- Sorry, no extra data today!
I'm moving over data from the forum.
POST DATE MAR 14
34% - PC
30% - WAP
23% - LIB
10% - NDP
From Environics, as per http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Torie ... story.html
I will be turning this into a projection tonight.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Looking Back
-
One of my first posts on the blog. It contains a spelling error, but the projection was dead on - sadly.
http://nixtuff.blogspot.com/2008/01/racession.html
I note that I have not edited the post in any way shape or form since I posted it at the start of 2008.
Sorry, no extra data today!
One of my first posts on the blog. It contains a spelling error, but the projection was dead on - sadly.
http://nixtuff.blogspot.com/2008/01/racession.html
I note that I have not edited the post in any way shape or form since I posted it at the start of 2008.
Sorry, no extra data today!
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Rob Ford to run for mayor! ...Maybe
<-
An article in today’s Star suggests Rob Ford may well run for Mayor after all. There is still plenty of time to get into the race if he wants to, in fact I’d say there are at least 6 more weeks to ‘enter’ the race without risking getting in ‘too late’, if not a full 10 weeks. Regardless, we must look as to how this will impact the race.
I still maintain that my list of plausible candidates from earlier stands, that Mammoliti is not one of them, and that there still is a gap in the middle of the right wing that is probably just waiting to get filled.
Lets first examine who Rob Ford is. For anyone from outside Toronto, I will explain this using three words. Reform / Canadian Alliance. Rob Ford is the most right-wing person elected to Toronto city council, perhaps ever. He is not just your standard Stephen Harper neocon, he is very ‘populist’ in nature, focusing his attention not on lower taxes but on wasteful spending, especially from office budgets of politicians.
So, how would Ford fare in the election? Well, he would lose. If there was even the slightest inkling that Ford could win, the rest of the city would rush to get behind another candidate – any other candidate – that Ford would be crushed. The question is how much support he could get. My feeling is he could get anywhere from 10% to 20%, depending on if another right candidate enters the race, possibly going as low as 5% if he makes gaffes. Where would these votes come from? Not the core that is certain. There are however enough people in the inner suburbs that could and would support Rob Ford. Remember that he does consistently win his own ward.
Why run? Ford has never proven he is in touch with political reality. He probably thinks there is an off chance he can win. There are, however, two ‘bigger’ reasons that I see. One, to embarrass Mammoliti, whom he will easily trounce in the popular vote, and Two, to perhaps build a party-like organization of right minded people in Toronto. If the latter, he may work with the Toronto Party to do this.
What kind of Mayor would he be? In general, very right-wing. I do not, however, think he would “destroy” the TTC. Rossi is more of a threat to that. Ford would lower funding, that is certain, but he does not seem to have the same ‘hate’ for the transit system that others do.
So, what are the numbers? As I see it:
Smitherman – 40%
Pantalone – 25%
Rossi – 20%
Ford – 10%
Others – 5%
Sorry, no extra data today!
An article in today’s Star suggests Rob Ford may well run for Mayor after all. There is still plenty of time to get into the race if he wants to, in fact I’d say there are at least 6 more weeks to ‘enter’ the race without risking getting in ‘too late’, if not a full 10 weeks. Regardless, we must look as to how this will impact the race.
I still maintain that my list of plausible candidates from earlier stands, that Mammoliti is not one of them, and that there still is a gap in the middle of the right wing that is probably just waiting to get filled.
Lets first examine who Rob Ford is. For anyone from outside Toronto, I will explain this using three words. Reform / Canadian Alliance. Rob Ford is the most right-wing person elected to Toronto city council, perhaps ever. He is not just your standard Stephen Harper neocon, he is very ‘populist’ in nature, focusing his attention not on lower taxes but on wasteful spending, especially from office budgets of politicians.
So, how would Ford fare in the election? Well, he would lose. If there was even the slightest inkling that Ford could win, the rest of the city would rush to get behind another candidate – any other candidate – that Ford would be crushed. The question is how much support he could get. My feeling is he could get anywhere from 10% to 20%, depending on if another right candidate enters the race, possibly going as low as 5% if he makes gaffes. Where would these votes come from? Not the core that is certain. There are however enough people in the inner suburbs that could and would support Rob Ford. Remember that he does consistently win his own ward.
Why run? Ford has never proven he is in touch with political reality. He probably thinks there is an off chance he can win. There are, however, two ‘bigger’ reasons that I see. One, to embarrass Mammoliti, whom he will easily trounce in the popular vote, and Two, to perhaps build a party-like organization of right minded people in Toronto. If the latter, he may work with the Toronto Party to do this.
What kind of Mayor would he be? In general, very right-wing. I do not, however, think he would “destroy” the TTC. Rossi is more of a threat to that. Ford would lower funding, that is certain, but he does not seem to have the same ‘hate’ for the transit system that others do.
So, what are the numbers? As I see it:
Smitherman – 40%
Pantalone – 25%
Rossi – 20%
Ford – 10%
Others – 5%
Sorry, no extra data today!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Projection
-
129C 95L 50B 34N - 11MAR2010
visit ridingbyriding.com for more details
Sorry, no extra data today!
129C 95L 50B 34N - 11MAR2010
visit ridingbyriding.com for more details
Sorry, no extra data today!
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
International politics.
<- More below the fold!
You will notice that from time to time I focus on different aspects of international politics. There are certain areas of the world in particular that I plan to or wish to focus on. Northern Ireland, clearly, is one. I do however want to note that I write from a Canadian prospective, for a Canadian prospective. I’ve had people from the various countries I write about tell me my explanations of political issues in their homeland is “simplistic”, and this is true. I am not writing political analysis about Northern Ireland for a Northern Irish audience. I am writing it for a Canadian audience. This means from time to time I will make comparisons that are rough at best. For example, saying that in the UK, their Tories are like our Tories, their Liberals are like our moderate Liberals, and their Labour party is like our NDP plus Trudeauites is very simplistic, but also allows someone who may not follow UK politics to get a very basic understanding of what is going on.
I wish to therefore give a short and basic run down of politics in various areas I wish to focus on below the fold.
First off, Northern Ireland. You can find some basic election date on Wikipedia. The CAIN database is also full of useful nuggets of information. I want to note here something about Wikipedia. I am not endorsing the political analysis on it – it is very easy to say “most people think this” and not be caught, true or not. I am however endorsing the numbers. These numbers don’t make it to the page unless they are sourced. I myself am one of the more active contributors to election result numbers to Wikipedia, and I suggest someone looking for raw data use Wikipedia, while someone who wants a more detailed account of why should perhaps look elsewhere.
There are a number of parties in Northern Ireland. On the Unionist side there is the UUP, the Ulster Unionist Party. They are very old, and for many years formed the government. They were, in fact, in government from 1921 to the end of the NI Parliament in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was this government that people were protesting during the Bloody Sunday protest. In the 70’s however the UUP began to moderate it’s stance. This is when the DUP, or Democratic Unionist Party was formed, it struck a much more hard line for Unionism. In the past few years, however, the DUP has been a key part of Government, and it too has had to moderate it’s tone, leading to a new party, the TUV or Traditional Ulster Voice to spring up. The TUV has yet to be tested in either a UK or NI election.
On the Nationalist side there is the SDLP, or Social Democratic and Labour Party. This party was formed at the start of the troubles to represent nationalist and catholic interest. The largest nationalist party however is Sinn Fien. They are the political wing of the armed IRA members who fought the troubles. SF has overseen the disarming of the IRA and now participates in Government.
