Kitchener Centre. Kitchener-Waterloo. Mississauga South. Mississauga-Erindale.

And thus, you win a majority government.

If you want to know where to focus at current polling levels, you'll have to come back in a few days when I post a full riding by riding projection using current polling numbers.









Monday, February 15, 2010

<- Click here to see the full post


The issue of Proportional Representation has been one that I’ve cared about for many years now. I can recall writing school papers in grade school on the issue. I remember referring to it as PR throughout the paper as it save me from writing Proportional Representation dozens of times. This is a tradition I intend to continue.

We have had a few votes in this country on the issue. One in Ontario and One in Prince Edward Island returned very similar results. Downtown ridings voted narrowly for PR while non-down urban, suburban, and rural ridings voted against it, sometimes by large margins. BC voted twice, and while the result was generally favorable all throughout the province, it failed both times. The question then becomes why?

The biggest argument used against PR is that it will result in more minority governments. Here in Canada, we are familiar with them, but not used to them. As I write this, all provinces in the country have a majority government, ranging from thin majorities in Quebec and BC to very large ones in Newfoundland and PEI. In the recent past we have seen minority governments on the provincial level. Quebec, and Nova Scotia have both come out of this situation in the past few years. In fact, every province has had a Minority government at some point. Newfoundland had one that collapsed nearly instantly, and PEI had a 15-15 tie over 100 years ago. New Brunswick has never elected one, but has seen them due to loss of seats, while Saskatchewan has elected two that both were quickly solidified into Majorities via coalition.

Federally, however, we are most familiar with minorities. Not only because we have been in this situation for the last 6 years, but perhaps mostly because they make for good news stories, even decades after the fact. Politicos across this country know what Pearson did with his minority, and they know that Diefenbaker used them to enter and exit his time in office. King had the most famous minority that, upon further research, turns into a majority. Of course, party lines of the 1920’s are not what we know today.

The one thing that is true for minorities on every level is that they are far more unstable than majorities. It is this instability that people fear when they hear about PR. In order to quell these fears, we must find a way to implement PR without causing a significant increase in the number of minority governments. Doing this is no easy task. PR, by nature, tries to make seats equal votes, and we as a country do not tend to elect parties with over half of the vote. I say there is a way to do this. Find out more below the fold.



A question we must then ask is; what is the reason for PR? Some want these minorities, but in general, most just want everyone’s voice to be represented. That means, in short, two things. First, giving smaller but spread out parties more seats. Historically, this has meant the NDP. Today it also means the Green Party. Most provinces have a clear two party system. Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland have the Liberals and Tories fighting for government, with the NDP picking up what is left. This mirrors the federal situation to a degree. In Quebec, the two big parties are the PLQ and the PQ, with others such as the ADQ and QS being clearly behind. Manitoba and Saskatchewan both have similar systems, with the Liberals in third, and the government a battle between the NDP and the Tories (who are called the Saskatchewan Party in that province). In BC the difference between the two main parties, the Liberals and the NDP and the third placed party, the Greens, is even more stark as the Greens have never won a seat. In Alberta, the Tories are clearly at the top, but there is no clear and long lasting leader amongst the opposition parties. The Wildrose Alliance currently is polling in the high 30’s, but the Liberals managed the same back in the early 1990’s. And lastly in Nova Scotia, and even in the Yukon Territory, the three parties battle it out on an almost equal footing.

The other voices that go unheard are regional. Beyond doing poorly on the provincial level, the Federal Liberal Party has always had trouble in the Prairies, or at least since the 60’s they have. This quite often will mean that a Federal Government may go with very little or no representation from the west. 1980 was one such occurrence where a grand total of 2 MP’s were elected to the government from Western Canada, and both were from Winnipeg. This regional imbalance is part of what causes many of the problems we see today in federal politics. With the Tories ‘locked in’ to winning Alberta, the Liberals winning Toronto, and the Bloc winning Quebec it is difficult to find the right person to turn things around. The NDP, for example, has only recently been able to gain a real foothold in Quebec. We see now how this is changing the politics of that province. What if, however, the NDP had maintained an MP from Quebec for decades? Surly we can all agree that would certainly change the balance of politics. Imagine if you will, a Canadian Alliance MP from Atlantic Canada. An NDPer from Rural Alberta. A Bloc member from the West Island. A Liberal Saskatchewan Farmer. These things would certainly change the way people look at our political parties.

