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!

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.

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.

<- 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

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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

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!

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!

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!

Projection... for Ireland!

-

In our efforts to branch out our coverage, we've decided to provide some coverage of the ever pending Irish election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Irish_general_election

A little history. Ireland has two main parties, Fianna Fáil (FF) and Fine Gael (FG). There is also a strong Labour Party. To summarize - and I'm dumbing it down a little to be concise - either FF wins on it's own, or FG and Labour wins with a coalition government. FF and FG have a very similar yet very different history. They were once a single party split by the idea of having the English monarch in Ireland. For this reason, neither party was really "left" or "right" of the other, but the co-operation with Labour over time has pulled FG to the left while FF has been allowed to drift to the right.

Now recent history. FF has been hurt by the recession, and it's perceived mismanagement of the situation. They have dropped like a rock in the polls, coming in third place by some counts. I've decided to run a poll average plus some trend and baselines and see if I can come up with a seat projection for the coming election. This is what I have.

FG - 57 (Gov)
FF - 43
Lab - 38 (Gov)
SC - 14
Grn - 8
Ind - 5
CC - 1

While there will errors in this count, of course, but it is a good rough guide as to what may happen when the election is called; of course, that could be 2012.



Sorry, no extra data today!

And so what of the ADQ?

-

My last post on Quebec touches on the ADQ's problems, but what of them? What is next? Lets for a moment take a look at another provincial-only right-wing party. The Wildrose Alliance. They are, at the moment, polling for government in Alberta, but what of them before they became "hot"?

To fully understand what happened in Alberta, you have to go all the way back to the 1971 election of the PC Party. In 1971, and following this in 1975 and 1979, Social Credit remained the official opposition. In 1982, 2 members of the party started their own party, and managed to get re-elected, and take 12% of the vote. In 86 a western separatist party took 5% of the vote. In fact, outside of 89 and 2001, there has always been some kind of right-opposition in Alberta.

Lets glance back at Quebec for a moment. In 1985, the PC Party made an entrance, and took a whole 1% of the vote. In 1989, there was no major right-wing opponent to the Liberals, but outside of this, there also, like Alberta, been a right-wing opposition party. Recently, that has been the ADQ. Now, back to Alberta. In 1997 a man named Randy Thorsteinson lead the Alberta Social Credit party though an election and brought it to within spitting distance of the NDP. He later quit due to precived bias against him (he is Mormon) Thorsteinson went on to found the Alberta Alliance, which won a seat in the 2004 provincial election, electing Paul Hinman, also a Mormon. As the only MLA, Hinman went on to become leader. By the 2008 election, a new party, the Wildrose Party had spring up as another right-wing alternative. It had the big names, and big dollars, but lacked the grassroots organization and in-place party machine the Alberta Alliance did. The two decided to merge and throw in their chances with a single party. Although they came very close to re-electing Hinman, they failed. Now it is 2010. The party has a new leader, they found a seat for Hinman, have two floor crossers, and are polling near 40%.

So, what does this mean for Quebec? It means, in short, the ADQ may be dead in a few years, but the "ADQ" may yet take government. How? The same way Reform Party member Stephen Harper become Prime Minister. Though mergers, party re-branding, and other such things. There were roomers a few years ago that should Charest ever lose government, that the federal Conservatives would make a serious attempt to organize a provincial party in Quebec. How much water this holds is unknown, but the fact that it is a possibility does mean a possible bittersweet end to the ADQ. Clearly the ADQ was never able to move beyond Dumont, but one thing they did gain was a present party machine, and grassroots connections. Even if many of their supporters have drifted, those who were once "in the know" likely remember others "in the know" making connections easy to re-establish.

I for one feel that this is the path the ADQ is going to be heading down. Weather it changes it's name, or merges with some upstart party, I do not see the ADQ in it's current form lasting for very much longer, while at the same time I do not see the idea of a right-wing francophone opposition party vanishing any time soon.








Sorry, no extra data today!

Quebec

- MORE BELOW THE FOLD!