A little bit of history as well. Starting about a thousand years ago or so, England began invading Ireland. They would take hundreds of years to subdue the island, but eventually did. By then, most of the English were Protestant while the Irish remained Catholic. This turned the situation into a religious divide, with Protestants on one side and Catholics on the other. Following world war 1, an election was held in Ireland. The result was as follows
To split it; In the 26 counties that now make up the Republic of Ireland:
Sinn Fien – 69
Nationalist – 2
Unionist – 2
ERROR
You will notice that from time to time I focus on different aspects of international politics. There are certain areas of the world in particular that I plan to or wish to focus on. Northern Ireland, clearly, is one. I do however want to note that I write from a Canadian prospective, for a Canadian prospective. I’ve had people from the various countries I write about tell me my explanations of political issues in their homeland is “simplistic”, and this is true. I am not writing political analysis about Northern Ireland for a Northern Irish audience. I am writing it for a Canadian audience. This means from time to time I will make comparisons that are rough at best. For example, saying that in the UK, their Tories are like our Tories, their Liberals are like our moderate Liberals, and their Labour party is like our NDP plus Trudeauites is very simplistic, but also allows someone who may not follow UK politics to get a very basic understanding of what is going on.
I wish to therefore give a short and basic run down of politics in various areas I wish to focus on below the fold.
First off, Northern Ireland. You can find some basic election date on Wikipedia. The CAIN database is also full of useful nuggets of information. I want to note here something about Wikipedia. I am not endorsing the political analysis on it – it is very easy to say “most people think this” and not be caught, true or not. I am however endorsing the numbers. These numbers don’t make it to the page unless they are sourced. I myself am one of the more active contributors to election result numbers to Wikipedia, and I suggest someone looking for raw data use Wikipedia, while someone who wants a more detailed account of why should perhaps look elsewhere.
There are a number of parties in Northern Ireland. On the Unionist side there is the UUP, the Ulster Unionist Party. They are very old, and for many years formed the government. They were, in fact, in government from 1921 to the end of the NI Parliament in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It was this government that people were protesting during the Bloody Sunday protest. In the 70’s however the UUP began to moderate it’s stance. This is when the DUP, or Democratic Unionist Party was formed, it struck a much more hard line for Unionism. In the past few years, however, the DUP has been a key part of Government, and it too has had to moderate it’s tone, leading to a new party, the TUV or Traditional Ulster Voice to spring up. The TUV has yet to be tested in either a UK or NI election.
On the Nationalist side there is the SDLP, or Social Democratic and Labour Party. This party was formed at the start of the troubles to represent nationalist and catholic interest. The largest nationalist party however is Sinn Fien. They are the political wing of the armed IRA members who fought the troubles. SF has overseen the disarming of the IRA and now participates in Government.
A little bit of history as well. Starting about a thousand years ago or so, England began invading Ireland. They would take hundreds of years to subdue the island, but eventually did. By then, most of the English were Protestant while the Irish remained Catholic. This turned the situation into a religious divide, with Protestants on one side and Catholics on the other. Following world war 1, an election was held in Ireland. The result was as follows
To split it; In the 26 counties that now make up the Republic of Ireland:
Sinn Fien – 69
Nationalist – 2
Unionist – 2
ERROR
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Summarized Projection
-
CANADA
130C 95L 48B 35N
ATLATIC
15L 12C 5N
QUEBEC
48B 19L 7C 1N
ONTARIO
47L 45C 14N
PRAIRIE
23C 3N 2L
ALBERTA
26C 1L 1N
BRITISH COLUMBIA
16C 10L 10N
TERRITORIES
always always always 1C 1L 1N unless I say otherwise
The full projection will be posted within 15 minutes to www.ridingbyriding.com
www.ridingbyriding.com
CANADA
130C 95L 48B 35N
ATLATIC
15L 12C 5N
QUEBEC
48B 19L 7C 1N
ONTARIO
47L 45C 14N
PRAIRIE
23C 3N 2L
ALBERTA
26C 1L 1N
BRITISH COLUMBIA
16C 10L 10N
TERRITORIES
always always always 1C 1L 1N unless I say otherwise
The full projection will be posted within 15 minutes to www.ridingbyriding.com
www.ridingbyriding.com
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
So when is the next election?
-
Not soon, at least not likely. Word on the street is that neither the NDP or Liberals want an election. Looking at the most recent projections, it is no surprise why. The NDP is down slightly, or at best, will only match their 2008 election results. The Liberals are up, but only as far as 2006 (an election they lost) The Tories meanwhile are back at 2006 levels.
In short, there is no real reason for any of the parties to want an election. The Liberals certainly don't want to lose an election, even if they can gain 20 to 30 extra seats. The Tories certainly don't want to lose a seat, especially when you consider that much of the anti-Conservative feeling is, in reality, anti-Harper feeling. Harper knows that unless he can win an election with a majority, there is a very good chance he will be out. He will have had four chances (2004, 2006, 2008, 2010) and if he can't win a majority in that time, I don't see him remaining. Even Chretien, who lead 3 majorities, was only given 3 chances (1993, 1997, 2000) Ignatieff, meanwhile, could certainly remain Liberal leader if he can bring them back up to 100 seats, but his party does not want to suffer it's 3rd consecutive defeat (Something that's not happened since the 50's) The NDP meanwhile, at least under Layton, has decided that they want to make another serious run for Government. While this is not as ridiculous as it first sounds (especially considering the Liberals had their worst election ever last time, in terms of popular vote) polls show there is not a chance it is going to happen any time soon. Thanks to the prorogue issue, the Tories are no longer leading by a dozen points. Even though recent polls have shown a minor bounce back (even to as high as an 8 point lead) this not enough to guarantee Harper his Majority.
But wait, there's more! An article on the Toronto Star shows that at least 75 MP's (from all parties) who were first elected in 2004 will qualify for Pensions this June, this includes some top-notch Conservatives, and Liberals as well as Jack Layton himself. Some other big names include Ujjal Dosanjh, Bill Siksay, Jim Prentice, Rona Ambrose, Steven Fletcher, Mike Chong, Navdeep Bains, Ruby Dhalla, Peter Van Loan, Helena Guergis, David McGunity, Pierre Poilievre, Gordon O'Connor, Pablo Rodriguez, Rob Moore, and Michael Savage. Many of these people, if they are not big names on to themselves, are brothers or children of current or former premiers, etc. I don't think many of these people will desire a quick election. There is also the practical concern of money. The Tories are swimming in it, but the Liberals could always use more time to collect more donations. The simple fact that neither of the two parties are ranting "Election! Election! Election!" to the media, like they both were in turn before this mess, tells me that a spring election, at least one on purpose, is not likely. If this does hole true throughout the spring, however, it means that a fall election is nearly a certainty.
I for one hope for a fall election so that I have time to finish my new website!
Sorry, no extra data today!
Not soon, at least not likely. Word on the street is that neither the NDP or Liberals want an election. Looking at the most recent projections, it is no surprise why. The NDP is down slightly, or at best, will only match their 2008 election results. The Liberals are up, but only as far as 2006 (an election they lost) The Tories meanwhile are back at 2006 levels.
In short, there is no real reason for any of the parties to want an election. The Liberals certainly don't want to lose an election, even if they can gain 20 to 30 extra seats. The Tories certainly don't want to lose a seat, especially when you consider that much of the anti-Conservative feeling is, in reality, anti-Harper feeling. Harper knows that unless he can win an election with a majority, there is a very good chance he will be out. He will have had four chances (2004, 2006, 2008, 2010) and if he can't win a majority in that time, I don't see him remaining. Even Chretien, who lead 3 majorities, was only given 3 chances (1993, 1997, 2000) Ignatieff, meanwhile, could certainly remain Liberal leader if he can bring them back up to 100 seats, but his party does not want to suffer it's 3rd consecutive defeat (Something that's not happened since the 50's) The NDP meanwhile, at least under Layton, has decided that they want to make another serious run for Government. While this is not as ridiculous as it first sounds (especially considering the Liberals had their worst election ever last time, in terms of popular vote) polls show there is not a chance it is going to happen any time soon. Thanks to the prorogue issue, the Tories are no longer leading by a dozen points. Even though recent polls have shown a minor bounce back (even to as high as an 8 point lead) this not enough to guarantee Harper his Majority.