This last point also applies in an important way to the provinces and opposition parties. Currently, in Prince Edward Island, there are 24 Government MLAs and 3 Opposition MLAs. Newfoundland has 44 in the Government, and 5 in the Opposition. Alberta has over 70 in the government and a dozen in the opposition. PEI has seen, on two recent occasions, the entire opposition caucus made up of a single member. New Brunswick, in 1987, elected the Liberals to every single riding. I contend that this is not good for democracy. Some provinces have a history of electing very small opposition caucuses. Alberta, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland in particular, though Nova Scotia, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan have each had their problems in this field.

So we end up back where we began. Clearly we cannot have our cake and eat it too. Or can we? I say we can. The want for more regional balance and proper representation of the “losing” parties, is not incongruent with the desire of Canadians for stable majority governance. In effect, we are looking for a system to bolster the opposition, without defeating the government. For the answer to that, we must look to a country where this occurs and was needed. For that, we turn to Japan.

For decades, Japan had a one and a half party system. The governing Liberal Democrats would consistently capture majorities in the lower house, while the Japan Socialist Party would form an endless string of solid oppositions. Every once in a while, disgruntled members would break from the Liberal Democrats and form their own small parties, but these would not last.

This began to fall apart in the 1980s when the JSP started to go on a more moderate trajectory. Over time, the opposition began to fracture. Finally, in 1993, the LDP faced a number of problems, and a series of large defections crippled the party. In the election that year, 9 parties were elected to the Diet (House) and the LDP lost its majority. The opposition used this rare opportunity to form a government of their own. Two weak coalition governments were formed that made many reforms. One of which was to officially apologize for Japan’s actions during WW2. The other, was electoral reform.

Sadly, this opposition government did not last. The LDP was able to return to government by forming a coalition with the Socialists, having one of them serve as Prime Minister. In the following election, the LDP returned to power and would remain there until 2009 when the Democratic Party (which was formed when, over time, the parties from that 1993 government slowly merged into one) won the first non-LDP majority government in modern history.

So just what did they do in Japan? Clearly it has not impeded the formation of Majority governments, nor has it caused smaller parties to spring up out of nowhere. In fact, over this same period, the number of major parties shrank. This is due to the type of PR used in Japan. Let’s review some of our basic options.

Ireland uses a type of PR called STV. This is what BC wanted to do. Due to the popularity of that debate I won’t go into great detail. Ontario and PEI wanted MMP. This is what is done in Germany and New Zealand. Parties can win local seats, but the PR seats are then applied so that when all is said and done, at the end of the day, the total share of seats each party has is as close as possible to the total share of vote they received. Japan has a system somewhat similar to MMP, but with a key and crucial difference. Japan uses a so-called Parallel system. That means that the number of seats won from the PR lists is decided by the share of vote, with no consideration given to the “end of the day” number. Parallel PR, in a way, treats the seats won in ridings, and the seats won from lists as parallel, or separate entities. Lets examine some examples.

The country of Samplestan has 100 seats. 80 ridings and 20 seats in the PR list.
The Sample Party has won 55% of the vote and 54 of the 80 ridings.
The Test Case Party has won 45% of the vote and 26 ridings.

MMP would give the Sample Party 1 PR seat, and the Test Case Party 19, for an end total of 55 and 45 respectively.

Parallel PR however would give the Sample Party 11 PR seats (55% of the PR seats) and the Test Case Party 9 of them (45%) for an end total of 65 and 35.

