Two seemingly unrelated topics but I will explain how they are one. First I want to explain the history of the ElectoMatic.
I've told you before about the game I play, Politics Canada. I founded this game in late 2003, and even that is a bit of a spin on events. Politics Canada had actually been alive before I ever found it, and, I did not even "find" it myself. What I found was a dead forum and a game that was inoperative. How I found it was though a similar game called Politics UK, or, PolUK. PolUK was founded in 2001 and had created various other games like PolUSA, PolAus, PolNZ and so forth. When I stumbled across PolCan it was a dead game that I revived myself.
One of the first problems was how to simulate elections. As admins, we would read all the election advertisements made by players and from that deduce a popular vote score for each province. How to turn this into seats though? After some research and much experimentation I came up with the formula of X^2 I will explain how it works.
Lets use the Quebec election as our example. The Liberals took 31.20% the PLQ 31.96%, the CAQ 27.06% and the QS 6.03%. First, we need to get rid of the decimal and get rid of the % sign. This puts the Liberals at 3120, the PQ at 3196, the CAQ at 2706, and the QS at 603
Now, we square it.
The Liberals end up with 9,734,400 the PQ at 10,214,416 the CAQ with 7,322,436 and the QS at 363,609. Now we total these numbers, and use these numbers to determine the share of seats. In this case, 35.23% for the Liberals, 36.96% for the PQ, 26.50% for the CAQ, and 1.31% for the QS. The simplest way to turn this into seat is to multiply this by 125. 44.0 for the PLQ, 46.2 for the PQ, 33.1 for the CAQ, and 1.6 for the QS. All get rounded down except for QS which gets rounded up. The final result is:
PQ-46
PLQ-44
CAQ-33
QS-2
Not quite exactly the real end-results.
We can also throw other provinces into the mix, lets try this with Ontario 2011
48-L
42-P
17-N
or Alberta 2011
51-P
31-W
3-L
2-N
You can begin to see how this is just not accurate enough. One thing it does do, however, is give a very rough indication of how many votes is needed for a majority. If you are ever in a crunch, use this "just square it" formula to figure out what will happen.
So we needed something better.
While that was going on, I was made an admin at PolUK, and, the Elections Admin vanished at the same time. I was asked to run the election, and used my formula. As expected, the other admins were not big fans, so we set out to find a better way. This is when we stumbled across a program called UK Elect. It is a wonderful program that I still have, and suggest you get even if you are not British. The program allows editable scenarios, and you can use this to create your own fictional election tests, or even, put in another countries data and run elections over there. This is what we did for Canada. The problem however is that doing this was a very complicated process, and, since Elections only happened every 5 months or so in our game, I would quite literally forget how to do it each time.
Meanwhile, I was running election projections here on this blog, my earlier posts are at about this time, 2008. I've been a fan of the UBC-ESM Forecasters ever since I first saw them, and use them almost daily, even now. I realized after playing with the numbers that party-to-party swings were not working the way I thought, so I invented a new method. I would project on a curve. The party that did the best, compared to last election, would be set at 1.000 and all other parties would have their numbers reduced by the proper amount, so that the projected popular vote would be the same as the share of their real vote. In effect, I was applying a ratio method.
I had dual needs. I needed to find an alternative to UK Elect, and, I had to find a much easier less math-heavy way to do forecasts that did not require the UBC website to be online. This is when I started work on the ElectoMatic. The intent of the ElectoMatic was to mimic the results I would get in the UBC forecaster by using by "ratio" method. Eventually I figured out the math of how to do this. If I need a 5% increase, I don't apply a raw 5% to each riding, rather, I apply 1.05. The ratio method works wonders in places like Canada where we have "2.5" major parties in each province. The simple raw swing works great where you have two parties, but breaks down when you add more.
My first ElectoMatic was done based on the 1993 election, and was to be used in PolCan for our round based on the 1993 election. The program did what it had to for PolCan purposes and that was that.
However it occurred to me... My program is designed to take old election results, new poll results, and project the result. It seems to do that just fine. Why not use it for real elections, elections that have yet to occur. Thus midway though the 2008 election I introduced the ElectoMatic, and it worked. I later created an ElectoMatic based on the 1979 election and throw in 1980 popular vote results. The errors were rather minor.
So there you have it, the history of the ElectoMatic, a file created originally to give alternate history results of past elections. This is when we get into what I've been doing. You see alternate history, especially election alternate history, has always been something I'm interested in. People say that this or that party almost did this or that well in this or that election. With the ElectoMatic you can find out just how close they came.