But wait, there's more! An article on the Toronto Star shows that at least 75 MP's (from all parties) who were first elected in 2004 will qualify for Pensions this June, this includes some top-notch Conservatives, and Liberals as well as Jack Layton himself. Some other big names include Ujjal Dosanjh, Bill Siksay, Jim Prentice, Rona Ambrose, Steven Fletcher, Mike Chong, Navdeep Bains, Ruby Dhalla, Peter Van Loan, Helena Guergis, David McGunity, Pierre Poilievre, Gordon O'Connor, Pablo Rodriguez, Rob Moore, and Michael Savage. Many of these people, if they are not big names on to themselves, are brothers or children of current or former premiers, etc. I don't think many of these people will desire a quick election. There is also the practical concern of money. The Tories are swimming in it, but the Liberals could always use more time to collect more donations. The simple fact that neither of the two parties are ranting "Election! Election! Election!" to the media, like they both were in turn before this mess, tells me that a spring election, at least one on purpose, is not likely. If this does hole true throughout the spring, however, it means that a fall election is nearly a certainty.
I for one hope for a fall election so that I have time to finish my new website!
Sorry, no extra data today!
We now have a forum
-
Well we already had a forum, which only really saw use during election time. Here is our new one:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/rXr/index/
Sorry, no extra data today!
Well we already had a forum, which only really saw use during election time. Here is our new one:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/rXr/index/
Sorry, no extra data today!
Contact Us
-
To get a hold of us, you can e-mail ridingBYriding@hotmail.com
I will be getting an e-mail tied directly to the website as well shortly.
Sorry, no extra data today!
To get a hold of us, you can e-mail ridingBYriding@hotmail.com
I will be getting an e-mail tied directly to the website as well shortly.
Sorry, no extra data today!
Also add our twitter
-
ridingBYriding
I promise this one will not turn into my personal account like nixtuff did
Sorry, no extra data today!
ridingBYriding
I promise this one will not turn into my personal account like nixtuff did
Sorry, no extra data today!
We are now RidingByRiding.Com
-
Check it out!
http://www.ridingbyriding.com
We are also http://www.ridingbyriding.ca as you can tell by the auto-redirect!
Sorry, no extra data today!
Check it out!
http://www.ridingbyriding.com
We are also http://www.ridingbyriding.ca as you can tell by the auto-redirect!
Sorry, no extra data today!
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
We have a website!
-
Thats right, we have a real .com website (and a .net too) I am confidant the name I've chosen is one that will gain me more traffic than http://www.threehundredeight.com so I don't want to release the name until I have the .ca pinned down (it takes a bit longer to approve a .ca) When that happens I will begin mirroring posts both here and there for about a month or a few weeks, followed by moving the "main" content over there, and using this blog for more summary like posts (numbers, no commentary)
~Teddy
Sorry, no extra data today!
Thats right, we have a real .com website (and a .net too) I am confidant the name I've chosen is one that will gain me more traffic than http://www.threehundredeight.com so I don't want to release the name until I have the .ca pinned down (it takes a bit longer to approve a .ca) When that happens I will begin mirroring posts both here and there for about a month or a few weeks, followed by moving the "main" content over there, and using this blog for more summary like posts (numbers, no commentary)
~Teddy
Sorry, no extra data today!
Friday, February 26, 2010
Province Watch
-
New Brunswick
Next Election: September 27 2010
Latest Polls - Tory lead of 10%
Legislature: 32L 22P 1I
Prince Edward Island
Next Election: October 3 2011
Latest Polls - Liberal lead of 26%
Legislature: 23L 3P
Ontario
Next Election: October 6 2011
Latest Polls - Lib/PC tie
Legislature: 71L 24P 10P 2V
Newfoundland and Labrador
Next Election: October 11 2011
Latest Polls - Tory lead of 61%
Legislature: 42P 4L 1N 1V
Saskatchewan
Next Election: November 7 2011
Latest Polls - SKP Lead
Legislature: 38S 20N
Manitoba
Next Election: 2011
Latest Polls - NDP lead
Legislature: 35N 19P 2L 1V
British Columbia
Next Election: May 14 2013
Latest Polls - NDP Lead
Legislature: 49L 35N 1I
Nova Scotia
Next Election: 2013 apx
Latest Polls - NDP lead
Legislature: 32N 11L 8P 1V
Quebec
Next Election: 2013
Latest Polls - PQ/PLQ tie
Legislature: 67L 50P 4A 2I 1Q 1V
Alberta
Next Election: 2013
Latest Polls - PC/WAP Tie
Legislature: 68P 9L 3W 2N 1I
Sorry, no extra data today!
New Brunswick
Next Election: September 27 2010
Latest Polls - Tory lead of 10%
Legislature: 32L 22P 1I
Prince Edward Island
Next Election: October 3 2011
Latest Polls - Liberal lead of 26%
Legislature: 23L 3P
Ontario
Next Election: October 6 2011
Latest Polls - Lib/PC tie
Legislature: 71L 24P 10P 2V
Newfoundland and Labrador
Next Election: October 11 2011
Latest Polls - Tory lead of 61%
Legislature: 42P 4L 1N 1V
Saskatchewan
Next Election: November 7 2011
Latest Polls - SKP Lead
Legislature: 38S 20N
Manitoba
Next Election: 2011
Latest Polls - NDP lead
Legislature: 35N 19P 2L 1V
British Columbia
Next Election: May 14 2013
Latest Polls - NDP Lead
Legislature: 49L 35N 1I
Nova Scotia
Next Election: 2013 apx
Latest Polls - NDP lead
Legislature: 32N 11L 8P 1V
Quebec
Next Election: 2013
Latest Polls - PQ/PLQ tie
Legislature: 67L 50P 4A 2I 1Q 1V
Alberta
Next Election: 2013
Latest Polls - PC/WAP Tie
Legislature: 68P 9L 3W 2N 1I
Sorry, no extra data today!
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Mayoral Candidates lay down ideologies.
-
Toronto's three main candidates for office have all positioned themselves for their run for mayor.
Smitherman has promised a shake up of City Hall. He is reportedly debating making TTC an essential service. In many ways he looks ready to be the successor to David Miller and Mel Lastman, committing to changing those things that cannot be easily explained. Calling for "Clean Government" is easy, making it happen is not.
Rocco Rossi has managed to position himself much further to the right than many had pegged. Rossi now appears perfectly poised to become the #1 right-wing candidate, and should no opponent emerge within the next 60 days, people like Minnan-Wong won't stand a chance.
Pantalone meanwhile has started making public commitments to being responsible fiscally. This is very important for him to do as the Miller administration (to which he is tied) had some of biggest fiscal problems in Toronto's history.
Sorry, no extra data today!
Toronto's three main candidates for office have all positioned themselves for their run for mayor.
Smitherman has promised a shake up of City Hall. He is reportedly debating making TTC an essential service. In many ways he looks ready to be the successor to David Miller and Mel Lastman, committing to changing those things that cannot be easily explained. Calling for "Clean Government" is easy, making it happen is not.
Rocco Rossi has managed to position himself much further to the right than many had pegged. Rossi now appears perfectly poised to become the #1 right-wing candidate, and should no opponent emerge within the next 60 days, people like Minnan-Wong won't stand a chance.
Pantalone meanwhile has started making public commitments to being responsible fiscally. This is very important for him to do as the Miller administration (to which he is tied) had some of biggest fiscal problems in Toronto's history.
Sorry, no extra data today!
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Senate Reform pt 2.5
-
A quick note. After working out some examples, I am starting to see what a mess my "solution" to minority parliaments would be with regard to the Senate. Therefore, I propose that minority or majority, the senators be appointed, for the term of the legislature, by the Premier/Prime Minister (IE the Governor General / Lt. Governor) and not by the Legislature as a whole. Examples to come shortly.
Sorry, no extra data today!