So what does this mean? To put it simply, Parallel PR has a much more difficult time overturning a majority government than MMP does. Parallel PR also makes it far easier to estimate the number of list seats that a party will win, rendering nearly impossible the chance that a party can win more ridings than expected and have as a result, candidates from its list not make it into parliament.

So, what does this all mean for Canada? Well lets go back and look at Samplestan. The winning party has managed to win over two thirds of the seats, but this by no means guarantees them a seat in all the areas of the country. The opposition’s chances are even lower. Under MMP, the government would only get a single PR seat. That top seat is usually reserved for the leader, meaning areas of the nation could well go under represented within the government. In countries like Canada, where politics are very regionalized, this can be a problem. Imagine if you will, a Liberal victory in the 1990s with only a few extra PR seats. Nearly all these PR seats would need to go to the West or Quebec to properly balance the party.

Perhaps more importantly is the concept if the official opposition as the “Government in waiting”. Again, back to the 1990s, when the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance never managed to elect more than two members east of the Manitoba-Ontario border. On the flip side we have the Bloc Quebecois. Normally, parties place their leader in the first PR slot, as the leader represents the entire country, not just one riding; however in the Bloc’s case, there is a good chance the leader may not even make it into Parliament, as the party is already over-represented.

The answer, then, is to apply Parallel PR to Canada. Let’s look at a past election as an example; The 2000 Federal Election. The results were as follows:
Liberal – 172 – 40.85%
Alliance – 66 – 25.49%
Bloc – 38 – 10.72%
NDP – 13 – 8.51%
PC – 12 – 12.19%
This is a total of 301 seats. I am going to add 80 PR seats to the mix. Let’s compare the two systems. Under MMP:
Liberal – 172
Allinace – 97
Bloc – 41
NDP – 32
PC – 46
In this example, the Liberals have taken their 172 ridings, more than the 155 seats they would have qualified for, and so the extra is kept as over-hang seats. This example also puts us into a minority government. Now we compare to Parallel
Liberal – 205
Alliance – 86
Bloc – 47
NDP – 20
PC – 22
The Liberals would retain a majority government, although by a smaller margin. They would get 33 extra seats from the PR lists, and they could, and likely would use these seats to bolster their standing from the West and Quebec, while still leaving slots for those from Ontario and the Atlantic. The Alliance would have had 20 seats to play with, enough to get some real representation from Central and Atlantic Canada. The Bloc would have 9 seats, enough to get a Leader elected, a few extra MPs, and perhaps Anglo MPs. The PC Party, which finished 5th, would get 10 extra MPs, enough to vault them into 4th, and enough to give them some big names in all areas of Canada. Lastly the NDP, who had one of their worst elections ever, would still win 7 seats, and would likely have at least one Quebec MP.

This allows both the government and opposition to be represented across the country, it allows votes for “losing” parties to still count, while at the same time, maintaining the stability of Majority governments.

The above are simple examples to explain my ideas. In my following post, I will provide more hard and fast examples. For now, an extra bonus; I’ve applied 80 PR seats to the 1993 election, and achieved the following results:

Liberal – 210
Reform – 67
Bloc – 65
NDP – 15
PC – 15




Sunday, February 14, 2010

New Blog - The Info Bin!

-

I wish to inform my readers that I've opened up a new blog, The Info Bin. From time to time I do research that does not fit into anything specific. A few hours ago I was working on Japanese elections. Just now, I am looking at the history of Communist parties from the former Soviet Union. Not all of my research is election related. Regardless, I've decided to start a "blog" so that I may post there with the results of my "Research" so that I may share my findings.


Sorry, no extra data today!

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Latest Projection

-

A new Environics poll is out showing the Liberals with a lead outside the margin of error. Adding that to the matrix we get the following results:

CPC - 117 - 32.42%
Lib - 111 - 31.12%
BQ - 47 - 9.95%
NDP - 33 - 16.83%
Grn - 0 - 8.64%


Sorry, no extra data today!

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Latest Projection - Spotlight Ontario

-

As per request, our Riding By Riding projection for Ontario







Sorry, no extra data today!