That brings me to what I've been working on. User calivancouver has been helping me finish up the maps from the 1950s and 60s. The maps gave me an idea to test, how close did Social Credit come to being the official opposition in 1957. St. Laurent implied it was rather close. The problem is I don't quite yet have an ElectoMatic for this era. Part of the reason is the lack of Social Credit candidates in Ontario, giving spotty results.
At the same time the old questions I've had of how to compare the 1980 and 1984 PC vote in Quebec came to my mind. I wanted to know how much of the Social Credit vote went PC, so, I ran a basic test and the answer is not much. I've also been trying to see if I can patch the holes in Ontario for Social Credit in the 50's and 60's and the answer is I can. While they only ran 68 candidates in 1962, in the ridings they did not run, they ran candidates at other points during the era. Only 3 ridings did not have SC candidates during this time, and they can be estimated based on neighbouring ridings and other vote trends.
Thus brings me to what I've been doing. Along with the above, I want to create a new ElectoMatic for past elections. Most of the files I created were for the purposes of the PolCan game. Now I'm more interested in general alternate history. My experiments in Quebec in the 80s show that a single ElectoMatic can be used for the 1979, 1980 and 1984 elections. I will tinker around with the differences between 1988 and 1993 to find if a single file can do this as well, or, if the party-to-party swing is too great. 1997 and 2000 may also require individual files. I'll also take a look at the 4 most recent elections with the same things in mind, and of course, look at past elections such as 1968, 1972, and 1974, as well as 1953 though to 1965.
Another concern of mine is that there are some gaps.
See, Nationalism in Quebec prior to Levesque was a right-wing force. Having SC represent that trend is logical right up to the mid 70s. Prior to the constitution, left-wingers in Quebec were more than willing to trust Trudeau even if they did not care for his ideas on federalism, and there is a strong enough NDP presence in the province during this time for those who did not. 1984 saw a PNQ party, the first attempts at a Bloc Quebecois, and it is these numbers that can be used. In effect, this will allow me to simulate, in alternate history, a Quebec based party for all elections from future elections, going back clear to 1953.
A larger problem is that of Social Credit and Reform. While Reform did run in 1988 and can be forecast without problem to the year 2000, and, while Social Credit did run strong elections in the west to 1965, we still have gaps in the west. One thing the maps have made clear is that where SC did well, Reform did well, and vice versa. SC had a presence in 1968, and this could be used for elections on those ridings, but for 1979 and 1980, as well as elections since 2004, trying to figure out where a western based party would stand is difficult. Even more difficult, given that throughout the entire history of Social Credit, Reform, and the Alliance, only 3 MPs were ever elected from Ontario, is seeing where that party would stand in that province. Early information shows that in many of the areas Reform did well in Ontario in the 90s, Social Credit did well in the 60s, which is encouraging.
I will continue to work on these problems and hopefully have a shiny new set of ElectosMatic for all of you in no time.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Political Parties
I was browsing around the http://www.1calgarycentre.com/ website, when the thought came to me that I really should look at all the political parties we have here in Canada.
There is a full list you can find here http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=par&document=index&lang=e but what do these parties stand for?
I think grouping them is actually somewhat simple.
First off, there are the socially conservative parties, or rather, party. The Christian Heritage Party.
Next, the Communist parties, both of them.
Next, the personal fronts. The Western Block Party is a personal front for Doug Christie.
Next are the self-admitted activist parties, which are only a party because of the tax credits. (AAEVPC)
Last, are the ethnic-based political parties, in this case, the First Peoples National Party.
This leaves us with a few other parties to play with. The Bloc Quebecois (BQ) the Canadian Action Party (CAP) the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) the Green Party (GP) the Liberals (Lib) the Libertarians (Lbt) the Marijuana Party (Pot) the New Democratic Party (NDP) the Pirate Party (Pir) the Progressive Canadian Party (PC) the Rhinoceros Party (Rhi) and the United Party (UP). Also, the eligible party, the Online Party (OP)
Only one of these parties is firmly on the right, the CPC, so I will discount them. The Rhino party, while generally progressive, is a silly party. The Pot Party is a single-issue party, and thus, I will exclude as well. Lastly, the CAP is based on the old social credit idea, so I will also exclude them.
There are two centre-right parties. The PC and UP.