A quick note. After working out some examples, I am starting to see what a mess my "solution" to minority parliaments would be with regard to the Senate. Therefore, I propose that minority or majority, the senators be appointed, for the term of the legislature, by the Premier/Prime Minister (IE the Governor General / Lt. Governor) and not by the Legislature as a whole. Examples to come shortly.
Sorry, no extra data today!
Monday, February 22, 2010
Senate Reform pt 2
-
So, how would I rebalance the Senate? I say we must keep with our tradition of 24 seat regions. The answer therefore becomes to rebalance our regions. There are proposals on the table to make BC a 24 seat region, but I feel this is a very bad idea. Alberta is close behind in population and it would be grossly unfair to give BC 24 (or even 12) senators while Alberta has only 6. The answer, in my mind, is to redesign the current “West” region of the Senate. There are two ways we may do this. The first is to turn the “West” region into a “Prairie” region, and exclude BC; The next is to truncate the “West” and exclude Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The end result is the same. BC has 12 senators. Alberta has 12 senators. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have 6 each. Due to the simplicity of it, and due to the fact that there is also a proposal on the table to give BC 12 seats, I prefer the Prairie option. To review, this would do the following to the Senate
NEWFOUNDLAND – 6
MARITIME REGION – 24 -->
NS – 10
NB – 10
PE – 4
QUEBEC REGION – 24
ONTARIO REGION – 24
PRAIRIE REGION – 24 -->
MB – 6
SK – 6
AB – 12
BRITISH COLUMBIA – 12
NUNAVUT – 1
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES – 1
YUKON TERRITORY – 1
Grand total – 117
This would add 12 senators to our current Senate. While it would slightly dilute the power of the Senate, I believe that Quebec (at least under a Liberal government) would be willing to accept this than risk EEE eventually gaining enough support to pass somehow.
So how would these Senators be chosen? The key as I see it is that they need to be elected though a form of electoral college. Most importantly, I wish to divide up this last part with regards to which government elects these senators.
1/6th of our Senators should be chosen by the Federal Parliament, while 5/6ths by the provinces. That means from Manitoba, 1 Senator would be chosen by the House of Commons while 5 would be picked by the Manitoba Legislature. Ontario would pick 20, while Canada would pick 4. Residency requirements would remain, so Ontario’s 4 ‘federal’ Senators must be from Ontario, but they should be chosen not by the Premier and his Legislature, but by the Prime Minister and his House of Commons.
(Note that the 3 maritime provinces do not have a number of senators that is a direct multiple of 6. I suggest solving this by rounding. PEI would have 3 and 1, while NS and NB would have 8 and 2. The Territories only have 1 seat each. Since they are territories and not Provinces, I recommend they be appointed by the Feds)
So how would this work? I propose the following:
All Senators sit until a qualified replacement is chosen. If a senator passes away or resigns while in office, that seat remains vacant until a qualified replacement is chosen. So what exactly does one need to be “Qualified”? Firstly, you need to fit the requirements of sitting in the Senate. At current that means owning some property ($5,000 worth I think) being a resident of the province in question, a Canadian citizen, and being at least 35. At current it also means being under 75, I would not be opposed if this remained, but it would be easier if this were removed. The next thing, and I feel this is key to preventing abolitionist provincial government from obstructing the work of the Senate, is that Senators must serve. This prevents, for example, and NDP government appointing a batch of Senators who have committed to not showing up for work. This would mean that such NDP governments would have a difficult choice if either appointing Senators that work, or, allowing the opposition’s Senators to remain. It is needed, I feel, to make the Senate function properly.
So how are these Senators chosen? After each Throne Speech (generally after each election, but it can happen more often – Canada is going to have such a speech once our Parliament resumes, and Ontario is going to take a short break of a week or two and do the same) the Legislature will meet to chose the Senators. The first round will be a simple block vote. In (political) reality, this means each party will present a slate. Lets take Ontario as our example. The Ontario Liberals would present 20 Senate candidates to the Provincial Parliament. The Ontario PC Party would present 20. And hopefully, the Ontario NDP would also present 20. The Legislature will then vote, and any list getting a majority of votes is declared elected. Since the Ontario Liberals hold a majority of the seats, this means all 20 of their Senators will be elected.
So, what in Minority situations? That is where it gets interesting. In that case, we go to a second, and final round. In that round, senators are chosen using proportionality in a caucus like manner. This means that the entire Legislature will vote for which slate they prefer, and results will be distributed based on a PR scheme.
Federally assigned Senate seats would be assigned in the same manner, except with the slates being nation wide. In my next post I will provide examples.
Sorry, no extra data today!
So, how would I rebalance the Senate? I say we must keep with our tradition of 24 seat regions. The answer therefore becomes to rebalance our regions. There are proposals on the table to make BC a 24 seat region, but I feel this is a very bad idea. Alberta is close behind in population and it would be grossly unfair to give BC 24 (or even 12) senators while Alberta has only 6. The answer, in my mind, is to redesign the current “West” region of the Senate. There are two ways we may do this. The first is to turn the “West” region into a “Prairie” region, and exclude BC; The next is to truncate the “West” and exclude Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The end result is the same. BC has 12 senators. Alberta has 12 senators. Saskatchewan and Manitoba have 6 each. Due to the simplicity of it, and due to the fact that there is also a proposal on the table to give BC 12 seats, I prefer the Prairie option. To review, this would do the following to the Senate
NEWFOUNDLAND – 6
MARITIME REGION – 24 -->
NS – 10
NB – 10
PE – 4
QUEBEC REGION – 24
ONTARIO REGION – 24
PRAIRIE REGION – 24 -->
MB – 6
SK – 6
AB – 12
BRITISH COLUMBIA – 12
NUNAVUT – 1
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES – 1
YUKON TERRITORY – 1
Grand total – 117
This would add 12 senators to our current Senate. While it would slightly dilute the power of the Senate, I believe that Quebec (at least under a Liberal government) would be willing to accept this than risk EEE eventually gaining enough support to pass somehow.
So how would these Senators be chosen? The key as I see it is that they need to be elected though a form of electoral college. Most importantly, I wish to divide up this last part with regards to which government elects these senators.
1/6th of our Senators should be chosen by the Federal Parliament, while 5/6ths by the provinces. That means from Manitoba, 1 Senator would be chosen by the House of Commons while 5 would be picked by the Manitoba Legislature. Ontario would pick 20, while Canada would pick 4. Residency requirements would remain, so Ontario’s 4 ‘federal’ Senators must be from Ontario, but they should be chosen not by the Premier and his Legislature, but by the Prime Minister and his House of Commons.
(Note that the 3 maritime provinces do not have a number of senators that is a direct multiple of 6. I suggest solving this by rounding. PEI would have 3 and 1, while NS and NB would have 8 and 2. The Territories only have 1 seat each. Since they are territories and not Provinces, I recommend they be appointed by the Feds)
So how would this work? I propose the following:
All Senators sit until a qualified replacement is chosen. If a senator passes away or resigns while in office, that seat remains vacant until a qualified replacement is chosen. So what exactly does one need to be “Qualified”? Firstly, you need to fit the requirements of sitting in the Senate. At current that means owning some property ($5,000 worth I think) being a resident of the province in question, a Canadian citizen, and being at least 35. At current it also means being under 75, I would not be opposed if this remained, but it would be easier if this were removed. The next thing, and I feel this is key to preventing abolitionist provincial government from obstructing the work of the Senate, is that Senators must serve. This prevents, for example, and NDP government appointing a batch of Senators who have committed to not showing up for work. This would mean that such NDP governments would have a difficult choice if either appointing Senators that work, or, allowing the opposition’s Senators to remain. It is needed, I feel, to make the Senate function properly.