Giambrone is out

-

Due to his string of scandals, Adam Giambrone has dropped out.

I wont analyze this, the media will be doing enough of that. So how will this effect the race.

Well right now, with Adam out and Minnan-Wong/Ford yet to declare, we only have three "real candidates". And this is where I see them standing at this moment.

Smitherman - 42%
Rossi - 27%
Pantalone - 27%


Sorry, no extra data today!

Monday, February 8, 2010

Latest Projection

-



In short, we are looking at 2006 all over again, with a few more NDP seats at the expense of the Bloc.

The Liberal's momentum has slowed but they still have a slight edge here. Unless they can pull out a wider lead in Ontario, they will start to waste votes in Quebec, and even a tie in the national popular vote will lead to a Tory government.




Sorry, no extra data today!

TTC on strike - of sorts

-

There are reports this morning that the TTC Union has decided to "work to rule" and purposefully delay service in response to customers asking them to do their jobs properly. Clearly the message from the Union, and its Drivers to Customers is "Either let us treat you badly, or we won't drive you at all"

UPDATE

City TV ran into the head of the TTC Union - Bob Kinnear - who states that the Union is not behind this. Okay, fair enough. I remember him pleading with employees during the last wildcat strike. I apologize to the ATU, the reality is this is not from them, it is from the operators who are unwilling to show passengers respect, even when asked to. When even the Union can't control it's workers, you know things are bad.


Sorry, no extra data today!

Friday, February 5, 2010

Question Period, in America?

-

It has come to my attention that there is a movement afoot to get Question Period, or Question Time in the United States. The movement, called Demand Question Time is pushing for the President, and possibly his cabinet, to face legislators questions.

I had this idea myself quite a while ago. My idea was that every second Tuesday of the month, the President would sit down with Congress and answer questions. Like here in Canada, each member would get a supplementary question, so that they may ask their primary question, and one follow up. This would allow them to counter any evasive answers. There would, like here, be time limits on Questions and Answers to ensure that one side or the other does not ramble on to run out the clock.

My idea would see a 90 minute Question Period. The first two questions would go to the Majority Leader in the Senate, followed by the Minority Leader in the senate. The next two, to the Majority Leader of the house, and then the Minority leader of the house. The following questions would keep this pattern. Maj-Sen, Min-Sen, Maj-Hou, Min-Hou. This would split the questions between the two chambers, and between the two parties. There have been suggestions to have the questioners randomly picked, I'd not be opposed to this so long as the leaders get the first round of questions. Another way to counter having trained seals ask questions is to limit the number of questions a single member can ask to one (and its follow up) every 3 months or so.

Questions should be limited to 45 seconds, and answers to 2 minutes. IIRC this is what they do here in Canada. In reality, the entire time is not always used. Normally you want 'bad' questions done away with as soon as possible, and normally a 'good' question is asked very quickly. An simplistic answer is "Why do you suck as president?" being followed by "I don't". Short questions and answers also have a much better chance of making it onto the repeating news cycle, so a short quick jab followed by a short effective defense helps both sides 'win'. Normally an entire question and it's supplementary will be done in 3 minutes. At least that is how things work here. This would allow for a full cycle of 12 minutes, allowing 7 questions from each half of each house in each session. This may not sound like much, and it is not, but the point of modern question period is less getting real answers, and more of drawing the pubilc's attention to problems so that they demand real answers.

Americans curious about how we do Question Period need only to check You Tube for "Question Period Canada". I personally recommend the "Big Gas" clip :)


Sorry, no extra data today!