There is one main party with left-wing economic proposals. The NDP,
There are two parties with centrist economic proposals. The GP and Lib.
And there are three parties that are socially progressive, the OP, Lbt, and Pir
Of these however, there are three parties that are to the right of centre on fiscal issues; PC, UP, and Lbt, and three that are firmly on the left when it comes to world affairs, NDP, GP, Pir
Why am I brining all of this up? And why did I start with this 1calgarycentre website? A website that's oddly blue for a party that supposes to gather up non-conservative voters?
Simple. On their website they list 3 large "progressive" parties. The NDP, the GP, and the Lib.
As a Liberal I protest our inclusion. I don't consider the Liberals as much "progressive" as much "centrist" and "moderate". While the Liberals would fit in as "progressive" I feel the other two labels are closer to the mark.
What IS odd about this website is their inclusion of a 4th party, the Progressive Canadians. Lets remember that this party was founded to be a successor to the PC Party that dissolved in 2003. It's leader is a former Tory cabinet minister. In fact, this website even lists Joe Clark as a "Progressive". I'm willing to bet if you asked him yourself he'd define more as a "Conservative" and that's how his voters felt. Red Tories are still Tories. A left-wing right-winger is a right-winger who happens to be left-wing. Just as a progressive conservative is a conservative who happens to be progressive. He is still a conservative first.
The inclusion of the PC, but not the UP, which split off from the PC about a year ago, is suspicious, especially as the UP has a more left-wing platform. Worse when you consider that the Pirates are not to be found, despite clearly fitting in as more progressive. Then there is the fact that the OP is missing. The website's twitter account even says they are not an ABC party, they want to unite progressives.
So, how far do you have to stretch the definition of "Progressive" to include the new PC Party? Frankly, pretty far, especially given the other parties that exist. If someone told me the PC Party was "Progressive" and included on a list of "Progressive Parties" I'd say that other parties on that list must include the AAEVP, The BQ, the CAP, The Communists, the FPNP, the Greens, the Liberals, the Online Party, the Libertarians, the Pot Party, the Marxists, the NDP, the Pirate Party, the Rhino Party, and the United Party. But to include it and the "3 big" progressive parties is fishy.
Fishy given the attention given to Joe Clark, a PCer who won the riding in the past.
Fishy given the fact that the website is blue, a PC colour.
And fishy given that the graphics show 4 'boxes' representing the parties, not 3 or 5
Perhaps this is all just a mis-understanding or mis-reading on my part.
1calgarycentre adding links to the other progressive parties, specifically the United Party and the Pirate Party, would certainly help dispel any connections.
EDIT
The webmaster has contacted me with an explanation that I'm not buying - but he says once all 3 parties choose candidates, the PC link will come down.
There is a full list you can find here http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=par&document=index&lang=e but what do these parties stand for?
I think grouping them is actually somewhat simple.
First off, there are the socially conservative parties, or rather, party. The Christian Heritage Party.
Next, the Communist parties, both of them.
Next, the personal fronts. The Western Block Party is a personal front for Doug Christie.
Next are the self-admitted activist parties, which are only a party because of the tax credits. (AAEVPC)
Last, are the ethnic-based political parties, in this case, the First Peoples National Party.
This leaves us with a few other parties to play with. The Bloc Quebecois (BQ) the Canadian Action Party (CAP) the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) the Green Party (GP) the Liberals (Lib) the Libertarians (Lbt) the Marijuana Party (Pot) the New Democratic Party (NDP) the Pirate Party (Pir) the Progressive Canadian Party (PC) the Rhinoceros Party (Rhi) and the United Party (UP). Also, the eligible party, the Online Party (OP)
Only one of these parties is firmly on the right, the CPC, so I will discount them. The Rhino party, while generally progressive, is a silly party. The Pot Party is a single-issue party, and thus, I will exclude as well. Lastly, the CAP is based on the old social credit idea, so I will also exclude them.
There are two centre-right parties. The PC and UP.
There is one main party with left-wing economic proposals. The NDP,
There are two parties with centrist economic proposals. The GP and Lib.
And there are three parties that are socially progressive, the OP, Lbt, and Pir
Of these however, there are three parties that are to the right of centre on fiscal issues; PC, UP, and Lbt, and three that are firmly on the left when it comes to world affairs, NDP, GP, Pir
Why am I brining all of this up? And why did I start with this 1calgarycentre website? A website that's oddly blue for a party that supposes to gather up non-conservative voters?