So how are these Senators chosen? After each Throne Speech (generally after each election, but it can happen more often – Canada is going to have such a speech once our Parliament resumes, and Ontario is going to take a short break of a week or two and do the same) the Legislature will meet to chose the Senators. The first round will be a simple block vote. In (political) reality, this means each party will present a slate. Lets take Ontario as our example. The Ontario Liberals would present 20 Senate candidates to the Provincial Parliament. The Ontario PC Party would present 20. And hopefully, the Ontario NDP would also present 20. The Legislature will then vote, and any list getting a majority of votes is declared elected. Since the Ontario Liberals hold a majority of the seats, this means all 20 of their Senators will be elected.
So, what in Minority situations? That is where it gets interesting. In that case, we go to a second, and final round. In that round, senators are chosen using proportionality in a caucus like manner. This means that the entire Legislature will vote for which slate they prefer, and results will be distributed based on a PR scheme.
Federally assigned Senate seats would be assigned in the same manner, except with the slates being nation wide. In my next post I will provide examples.
Sorry, no extra data today!
Senate Reform
-
Another issue I wish to touch on is that of Senate Reform. With Harper verging on a Majority in the upper house, the possibility of Canada getting some form of Senate Reform is no longer out of the question. One thing I fear, however, is what the wrong kind of Senate Reform can do.
Back in the heyday of EEE (Equal, Elected, Effective) we had a far different political reality than we did today. During the 80’s, when EEE was first proposed, we had an NDP and PC Party that, together, shut the Liberals out of the West, and a Liberal Party that relied on its ability to rack up seats in Quebec to solidify its otherwise meager showing in English Canada into a strong Majority. For much of this period, the PC Party was even carrying the Atlantic. During the 90’s when the Reform Party rode EEE, they were dominating the West while the Liberals were dominant in Central Canada. Let’s take a look at this based on EEE with 10 seats per province.
Reform, and in fact most of the larger EEE proponents usually view EEE taking the form of a block vote. This is how Alberta has elected it’s Senators so far. This means each voter would get 10 votes to cast, and 10 candidates would be elected. Since it can be expected that many voters will cast a simple party line ballot, this results in a very high chance that one party can win all 10 seats. Lets use the 1997 election as our example. We would see the Reform Party winning 40 senate seats from the 4 western provinces. The Remaining provinces could be interesting. The Bloc did beat the Liberals in Quebec but only by a point. In a realistic scenario, voters would either pile on the votes to a single federalist party, or more likely given the political reality of the day, the Liberals and PC Party might even each only present a limited number of candidates (I will go with 7 and 3 for this example) and recommend their voters vote for these 10 people. I will presume they all get elected. In New Brunswick, the PC Party beat the Liberals by 2 points. This might not sound like much, but it is enough in a block vote scenario to give the party all 10 seats. The Liberals swept PEI, and would win all 10 seats here. Meanwhile, Newfoundland was won by the Liberals only by a single point. When things get this close you start to see true splits in block voting, and it is likely a few very popular Tories would have beat the lowest of the no-name Liberals. I will again go with a 7-3 split. Lastly, Nova Scotia, where the PC Party and NDP nearly tied; this could result in a split of 7-3 or even 5-5. I will use 5-5 for this example. Now, to add it all up, we see the following results.
Reform – 40 (BC, AB, SK, MB)
Liberals – 34 (10 ON, 10 PE, 7 QC, 7 NL)
PC Party – 21 (3 QC, 3 NL, 5 NS, 10 NB)
NDP – 5 (NS)
Given what we now know about the Reform Party and it’s dealings with the PC Party during the 90’s it is very easy to see a 1997 EEE Senate become a bastion of right-wing support. Under EEE, it only takes a single province outside the west to agree with the west (in terms of whom they elect) to create a majority (or at least a tie) in the senate. In every election from 1974 to 1984 inclusive, all 4 western provinces voted for the same party (the PC Party) In 1972 and 1988, they split between the PC Party and the Tories. Only in 1993 did the Liberals win 2 western provinces.
Another key part of the reasoning behind EEE was that there are “Urban” provinces, like Ontario and Quebec, and “Rural” provinces, like the other 8. This is no longer true. Most provinces have its citizens living in its largest metropolitan area: Ontario, with Toronto; Quebec with Montreal; BC with Vancouver; Nova Scotia with Halifax; Manitoba, with Winnipeg; and even PEI, with Charlottetown. The others either split the majority between two large cities such as Alberta, with Edmonton and Calgary, and Saskatchewan with Regina and Saskatoon; have a large plurality, and not a Majority in the single area, like Newfoundland and Labrador, with St.John’s, or have no single focal point for the population, like New Brunswick. Now that 50%+1 of Canadians in each province live in “urban areas” there are no longer the same “Rural Provinces” that there once were.
One key reason, however, that EEE has been dropped is Quebec. In order to change the seat allotments in the Senate, the provincial government of Quebec needs to sign off. Quebec will not do this. During the 90’s there was a time when many in the west hoped that Quebec would leave. This would have left Ontario, with 50%+1 of the population, and the rest of Canada, with 80 of the 90 Senate Seats. While this does make sense from a certain prospective, within the last 15 years, Ontario has started to use its might to say “enough is enough”. The province normally expected to make concessions to keep Alberta and/or Quebec happy is no longer willing to bend over and just let it happen. Ontario is saying no. Ontario is also unlikely at this point to accept a EEE senate.
It’s not that Ontario or Quebec have a problem with a senate that is Effective, or even Elected, it is the final E of Equal that is a non-starter. Even in British Columbia, where 13% of Canadians live, there are doubts that having 10% of the Senate Seats would somehow make the province more powerful on a federal stage.
Next, we need to look at the idea of an Elected and Effective Senate. The two are closely tied to one another, as they work best (or worst) together. When should we elect our Senators? If we elect them at the same time as the members of the House, are we not just creating a mini-house in the Senate? Our Senate has the power to block supply, so what of a party that massively wins the popular vote, but fails to win that support evenly across the country. Ontario and Quebec have 66% of the Canadian Population, should we put the fate of those 66% in the hands of the other 33% because the way we happened to cut up our country has drawn more lines over there than they did over here? Compare the physical size of any of the maritime provinces, and even the Island of Newfoundland, to the size of any other province. The argument could be made on the grounds of history, but what of Alberta and Saskatchewan that were cut out of Prairie on an imaginary line 105 years ago. This brings us back to Equal, how many seats should each province have? If it’s equal we run into problems of “why” and “no”, and if it is rep by pop we run into problems of a “mini house” in the Senate. For the answer, I say we need to go back to the original Confederation debates.
At the meetings that created Canada, there were many topics of discussion. Federal-Provincial powers was one, taking up a reported 40% of the discussion time. “Everything Else” beyond this and one other issue reportedly only took up 20% of the time. So what took up the missing 40%? The Senate. That’s right, debate on the Senate has been going on since before Canada was a country. Senate Reform even was proposed during our first Parliament, and so has also been discussed for nearly as long as Canada has been around. In that time various proposals have aimed to make the senate various things. Some aim to turn the senate into something they have in Australia or the US. Others aim to abolish the chamber. Some have managed to get passed like the idea that Senators must retire at age 75. In order to have a successful reform of the Senate we must look at what it was designed to do.
I don’t plan to write an essay here, so I will say in short, that the whole point of our Senate was to represent the provinces at the federal level. The provinces were quite willing to give the Federal Government a lot of power, so long as they would be integral parts of that Federal Government. This is something that we’ve overlooked in the decades since, while our Senate has become a chamber for partisanship and “sober second thought”. Perhaps the latter phrase was something John A Macdonald, a Federal Government leader wanted out of the chamber, but it was certainly not what the provinces had in mind. In the end, we now have a senate that is neither a chamber of the Provinces, a place for real thought, or is in any way effective.
So then, how do we make the Senate representative of the provinces? A direct election, I argue, is not the way. Federal parties running on Federal platforms will only create a senate of Senators with nation-wide ambitions. Tying Senate elections to Provincial elections will only distract from Provincial issues as Senators try to campaign on the issue they can do something about – Federal issues. The only answer, I argue, is for an indirect election of our Senators.