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Toronto Centre (provincial) By-Election

-
Final Results

Lib - 12327 - 47.0%
NDP - 8685 - 33.1%
PC - 4030 - 15.4%
Grn - 806 - 3.1%
IND - 101 - 0.4% (Candidate Rama Raj)
Lbt - 99 - 0.4% (Libertarian Party)
Fpo - 89 - 0.3% (Freeom Party of Ontario)
IND - 67 - 0.3% (John Turmel)

What is important here is the swing. The Liberals lost less than 1% of the vote, comparing it to the general election three years ago. What we do see is that a quarter of PC voters, and most Greens were willing to switch to a party they thought could win (The NDP) to try to force the Liberals out. I will take the Green number with a grain of salt - that party does not perform well in by-elections at all times - but the PC number may be of some real significance. What if a quarter of voters from either the Tories or NDP is willing to switch to the other to push the Liberals out of office? I ran the numbers and came up with this:

Lib - 61
PC - 31
NDP - 14

All in all, a great night for the Ontario Liberals.

--------
Old Post
--------

I will be following the results of the by-election online, and you can too from here:

http://www.elections.on.ca/en-ca

I will be "live blogging" by editing info into this post as the night goes on.

9:14pm
The NDP is in the lead, but it is only 1% of the polls in.

9:15pm
NDP - 36
Lib - 15
PC - 4
Grn - 2
Oth - 1
Total votes, not percentages. It is very early.

9:22pm
Lib - 893
NDP - 726
PC - 308
Grn - 56
Oth - 19
Libs in the lead. NDP second. 15% of polls in. The race is taking shape, it is too late at this point for anyone but the Liberals or NDP to win, and while the Liberals have a lead, it is not clear just yet.


9:30pm
Lib - 3176 - 46.6%
NDP - 2322 - 34.1%
PC - 1031 - 15.1%
Grn - 198 - 2.9%
1/3rd of polls in
The Liberals have pulled out a wider lead, will it last?

9:38pm
The lead is pretty clear at this point
Lib - 45.8%
NDP - 32.1%
With 50%+ of the polls in, I'm going to call it a win here. Glen Murray is the new MPP for Toronto Centre.


Sorry, no extra data today!

Toronto Projection Soup

-

My last post may have been a bit confusing, so I wanted to clarify.

There are blocs of voters that will vote for certain candidates of types of candidates. Therefore I wanted to make clear the following.

Presuming that Minnan-Wong, and Ford do not run, and that Pantalone drops out. Currently, I would expect the polls to realistically be at:

Smitherman - 38% (Centre Left)
Giambrone - 30% (Left)
Rossi - 30% (Centre Right)
Others - 2%

If Pantalone is in, the split between him and Giambrone would be 18-12

If Minnan-Wong or Ford runs, the split between that candidate and Rossi would be 15-15

If Minnan-Wong and Ford run, the split between the two would be 10-5 in Minnan-Wong's favour.


Sorry, no extra data today!

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Liberals close in on Tories

<- Click here to see the full post
Full data below the fold.

With recent polls showing the Liberals and the Tories running neck and neck, it is only reasonable to expect the projections to catch up. Here are our current federal numbers.

CPC - 131 - 33.1%
Lib - 96 - 30.1%
BQ - 47 - 9.9%
NDP - 34 - 17.0%

There is a strong Liberal Trend.

So, what's happened? To answer that we need to go back, far back, to 2006. In 2006 Canadians realized they do not like the Liberal Party because of sponsorship; so they threw the red bastards out, and elected the blue ones.

In 2008, Canadians realized they do not like Stephane Dion. They really do not like Stephane Dion. Frankly, I don't blame them. That brings us to 2009. Iggy became leader. At first, Canadians were excited, but by the time the summer hit, people realized that they don't much care for Iggy either. Then came the Prorogue scandal. It's not so much that Canadians hated the idea of a proroguation (and sure some did, but in general, Harper is right, they don't care) What this scandal did was bring to the surface the fact that Canadians don't like Stephen Harper either. Over the years they've been so focused on the Liberals and their leaders, they have forgotten that they never really liked Harper in the first place. This scandal has reminded them of just why they don't like him.

So now it's a race between Harper (who they don't like) Iggy (whom they also don't like) and Layton (who they clearly don't like) It's no wonder polls have a Bloc comeback and the Greens in the double digits.