Simple. On their website they list 3 large "progressive" parties. The NDP, the GP, and the Lib.
As a Liberal I protest our inclusion. I don't consider the Liberals as much "progressive" as much "centrist" and "moderate". While the Liberals would fit in as "progressive" I feel the other two labels are closer to the mark.
What IS odd about this website is their inclusion of a 4th party, the Progressive Canadians. Lets remember that this party was founded to be a successor to the PC Party that dissolved in 2003. It's leader is a former Tory cabinet minister. In fact, this website even lists Joe Clark as a "Progressive". I'm willing to bet if you asked him yourself he'd define more as a "Conservative" and that's how his voters felt. Red Tories are still Tories. A left-wing right-winger is a right-winger who happens to be left-wing. Just as a progressive conservative is a conservative who happens to be progressive. He is still a conservative first.
The inclusion of the PC, but not the UP, which split off from the PC about a year ago, is suspicious, especially as the UP has a more left-wing platform. Worse when you consider that the Pirates are not to be found, despite clearly fitting in as more progressive. Then there is the fact that the OP is missing. The website's twitter account even says they are not an ABC party, they want to unite progressives.
So, how far do you have to stretch the definition of "Progressive" to include the new PC Party? Frankly, pretty far, especially given the other parties that exist. If someone told me the PC Party was "Progressive" and included on a list of "Progressive Parties" I'd say that other parties on that list must include the AAEVP, The BQ, the CAP, The Communists, the FPNP, the Greens, the Liberals, the Online Party, the Libertarians, the Pot Party, the Marxists, the NDP, the Pirate Party, the Rhino Party, and the United Party. But to include it and the "3 big" progressive parties is fishy.
Fishy given the attention given to Joe Clark, a PCer who won the riding in the past.
Fishy given the fact that the website is blue, a PC colour.
And fishy given that the graphics show 4 'boxes' representing the parties, not 3 or 5
Perhaps this is all just a mis-understanding or mis-reading on my part.
1calgarycentre adding links to the other progressive parties, specifically the United Party and the Pirate Party, would certainly help dispel any connections.
EDIT
The webmaster has contacted me with an explanation that I'm not buying - but he says once all 3 parties choose candidates, the PC link will come down.
PLQ Leadership Update
Fournier, who had been my front-runner, has decided to serve as interim leader. This means that chances are that whomever is chosen as the new leader will be a former or current Federal politician. Lets examine some of them.
I've already listed the Liberal MPs who may run in my previous post on this topic. I still think a Trudeau run is a real possibility. Remember that Charest gave up a resurgent PC Party leadership because he heard 'the calling' of federalism. Trudeau may hear it as well. Of course, that risks having Dion start hearing voices and try to make a stab at it. It was then brought to my attention that a non-Liberal may run. Charest, after all, was a PC member. So who are the possible non-Liberal candidates?
Current or former Tories:
Lucien Bouchard
This would amuse me greatly, but beyond a few comments recently, there is no reason to think he wants anything to do with federalism.
Josee Verner
Verner held a membership in the ADQ, but with many ADQ voters going PLQ, and with Verner being a committed federalist, she may run if no higher calibre candidate does.
Lawrence Cannon
Perhaps the most serious person on the list so far. Cannon has a history as a former member of the PLQ and served rather well federally until his defeat in 2011.
Current of former New Democrats:
Francoise Boivin
A "rookie of the year" in her first term in parliament, Boivin is now a New Democrat, but is still somewhat popular among all sections. She could be a serious female candidate if she decides to run.
Romeo Saganash
He ran for federal leader of the NDP for reasons I don't understand, so perhaps he will chose to do for the PLQ as well.
I've already listed the Liberal MPs who may run in my previous post on this topic. I still think a Trudeau run is a real possibility. Remember that Charest gave up a resurgent PC Party leadership because he heard 'the calling' of federalism. Trudeau may hear it as well. Of course, that risks having Dion start hearing voices and try to make a stab at it. It was then brought to my attention that a non-Liberal may run. Charest, after all, was a PC member. So who are the possible non-Liberal candidates?
Current or former Tories:
Lucien Bouchard
This would amuse me greatly, but beyond a few comments recently, there is no reason to think he wants anything to do with federalism.
Josee Verner
Verner held a membership in the ADQ, but with many ADQ voters going PLQ, and with Verner being a committed federalist, she may run if no higher calibre candidate does.