This still leaves open the problem of seats. Shall we give PEI the same number of seats as Ontario? Or shall we go with the current method of having all 730,000 people in New Brunswick have 10 senators while all 4,000,000 people in British Columbia only have 6. I say there is a better answer and it is found in the original compromise that created the Senate. You may be and hopefully are aware that the Senate has 24 senators per region. Ontario and Quebec are each single-province regions, while the Maritimes are a multiple-province Region. Remember, in 1867, this was the entire Canada as we know it. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick wanted 24 senators each, but Ontario and Quebec were unwilling to give up control of half of Canada to these newcomers. They settled on a compromise, rather than have an equal number of Senators per province, they would have an equal number of Senators per “Region” and this would allow us to draw the regional boundaries to best suit our needs. Sadly, this never occurred. The last time we redrew the regional boundaries was in 1915 when PEI sued the government saying it should have more MP’s than Senators (4). At that time, the government decided to nearly double the number of Senators from the growing Western provinces by making all 4 of them a single 24 seat region. I argue that this was, and should have always been, a temporary measure.
This brings us back to the present and the problem of how to best represent the various provinces. One thing that we have today that we did not in the distant past is a good statistical model. We can now project how many people we expect each province to have in 30 years, and even in 50 years. We can even get rough estimations of the population of each province 100 years in the future. The one thing that is clear when we do this is that the current gap between the 4 largest provinces (Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta) and the 6 smaller ones will not be closing, rather, it will be increasing. We also see that it is quite possible that BC or Alberta (or both) will overtake Quebec in terms of population at some point in the next 50 to 100 years. Ontario it seems will remain where it has been since Confederation, and hold near 40% of the Canadian population for the foreseeable future.
With this information, it is impossible to ask BC and Alberta to get by with a total of 12 Senators. So, how do we rebalance the Senate? How do we pick our Senators? I will examine that in my next post (I will also examine a few alternate proposals to my own, including one that has been drawn up by an Australian friend of mine)
Sorry, no extra data today!
Another issue I wish to touch on is that of Senate Reform. With Harper verging on a Majority in the upper house, the possibility of Canada getting some form of Senate Reform is no longer out of the question. One thing I fear, however, is what the wrong kind of Senate Reform can do.
Back in the heyday of EEE (Equal, Elected, Effective) we had a far different political reality than we did today. During the 80’s, when EEE was first proposed, we had an NDP and PC Party that, together, shut the Liberals out of the West, and a Liberal Party that relied on its ability to rack up seats in Quebec to solidify its otherwise meager showing in English Canada into a strong Majority. For much of this period, the PC Party was even carrying the Atlantic. During the 90’s when the Reform Party rode EEE, they were dominating the West while the Liberals were dominant in Central Canada. Let’s take a look at this based on EEE with 10 seats per province.
Reform, and in fact most of the larger EEE proponents usually view EEE taking the form of a block vote. This is how Alberta has elected it’s Senators so far. This means each voter would get 10 votes to cast, and 10 candidates would be elected. Since it can be expected that many voters will cast a simple party line ballot, this results in a very high chance that one party can win all 10 seats. Lets use the 1997 election as our example. We would see the Reform Party winning 40 senate seats from the 4 western provinces. The Remaining provinces could be interesting. The Bloc did beat the Liberals in Quebec but only by a point. In a realistic scenario, voters would either pile on the votes to a single federalist party, or more likely given the political reality of the day, the Liberals and PC Party might even each only present a limited number of candidates (I will go with 7 and 3 for this example) and recommend their voters vote for these 10 people. I will presume they all get elected. In New Brunswick, the PC Party beat the Liberals by 2 points. This might not sound like much, but it is enough in a block vote scenario to give the party all 10 seats. The Liberals swept PEI, and would win all 10 seats here. Meanwhile, Newfoundland was won by the Liberals only by a single point. When things get this close you start to see true splits in block voting, and it is likely a few very popular Tories would have beat the lowest of the no-name Liberals. I will again go with a 7-3 split. Lastly, Nova Scotia, where the PC Party and NDP nearly tied; this could result in a split of 7-3 or even 5-5. I will use 5-5 for this example. Now, to add it all up, we see the following results.
Reform – 40 (BC, AB, SK, MB)
Liberals – 34 (10 ON, 10 PE, 7 QC, 7 NL)
PC Party – 21 (3 QC, 3 NL, 5 NS, 10 NB)
NDP – 5 (NS)
Given what we now know about the Reform Party and it’s dealings with the PC Party during the 90’s it is very easy to see a 1997 EEE Senate become a bastion of right-wing support. Under EEE, it only takes a single province outside the west to agree with the west (in terms of whom they elect) to create a majority (or at least a tie) in the senate. In every election from 1974 to 1984 inclusive, all 4 western provinces voted for the same party (the PC Party) In 1972 and 1988, they split between the PC Party and the Tories. Only in 1993 did the Liberals win 2 western provinces.
Another key part of the reasoning behind EEE was that there are “Urban” provinces, like Ontario and Quebec, and “Rural” provinces, like the other 8. This is no longer true. Most provinces have its citizens living in its largest metropolitan area: Ontario, with Toronto; Quebec with Montreal; BC with Vancouver; Nova Scotia with Halifax; Manitoba, with Winnipeg; and even PEI, with Charlottetown. The others either split the majority between two large cities such as Alberta, with Edmonton and Calgary, and Saskatchewan with Regina and Saskatoon; have a large plurality, and not a Majority in the single area, like Newfoundland and Labrador, with St.John’s, or have no single focal point for the population, like New Brunswick. Now that 50%+1 of Canadians in each province live in “urban areas” there are no longer the same “Rural Provinces” that there once were.
One key reason, however, that EEE has been dropped is Quebec. In order to change the seat allotments in the Senate, the provincial government of Quebec needs to sign off. Quebec will not do this. During the 90’s there was a time when many in the west hoped that Quebec would leave. This would have left Ontario, with 50%+1 of the population, and the rest of Canada, with 80 of the 90 Senate Seats. While this does make sense from a certain prospective, within the last 15 years, Ontario has started to use its might to say “enough is enough”. The province normally expected to make concessions to keep Alberta and/or Quebec happy is no longer willing to bend over and just let it happen. Ontario is saying no. Ontario is also unlikely at this point to accept a EEE senate.
It’s not that Ontario or Quebec have a problem with a senate that is Effective, or even Elected, it is the final E of Equal that is a non-starter. Even in British Columbia, where 13% of Canadians live, there are doubts that having 10% of the Senate Seats would somehow make the province more powerful on a federal stage.
Next, we need to look at the idea of an Elected and Effective Senate. The two are closely tied to one another, as they work best (or worst) together. When should we elect our Senators? If we elect them at the same time as the members of the House, are we not just creating a mini-house in the Senate? Our Senate has the power to block supply, so what of a party that massively wins the popular vote, but fails to win that support evenly across the country. Ontario and Quebec have 66% of the Canadian Population, should we put the fate of those 66% in the hands of the other 33% because the way we happened to cut up our country has drawn more lines over there than they did over here? Compare the physical size of any of the maritime provinces, and even the Island of Newfoundland, to the size of any other province. The argument could be made on the grounds of history, but what of Alberta and Saskatchewan that were cut out of Prairie on an imaginary line 105 years ago. This brings us back to Equal, how many seats should each province have? If it’s equal we run into problems of “why” and “no”, and if it is rep by pop we run into problems of a “mini house” in the Senate. For the answer, I say we need to go back to the original Confederation debates.
At the meetings that created Canada, there were many topics of discussion. Federal-Provincial powers was one, taking up a reported 40% of the discussion time. “Everything Else” beyond this and one other issue reportedly only took up 20% of the time. So what took up the missing 40%? The Senate. That’s right, debate on the Senate has been going on since before Canada was a country. Senate Reform even was proposed during our first Parliament, and so has also been discussed for nearly as long as Canada has been around. In that time various proposals have aimed to make the senate various things. Some aim to turn the senate into something they have in Australia or the US. Others aim to abolish the chamber. Some have managed to get passed like the idea that Senators must retire at age 75. In order to have a successful reform of the Senate we must look at what it was designed to do.