Recently, over at 308.blogspot they've claimed that with current poll numbers, the ADQ could be eliminated from the map. I wanted to check to see just how true this was. They are currently sitting on near half the vote they took last time; halving their vote in every riding would indeed wipe them from the board. Only two of their MNA's have seats that they could realistically win in the next election, and that is presuming a strong showing. In reality, it is going to come down to weather or not their leader can hold on to his own seat. Right now it is not looking good.

So how are things looking for the other parties. Well lets examine this using Quebec's two 'communities'.

First, among francophone.
PQ - 50%
PLQ - 30%
QS - 8%
ADQ - 7%
PV - 4% (AKA the Greens)

And among non-francophones
PLQ - 77%
PV - 8%
PQ - 7%
QS - 3%
ADQ - 1%

When combined you get:

PQ - 41%
PLQ - 39%
QS - 7%
ADQ - 6%
PV - 5%

The most interesting thing to note here is not the lack of support for the PQ or ADQ among non-francophones, as this has always been the case, but the fact that the Green Party is #2 among this group. Perhaps it is of little real use, but interesting to note nonetheless.

Below the fold, regional breakdowns, as well federal information.


There is also a region by region breakdown. In the Montreal area...

PLQ - 40%
PQ - 37%
QS - 9%
PV - 7%
ADQ - 5%

in the Quebec city area...

PLQ - 37%
PQ - 35%
ADQ - 15% (this is good news fro them)
QS - 8%
PV - 4%

The last figure for the ADQ may mean they might be able to hold on to their seats, but it is iffy at best.


Federal numbers

BQ - 40%
Lib - 23%
CPC - 17%
NDP - 15%
Grn - 4%

Among Francophones

BQ - 48%
Lib - 18%
CPC - 15%
NDP - 15%
Grn - 3%

Among Non-Francophones

Lib - 43%
CPC - 22%
NDP - 19%
Grn - 8%
BQ - 7%

Again, we note the Greens do better among non-francohphones

Montreal

BQ - 36%
Lib - 27%
NDP - 18%
CPC - 12%
Grn - 6%

And Quebec City

CPC - 30%
BQ - 30%
NDP - 20%
Lib - 14%
Grn - 4%

Update

-

CPC - 133
Lib - 91
BQ - 48
NDP - 36

No commentary


Sorry, no extra data today!

TO Mayor - Rossi attacks transit

-

Rocco Rossi has finally positioned himself in the race for mayor, and has put himself exactly where we put on a week ago, on the right.

Rossi has come out swinging against the evils of public transit (how dare we help those who cannot afford cars!) and has used the same pathetic excuse to kill it that politicians like Mike Harris did to permanently stop transit projects in this city, saying that its only "temporary" thing until we "have the money" Or, reading it more properly, until we have EXTRA money... since when does government ever have "extra" money? Never, and that's precisely when Rossi wishes to build our public transit improvements.


Sorry, no extra data today!

A little Randomness

<- Click here to see the full post

Every once in a while I like to do a random post of personal interest to myself. I will hide the details below the fold, but in short, this post is about overpopulation and arable land.

I've taken the amount of arable land, and applied an arbitrary number to it based on my personal observations, and decided that 1 sq KM of land can support 1,000 people. Using this as a base, I decided to find out which countries are over populated. Using some stats from Wikipedia, I've put the results below.



First note that I've decided to only use countries with over a million people, and even then to only list a few of them that are of particular interest. and even then, only note ones that are overpopulated (or underpopulated) by a good margin. Note the percentage noted is the inverse of the population that can be supported. Hence, a nation that can support 1 million, but has 10 million, will be listed as 90%.

Overpopulated by
Gaza Strip - 92.44%
Israel - 52.42%
Switzerland - 47.38%
Belgium - 19.90%
Ecuador - 99.64%
Netherlands - 54.65%
South Korea - 66.53%
United Kingdom - 7.15%
Egypt - 62.52%
Japan - 65.80%
Bangladesh - 48.61%

And some countries are, by these numbers, underpopulated. Here is a list of those.
Iraq - 117%
Afghanistan - 162%
France - 201%
Brazil - 214%
United States - 458%
Canada - 1,183%
Australia - 2,231%

And lastly, if the countries had as many people as they could "support" they would have this many people, above and beyond their current population.

USA - 1,354 million
Russia - 1,075
Australia - 448
Brazil - 400
Canada - 383
India - 358