Lawrence Cannon
Perhaps the most serious person on the list so far. Cannon has a history as a former member of the PLQ and served rather well federally until his defeat in 2011.
Current of former New Democrats:
Francoise Boivin
A "rookie of the year" in her first term in parliament, Boivin is now a New Democrat, but is still somewhat popular among all sections. She could be a serious female candidate if she decides to run.
Romeo Saganash
He ran for federal leader of the NDP for reasons I don't understand, so perhaps he will chose to do for the PLQ as well.
Maps of federal elections 1953-2011
Our maps page is ready to go. I'm uploading all the maps as we speak.
I'd also like to ask you for some help. I'm also announcing a new and fun contest, the "Find the Errors" contest!
I've probably made a number of errors I've secretly inserted errors on purpose
The person who finds the most errors willbe sent things get credit by having their name mentioned on the blog.
So what is and is not an error? Remember that the "official and final" maps only go up once all the errors are caught. Hence there are some minor discrepancies that are not errors, they are just a symptom of me not being 100% finished.
Not an Error: Various islands within a riding have the wrong colour.
Error: A riding has the wrong colour (IE, showing the wrong party has won).
Not an Error: The winning party is shown in a different shade than the legend.
Error: A Bloc seat is shown as a Tory seat, or vice versa.
Not an Error: Your map says "Montreal" but it includes Laval too.
Error: A riding is mis-labled either with the wrong number or name.
Not an Error: Two parts of the same riding have the same identifying number.
Error: Two separate and different ridings have the same identifying number.
Bonus points:
Finding ridings that had their name change midway from a boundary change, and noting the date of said change.
The person who finds the most errors will
So what is and is not an error? Remember that the "official and final" maps only go up once all the errors are caught. Hence there are some minor discrepancies that are not errors, they are just a symptom of me not being 100% finished.
Not an Error: Various islands within a riding have the wrong colour.
Error: A riding has the wrong colour (IE, showing the wrong party has won).
Not an Error: The winning party is shown in a different shade than the legend.
Error: A Bloc seat is shown as a Tory seat, or vice versa.
Not an Error: Your map says "Montreal" but it includes Laval too.
Error: A riding is mis-labled either with the wrong number or name.
Not an Error: Two parts of the same riding have the same identifying number.
Error: Two separate and different ridings have the same identifying number.
Bonus points:
Finding ridings that had their name change midway from a boundary change, and noting the date of said change.
Pages!
We now have pages. Over the next hours, days, weeks, and months, I will be adding content to all of them. A further post on the Maps page will be done once that page is complete (in a day, or hopefully, much sooner)
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Elections in the Netherlands (Holland)
This post
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20318&view=findpost&p=828821
And the one below it explain everything in a concise manner.
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20318&view=findpost&p=828821
And the one below it explain everything in a concise manner.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Election maps and other things
Given that politics has quieted down, and will probably remain quiet for a little while, I am going to work on expanding the website. Things to expect.
MAPS
I am completing a series of real riding by riding result maps (Federal) covering the period from 1952 to the present day.
RESULTS
I am working on result tables for comparison in all the provinces, and federally as well.
I will update you as I work.
MAPS
I am completing a series of real riding by riding result maps (Federal) covering the period from 1952 to the present day.
RESULTS
I am working on result tables for comparison in all the provinces, and federally as well.
I will update you as I work.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Alternate History
I'm looking for some feedback about various possible alternate history stories between 1979 and 2003. Anyone who would be interested in being contacted with regard to this, please post below.
Friday, September 7, 2012
PLQ leadership
Here is my list of possible candidates:
Jean-Marc Fournier - MNA - Montreal Area
Nathalie Normandeau - Former MNA - Gaspe
Marlene Jennings - Former MP - Montreal area
Liza Frulla - Former MP - Montreal area
Martin Cauchon - Former MP - Montreal area *
Denis Coderre - Former MP - Montreal area *
* = May chose to run Federally.
Longshots:
Stephane Dion - MP - Montreal area
Jean Lapierre - Former MP - All over the place
Pierre Pettigrew - Former MP - Montreal area
Justin Trudeau - MP - Montreal area
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Libs hold Vaughan, lose Kitchener
The Liberal Party of Ontario has managed to hold on to the Vaughan ridings by a wide margin, but has lost it's attempt to grab Kitchener-Waterloo from the Tories.