I don’t plan to write an essay here, so I will say in short, that the whole point of our Senate was to represent the provinces at the federal level. The provinces were quite willing to give the Federal Government a lot of power, so long as they would be integral parts of that Federal Government. This is something that we’ve overlooked in the decades since, while our Senate has become a chamber for partisanship and “sober second thought”. Perhaps the latter phrase was something John A Macdonald, a Federal Government leader wanted out of the chamber, but it was certainly not what the provinces had in mind. In the end, we now have a senate that is neither a chamber of the Provinces, a place for real thought, or is in any way effective.
So then, how do we make the Senate representative of the provinces? A direct election, I argue, is not the way. Federal parties running on Federal platforms will only create a senate of Senators with nation-wide ambitions. Tying Senate elections to Provincial elections will only distract from Provincial issues as Senators try to campaign on the issue they can do something about – Federal issues. The only answer, I argue, is for an indirect election of our Senators.
This still leaves open the problem of seats. Shall we give PEI the same number of seats as Ontario? Or shall we go with the current method of having all 730,000 people in New Brunswick have 10 senators while all 4,000,000 people in British Columbia only have 6. I say there is a better answer and it is found in the original compromise that created the Senate. You may be and hopefully are aware that the Senate has 24 senators per region. Ontario and Quebec are each single-province regions, while the Maritimes are a multiple-province Region. Remember, in 1867, this was the entire Canada as we know it. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick wanted 24 senators each, but Ontario and Quebec were unwilling to give up control of half of Canada to these newcomers. They settled on a compromise, rather than have an equal number of Senators per province, they would have an equal number of Senators per “Region” and this would allow us to draw the regional boundaries to best suit our needs. Sadly, this never occurred. The last time we redrew the regional boundaries was in 1915 when PEI sued the government saying it should have more MP’s than Senators (4). At that time, the government decided to nearly double the number of Senators from the growing Western provinces by making all 4 of them a single 24 seat region. I argue that this was, and should have always been, a temporary measure.
This brings us back to the present and the problem of how to best represent the various provinces. One thing that we have today that we did not in the distant past is a good statistical model. We can now project how many people we expect each province to have in 30 years, and even in 50 years. We can even get rough estimations of the population of each province 100 years in the future. The one thing that is clear when we do this is that the current gap between the 4 largest provinces (Ontario, Quebec, BC, and Alberta) and the 6 smaller ones will not be closing, rather, it will be increasing. We also see that it is quite possible that BC or Alberta (or both) will overtake Quebec in terms of population at some point in the next 50 to 100 years. Ontario it seems will remain where it has been since Confederation, and hold near 40% of the Canadian population for the foreseeable future.
With this information, it is impossible to ask BC and Alberta to get by with a total of 12 Senators. So, how do we rebalance the Senate? How do we pick our Senators? I will examine that in my next post (I will also examine a few alternate proposals to my own, including one that has been drawn up by an Australian friend of mine)
Sorry, no extra data today!
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Letters
-
In order to be more concise with my writing (and to enable me to quickly and shortly post updates to twitter – I am getting a new account) I am reducing my 3 letter acronyms for political parties down to a single letter. I am also standardizing the 3 letter ones. They will be as follows.
Federal, modern
C = Conservative
L = Liberal
N = New Democratic
B = Bloc
G = Green
1990s
C = Canadian Alliance
P = Progressive Conservative
R = Reform
1970s
S = Social Credit
R = Ralliment Creditites
1920s/30s/40s
F = Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation
C = Conservative
P = Progressives
U = United Farmers
R = Reconstruction
Earlier
P = Patron of Industry
Provincial
Quebec
P = Parti Quebecois
L = Parti Liberal Quebec
A = Action Democratique Quebec
Q = Quebec Solidarie
V = Parti Vert (Greens)
Historic
E = Equality Party
N = Nouveau Parti Democratique
R = Ralliement Creditiste (or National)
N = Parti Nationale Popularie
U = Union Nationale
I = Rassemblement pour I’independence Nationale
B = Bloc Popularie
The remainder of the provinces are very similar to federal, with only the following things being of note.
A = Acadian Party (NB)
F = Family Coalition Party (ON)
C = Confederation of Regions (ON, NB)
M = Communist – under various names (MB)
B = Labour (NS, NB, MB)
A = Alberta Alliance (AB)
W = Wildrose Alliance (AB)
W = Western Canada Concept (AB, SK)
R = Representative Party (AB)
R = Reform Party (BC)
S = Saskatchewan Party (SK)
Y = Yukon Party (YK)
P = Liberal-Progressive Union (MB)
S = Socialist (BC, MB)
D = Social Democrats (MB)
R = Reform Liberals (NL)
U = United Newfoundland Party (NL)
B = Labrador Party (NL)
A = Coalition (AB)
P = Progressive Democratic Alliance (BC)
M = Marijuana Party (BC)
Sorry, no extra data today!
In order to be more concise with my writing (and to enable me to quickly and shortly post updates to twitter – I am getting a new account) I am reducing my 3 letter acronyms for political parties down to a single letter. I am also standardizing the 3 letter ones. They will be as follows.
Federal, modern
C = Conservative
L = Liberal
N = New Democratic
B = Bloc
G = Green
1990s
C = Canadian Alliance
P = Progressive Conservative
R = Reform
1970s
S = Social Credit
R = Ralliment Creditites
1920s/30s/40s
F = Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation
C = Conservative
P = Progressives
U = United Farmers
R = Reconstruction
Earlier
P = Patron of Industry
Provincial
Quebec
P = Parti Quebecois
L = Parti Liberal Quebec
A = Action Democratique Quebec
Q = Quebec Solidarie
V = Parti Vert (Greens)
Historic
E = Equality Party
N = Nouveau Parti Democratique
R = Ralliement Creditiste (or National)
N = Parti Nationale Popularie
U = Union Nationale
I = Rassemblement pour I’independence Nationale
B = Bloc Popularie
The remainder of the provinces are very similar to federal, with only the following things being of note.
A = Acadian Party (NB)
F = Family Coalition Party (ON)
C = Confederation of Regions (ON, NB)
M = Communist – under various names (MB)
B = Labour (NS, NB, MB)
A = Alberta Alliance (AB)
W = Wildrose Alliance (AB)
W = Western Canada Concept (AB, SK)
R = Representative Party (AB)
R = Reform Party (BC)
S = Saskatchewan Party (SK)
Y = Yukon Party (YK)
P = Liberal-Progressive Union (MB)
S = Socialist (BC, MB)
D = Social Democrats (MB)
R = Reform Liberals (NL)
U = United Newfoundland Party (NL)
B = Labrador Party (NL)
A = Coalition (AB)
P = Progressive Democratic Alliance (BC)
M = Marijuana Party (BC)
Sorry, no extra data today!
Quebec Polls
<-More below the fold!
New Leger polls are out showing provincial and federal polling data. I've combined this newest poll with the past two to get a better average. I have used the breakdown between Francophones and Non-Francophones
Francophone
Provincial
(P)PQ - 47
(L)PLQ - 31
(A)ADQ - 9
(Q)QS - 7
(V)PV - 4
Federal
B - 47
L - 20
C - 16
N - 16
G - 6
Non-Francophone
Provincial
L - 73
P - 9
B - 6
A - 4
Q - 4
Federal
L - 43
C - 21
N - 18
B - 8
G - 6
More below the fold
I've done this so I can examine the difference between federal and provincial numbers.
Among Francophones you can see both the Bloc and PQ at 47%. These are, for a large part, the same voters. The Greens have 6% federally and 4% provincially, again, mostly the same voters. What is more interesting are the other parties.