Atlantic
CPC - 14
Lib - 12
NDP - 6

Quebec
BQ - 47
Lib - 20
CPC - 7
NDP - 1

Ontario
Lib - 51
CPC - 44
NDP - 11

Prairies
CPC - 22
NDP - 4
Lib - 2

Alberta
CPC - 26
Lib - 1
NDP - 1

BC
CPC - 17
NDP - 10
Lib - 9

Territories
CPC - 1
Lib - 1
NDP - 1

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

The Polls, according to Rob Ford

-
According to a Toronto Star article Mr.Ford has commissioned his own poll showing him with 13% of the vote.

I for one don't see what the big whoop is, as I myself projected a slice of the political pie to go to a right-wing candidate in this year's municipal election. In that post I projected the polls to be as follows:

Smitherman - (L) - 38%
Pantalone - (N) - 18%
Rossi - (L) - 15%
Giambrone - (N) - 15%
Minnan-Wong - (C) - 12%
Mammoliti - (N) - 2%

Since then, Giambrone has been hot, and Pantalone has not. Rossi, as I projected he would, has taken a clear stand and has occupied the ground formerly taken by Jon Tory. Smitherman, meanwhile, remains ahead of his nearest rival by a 2-to-1 margin.

Ford's poll shows little, but confirms:

Smitherman - 46%
Giambrone - 17%
Ford - 13%

As this is a poll, even a slightly skewed one, I will update my official projections as of this time to the following:

Smitherman - (L) - 38%
Giambrone - (N) - 18%
Rossi - (L) - 15%
Pantalone - (N) - 12%
Minnan-Wong - (PC) - 10% [Combined 15% if only one runs]
Ford - (C) - 5% [Combined 15% if only one runs]
Mammoliti - (N) - not a chance



Sorry, no extra data today!

Friday, January 29, 2010

New Senators

-

This will be a short post.


Harper has appointed 5 new senators. What does this mean?

First, it means that for the first time since the 1990's, the Tories have a plurality in the Senate. Even more interesting is that prior to the 1990's, the last time they managed this was when Bennett was Prime Minister. The Tories take control of the upper chamber less often than they take government, so this indeed is something of note.

Once all the appointments go though, the party standings will be as follows:
CPC - 51
Lib - 49
Oth - 5

So who are these people anyway?

The Quebecois of the bunch is a law and order type.
One of the Ontarians, is an immigrant from India. Hindu immigrants have been somewhat friendly towards the Conservatives, and this may be an attempt to shore up that front of the party.
The other three hail from Ontario, Newfoundland, and New Brunswick. All of them are sitting PC members in their respective provincial legislatures.

And that is the short of it.


Sorry, no extra data today!

Monday, January 25, 2010

Palestine Election 2010

-

This is the election that will never be, or so it seems. Palestine has been due for an election for quite some time now but has been unable to hold one due to the fact that the country is split in two.

Beyond the geographic split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there is a political split, with Fatah (and pals) controlling the West Bank, and Hamas (and pals) controlling the Gaza Strip. Neither, of course, really want's to lose their grasp on power in their half to risk gaining power in the other half (less it be ripped away though a civil war like it was the first time) The situation may then just remain as-is.

But what is the situation as-is? I've decided to take a look at another Wikipedia page found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_members_of_Palestinian_Legislative_Council and come up with a few numbers.

First of all, I tried to find out where this broken assembly currently stands. If I have my count right, Hamas and friends have 65 seats, while Fatah and friends have 47. I decided to make it interesting, and try to split the vote between the two. This is difficult as the Proportional Representation seats are assigned nationwide. What I decided to do was place all Fatah reps in the West Bank and all Hamas in Gaza. This seemed logical. This is what I came up with.

West Bank (2.6 mil)
Fatah - 42 (34 list)
Hamas - 19

Gaza Strip (1.6 mil)
Hamas - 46 (26 list)
Fatah - 5

So what do these numbers mean? Not much, sadly, they are pretty useless. This is, however, the closest we can get to the "situation as-is", and my simple calculation here and now, sadly, looks about as close as we will get to a Palestinian election this year.


Sorry, no extra data today!