At the time of this post, Kitchener-Waterloo has 20% of the polls in, and the NDP leads the PC Party, 43% to 30%. It's still a bit to early to call, but, things should become very clear by 10pm. I will edit in more counts below.
edit
With a third of the polls in, I've seen enough, and am declaring an NDP victory.
At the time of this post, Kitchener-Waterloo has 20% of the polls in, and the NDP leads the PC Party, 43% to 30%. It's still a bit to early to call, but, things should become very clear by 10pm. I will edit in more counts below.
edit
With a third of the polls in, I've seen enough, and am declaring an NDP victory.
Where I was wrong
Ridings where I was wrong, but within the margin of error (12)
Berthier
Masko
Argentuil
Riviere Du Loup
Orford
Megantic
Soulanges
Jean Lesage
Mille Isles
Vmont
Fabre
Groulx
Ridings where I was just plain wrong where the model, after adjustments, is correct. (3)
Trois Rivieres
Anjou
Bellechasse
Ridings where I was just plain wrong where the model, even after adjustments, is within the margin of error. (8)
Cote De Sud
Becuase Sud
St. Henri
Verdun
Huntingdon
Richmond
Nicolet
Laurier
Ridings where I was just plain wrong where the model, even after adjustments, is still just plain wrong. (3)
La Prairie
Johnson
Chateauguay
Model on Results
Further adjustments:
50% of the ADQ vote given to the Liberals
Aussant Factor increased to 25,000 due to CAQ adjustment
N Shore set to 0
S Shore set to .4
Results:
PQ - 58
PLQ - 42
CAQ - 23
QS - 2
Full file here
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B5UDSiORyjxid1I2bHdic21Hc3c
Click above
Quebec Results
Putting in the real final popular vote into the ElectoMatic, I also had to make the following adjustments:
ON did not gain any "Student Votes"
"Student Factor" set at 200, 650 gives better results.
"Aussant Factor" set at 13,500, should have been set at 11,050
CAQ took .31 less than ADQ in QC area, set at .45
CAQ took .47 more (than ADQ) in N Shore, set at .2
(CAQ) took .41 more in Montreal, set at .27
took .28 more in south shore, set at .0
"Anglo Factor" set at 35%, with "Montreal Factor" at 0.78, Both should have been set at 0
These results give
PQ - 48
PLQ - 44
CAQ - 31
QS - 2
ON - 0
The CAQ is still winning far too many seats, indicating to me that the fault is with transfering 100% of the ADQ numbers to the CAQ.
I will try that and report back.
Ontario By-Elections
Polls close at 9pm, and I will hopefully be able to live-tweet all the results, but something may come up.
Vaughan is expected to be a close race between the Liberals and Tories, but the Liberals seem to have the edge.
Kitchener-Waterloo seems to be a close 3-way race, where no party has the edge.
Vaughan is expected to be a close race between the Liberals and Tories, but the Liberals seem to have the edge.
Kitchener-Waterloo seems to be a close 3-way race, where no party has the edge.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
New Schedule
Due to my inability to keep to the old schedule, I'm writing a new one.
First off, I should explain a bit more about my cat (Boo) and what has happened to him.
In March, my Roomate (whom I shall call Kris) noticed that Boo was peeing a lot, much more than usual. She decided to test his urine and it came back positive for sugar - something not normal. We called a vet and the vet tested Boo's blood, and turns out he has Diabetes. We gave him insulin, tested multiple times a day, and switched his diet. He went into remission in June
.
In late July, Kris and I noticed that Boo was throwing up at about the same time every morning. We could not figure out why. A week or so later, Kris noticed Boo not acting normal, and we again called the vet who ran a number of tests. We were referred to another vet, and from there to another. We eventually found out that Boo has a combo of Irritable Bowel Disease, Fatty Liver Disease, Pancreatitis, and inflamed intestines. This is a very bad combination, as the treatment for any one of them (pain killers, for the Pancreatitis, for example) makes another worse (constipation) and other drugs can't be processed due to the Liver problems.
We had a feeding tube put in, and since then, have been feeding Boo though the tube using a syringe. The process of feeding takes about 15 minutes and Boo is sometimes resistant. In addition, he throws up once or twice a day, and can only eat so much at one time. Due to possible feeding tube damage when he vomits and the need to get a minimum of food in to him so he can physically survive, this means he needs to be monitored 24 hours a day.
Kris and I have been doing so. More her than I actually, as she knows much more about medicine, and I have a bad habit of passing off work to others when I can. We've agreed that we would take "shifts" of 10 to 10. From 10pm to 10am, I am "on duty". The idea is for me to be awake during these hours, and sleeping during the remainder. Since I only need 8 hours sleep, the exact timings are flexible. We may change these timings (for example, to 6 to 6, with me still on the "night shift") but in general, I'm awake at night.
At least, that is how things are supposed to go.
I've been feeling ill recently. I finally got a family doctor, the first in my adult life. He told me that my Asthma was flaring up. The difficulty in breathing was making me sleep much more than 8 hours (due to poor quality sleep) and this put stress on Kris, which in turn, but stress on me (I was not choosing to sleep all day long) The new medication that the doctor gave me however seems to be having the opposite effect, in that now I can not get to sleep. Due to these things, my sleeping has been all over the place, and when awake, I've been having difficulty concentrating. Now that the election is over, and Kris begins at university, our schedules are getting more set, and I will hopefully be able to get into a normal routine.
The schedule for the new few days is therefore "get into a routine". This is not very good for posting on a blog however. Therefore I will commit to the following.
My first goal is to finish gathering and sorting the data from the election. Once that is done, I will examine where I went wrong, and compare my results to that of other projectors. None of us did very well, but I may have done worse than average. I will examine the reasons why.
I'll take the real data and I will examine it in comparison to my projection. My goal here will be to find ways to adjust the model to better match the results. I suspect that I can do this somewhat easily by taking a third of the ADQ vote and applying it to the PLQ.
Sometime before the Ontario By-Elections I will make a post about it. I will also live-tweet the results.
Once all that is done, I will have to make a serious change to the ElectoMatic, the most serious change ever made. In the post explaining it, I will describe the "Ratio" system I use, and how it is much better than the "Flat" system used by others. I will also explain how I will add a new "Swing" method to the mix.
Once that is complete, I will take the new model out for a few test runs, putting in past election results (IE 1979 federal) and past result popular vote numbers (IE 1980 federal) and seeing how well it works. I will continue to tweak it until I get it to work as close to reality as possible. I will also focus on trying to estimate huge swings (1980 to 1984 federally in Quebec, or 1988 to 1993 in Western Canada) and anything else I think could be useful.
After that, we'll have to see what is going on in politics!
First off, I should explain a bit more about my cat (Boo) and what has happened to him.
In March, my Roomate (whom I shall call Kris) noticed that Boo was peeing a lot, much more than usual. She decided to test his urine and it came back positive for sugar - something not normal. We called a vet and the vet tested Boo's blood, and turns out he has Diabetes. We gave him insulin, tested multiple times a day, and switched his diet. He went into remission in June
.
In late July, Kris and I noticed that Boo was throwing up at about the same time every morning. We could not figure out why. A week or so later, Kris noticed Boo not acting normal, and we again called the vet who ran a number of tests. We were referred to another vet, and from there to another. We eventually found out that Boo has a combo of Irritable Bowel Disease, Fatty Liver Disease, Pancreatitis, and inflamed intestines. This is a very bad combination, as the treatment for any one of them (pain killers, for the Pancreatitis, for example) makes another worse (constipation) and other drugs can't be processed due to the Liver problems.
We had a feeding tube put in, and since then, have been feeding Boo though the tube using a syringe. The process of feeding takes about 15 minutes and Boo is sometimes resistant. In addition, he throws up once or twice a day, and can only eat so much at one time. Due to possible feeding tube damage when he vomits and the need to get a minimum of food in to him so he can physically survive, this means he needs to be monitored 24 hours a day.
Kris and I have been doing so. More her than I actually, as she knows much more about medicine, and I have a bad habit of passing off work to others when I can. We've agreed that we would take "shifts" of 10 to 10. From 10pm to 10am, I am "on duty". The idea is for me to be awake during these hours, and sleeping during the remainder. Since I only need 8 hours sleep, the exact timings are flexible. We may change these timings (for example, to 6 to 6, with me still on the "night shift") but in general, I'm awake at night.
At least, that is how things are supposed to go.
I've been feeling ill recently. I finally got a family doctor, the first in my adult life. He told me that my Asthma was flaring up. The difficulty in breathing was making me sleep much more than 8 hours (due to poor quality sleep) and this put stress on Kris, which in turn, but stress on me (I was not choosing to sleep all day long) The new medication that the doctor gave me however seems to be having the opposite effect, in that now I can not get to sleep. Due to these things, my sleeping has been all over the place, and when awake, I've been having difficulty concentrating. Now that the election is over, and Kris begins at university, our schedules are getting more set, and I will hopefully be able to get into a normal routine.
The schedule for the new few days is therefore "get into a routine". This is not very good for posting on a blog however. Therefore I will commit to the following.
My first goal is to finish gathering and sorting the data from the election. Once that is done, I will examine where I went wrong, and compare my results to that of other projectors. None of us did very well, but I may have done worse than average. I will examine the reasons why.
I'll take the real data and I will examine it in comparison to my projection. My goal here will be to find ways to adjust the model to better match the results. I suspect that I can do this somewhat easily by taking a third of the ADQ vote and applying it to the PLQ.
Sometime before the Ontario By-Elections I will make a post about it. I will also live-tweet the results.
Once all that is done, I will have to make a serious change to the ElectoMatic, the most serious change ever made. In the post explaining it, I will describe the "Ratio" system I use, and how it is much better than the "Flat" system used by others. I will also explain how I will add a new "Swing" method to the mix.
Once that is complete, I will take the new model out for a few test runs, putting in past election results (IE 1979 federal) and past result popular vote numbers (IE 1980 federal) and seeing how well it works. I will continue to tweak it until I get it to work as close to reality as possible. I will also focus on trying to estimate huge swings (1980 to 1984 federally in Quebec, or 1988 to 1993 in Western Canada) and anything else I think could be useful.
After that, we'll have to see what is going on in politics!
Brian Pallister elected as Manitoba Leader of the Opposition
Pallister, Manitoba PC leader, has won a by-election, becoming the new Leader of the Opposition.
http://electionsmanitoba.ca/2012Fortwhyte/results/division.asp
http://electionsmanitoba.ca/2012Fortwhyte/results/division.asp
Analysis to continue
I've woken up feeling refreshed and will continue my analysis shortly. I will also focus on why the model failed (in short, ADQ voters voting Liberal) and why I failed (I saw the polls indicating this would happen but did not want to believe them)
Yet another delay
I can't get my mind off the assassination attempt, and am having trouble focusing on the numbers. I've also been very sleep deprived recently, and that is not helping. Regardless, the numbers I have right now are as follows.
Northern Quebec
PQ - 107,261 - 48.88%
PLQ - 51,188 - 23.33%
CAQ - 45,696 - 20.82%
QS - 9,025 - 4.11%
ON - 3,637 - 1.66%
PVQ - 276 - 0.13%
Aut - 2,371 - 1.08%
I also have a map showing which regions I am using.
Northern Quebec
PQ - 107,261 - 48.88%
PLQ - 51,188 - 23.33%
CAQ - 45,696 - 20.82%
QS - 9,025 - 4.11%
ON - 3,637 - 1.66%
PVQ - 276 - 0.13%
Aut - 2,371 - 1.08%
I also have a map showing which regions I am using.
Marois Assassination attempt?
As the new premier-elect was finishing her speech, a security person rushed her off the stage suddenly.
2 minutes later, some PQ operatives came on stage, saying that they had to protect her as something happened. He then asked everyone to leave.
1 minute or so later, Marois came back and said the same thing. She mentioned a sound grenade.
3 minutes later there is news footage of a man lying on the pavement and a rifle.
What
The
Hell
I've never seen anything like this before and probably never will again.
If this was an assassination attempt I have one thing to say
I hate the PQ, and Marois. I think they are potentially dangerous.
But they won.
They won the election, fair and square.
No matter how much you hate or fear the other guy, you can't try to stop them by force.
Democracy is the cornerstone of our freedom, and we must respect it, even when it tells us the things we don't want to hear.
2 minutes later, some PQ operatives came on stage, saying that they had to protect her as something happened. He then asked everyone to leave.
1 minute or so later, Marois came back and said the same thing. She mentioned a sound grenade.
3 minutes later there is news footage of a man lying on the pavement and a rifle.
What
The
Hell
I've never seen anything like this before and probably never will again.
If this was an assassination attempt I have one thing to say
I hate the PQ, and Marois. I think they are potentially dangerous.
But they won.
They won the election, fair and square.
No matter how much you hate or fear the other guy, you can't try to stop them by force.
Democracy is the cornerstone of our freedom, and we must respect it, even when it tells us the things we don't want to hear.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)