The NDP takes 15%, while QS has only taken 7%, about half that. Meanwhile, the Tories have 16%, but the ADQ only has 9%, roughly 2/3rds of the vote. The provincial Liberals suck up these voters, taking 31% compared to the federal party at 20%.
Among non-Francophones, we see the PQ at 9% and the Bloc at 8%, while the Greens have 4% on both levels. These parties have the best relation between federal and provincial support levels. Both the ADQ and QS are tied at 4%, while the CPC and NDP have 21% and 18% respectively (this is within the margin of error) This translates to 1/5th support. Again, we see the PLQ sucking up the difference, taking an astounding 73% of non-francophones, while the federal party has only 43% support.
I will be keeping track of future polls to see if these support ratios stand.
New Leger polls are out showing provincial and federal polling data. I've combined this newest poll with the past two to get a better average. I have used the breakdown between Francophones and Non-Francophones
Francophone
Provincial
(P)PQ - 47
(L)PLQ - 31
(A)ADQ - 9
(Q)QS - 7
(V)PV - 4
Federal
B - 47
L - 20
C - 16
N - 16
G - 6
Non-Francophone
Provincial
L - 73
P - 9
B - 6
A - 4
Q - 4
Federal
L - 43
C - 21
N - 18
B - 8
G - 6
More below the fold
I've done this so I can examine the difference between federal and provincial numbers.
Among Francophones you can see both the Bloc and PQ at 47%. These are, for a large part, the same voters. The Greens have 6% federally and 4% provincially, again, mostly the same voters. What is more interesting are the other parties.
The NDP takes 15%, while QS has only taken 7%, about half that. Meanwhile, the Tories have 16%, but the ADQ only has 9%, roughly 2/3rds of the vote. The provincial Liberals suck up these voters, taking 31% compared to the federal party at 20%.
Among non-Francophones, we see the PQ at 9% and the Bloc at 8%, while the Greens have 4% on both levels. These parties have the best relation between federal and provincial support levels. Both the ADQ and QS are tied at 4%, while the CPC and NDP have 21% and 18% respectively (this is within the margin of error) This translates to 1/5th support. Again, we see the PLQ sucking up the difference, taking an astounding 73% of non-francophones, while the federal party has only 43% support.
I will be keeping track of future polls to see if these support ratios stand.
Friday, February 19, 2010
PR. Part 4 (final)
-
So now that the examples are all up, I'd like to take a look at how history would be different if we had such a system.
In 2008 the Greens would have qualified for 3 seats.
in 2000, the Alliance would have won 9 seats in Ontario, 1 in Quebec, and 1 in the Atlantic. If this had happened, we may have never seen the merger. At the same time the PC Party would have on 4 seats in Ontario, 1 on the Prairies, and 2 in Alberta.
1997, as noted, would have turned the majority into a minority.
1993 would have been different for sure with both the NDP and PC Party qualifying for official party status. The PC Party wold have won at least 1 seat in each region, and may not have dropped off the radar as they did using our system.
In 1988, the NDP would have won 3 seats in Quebec. It is possible, given history, that they would have taken a huge bite out of the Bloc in 1993.
1980 would have seen the number of Liberals elected from the west go from 2 to 6, and may have helped, in some way, to step the anti-Liberal tide from the area. Social Credit would have also made their last stand here, with 2 final stats, behind the NDP in Quebec with 3.
1979 would have seen Joe Clark with 6 Tories from Quebec.
Lastly, 1972 would have been a more clear Liberal win.
Provincially...
The first real changes we see are in New Brunswick. In the 1991 election, CoR leader, Arch Pafford would have almost certainly won a seat from the list, and the CoR may have remained as a Reform-like party in the Atlatnic. In 1987, when the Liberals shut out all other parties, the PC Party would have won 5 seats, and hence, the things CoR needed to grow in the first place may have never occurred.
As we go further and further back we can see how important many of these chances would/could have been.
The Saskatchewan Party may have never formed.
The Alberta Alliance may have taken off years before its successor did.
Social Credit won a seat in Alberta in 1997 and may have used that as a platform to stage a comeback.
The Greens would have a seat from BC.
The 1996 BC election would have resulted in a tie
The Greens would have a seat from Ontario.
Back in the 70's the NDP would have never formed the official opposition. Even small changes like this may have meant that Bob Rae would never become Premier. Rae was popular before his government screwed up. It is possible that he would have followed Broadbent, became NDP leader, and may well have won huge numbers of seats in 1993. This just goes to show that any of these small changes could have had huge impacts on history.
Sorry, no extra data today!
So now that the examples are all up, I'd like to take a look at how history would be different if we had such a system.
In 2008 the Greens would have qualified for 3 seats.
in 2000, the Alliance would have won 9 seats in Ontario, 1 in Quebec, and 1 in the Atlantic. If this had happened, we may have never seen the merger. At the same time the PC Party would have on 4 seats in Ontario, 1 on the Prairies, and 2 in Alberta.
1997, as noted, would have turned the majority into a minority.
1993 would have been different for sure with both the NDP and PC Party qualifying for official party status. The PC Party wold have won at least 1 seat in each region, and may not have dropped off the radar as they did using our system.
In 1988, the NDP would have won 3 seats in Quebec. It is possible, given history, that they would have taken a huge bite out of the Bloc in 1993.
1980 would have seen the number of Liberals elected from the west go from 2 to 6, and may have helped, in some way, to step the anti-Liberal tide from the area. Social Credit would have also made their last stand here, with 2 final stats, behind the NDP in Quebec with 3.
1979 would have seen Joe Clark with 6 Tories from Quebec.
Lastly, 1972 would have been a more clear Liberal win.
Provincially...
The first real changes we see are in New Brunswick. In the 1991 election, CoR leader, Arch Pafford would have almost certainly won a seat from the list, and the CoR may have remained as a Reform-like party in the Atlatnic. In 1987, when the Liberals shut out all other parties, the PC Party would have won 5 seats, and hence, the things CoR needed to grow in the first place may have never occurred.
As we go further and further back we can see how important many of these chances would/could have been.
The Saskatchewan Party may have never formed.
The Alberta Alliance may have taken off years before its successor did.
Social Credit won a seat in Alberta in 1997 and may have used that as a platform to stage a comeback.
The Greens would have a seat from BC.
The 1996 BC election would have resulted in a tie
The Greens would have a seat from Ontario.
Back in the 70's the NDP would have never formed the official opposition. Even small changes like this may have meant that Bob Rae would never become Premier. Rae was popular before his government screwed up. It is possible that he would have followed Broadbent, became NDP leader, and may well have won huge numbers of seats in 1993. This just goes to show that any of these small changes could have had huge impacts on history.
Sorry, no extra data today!
Thursday, February 18, 2010
PR, part 3
<- Click here to see the full post
Provincial breakdowns below the fold.
Here are the federal breakdowns for elections using my proposed system. Which, as a reminder, is as follows:
>25% of seats are added back as PR list seats. Meaning if there are 100 ridings, you add 25 PR seats.
>Party Lists are limited to half of the PR list seats rounded up, to guarantee the opposition fair representation.
>Seats are distributed on a parallel system, not a top-up system, meaning if you get 50% of the vote, you get 50% of the PR seats, not 50% of the total seats.
>A minimum of 26 ridings needed to form a PR district. This means that Manitoba and Saskatchewan re united into a single electoral district, as is the Atlantic. In the past, it also means the addition of Alberta to the Prairies, and far back enough, even BC to the West as a whole.
I've decided not to include the territories at all. Their voting base is just too small. Even included in with MB/SK, they would add 3 ridings (and 1 PR seat) for very small vote numbers. In reality, this would only add more seats to small parties in MB/SK without truly representing the Territories. Hence, I have decided to dis-include them.
Remember, there is a 5% threshold in each electoral district.
Above the fold, national results. Below, district breakdowns. Note this shows the total seats.
2008
CPC - 176
Lib - 96
BQ - 54
NDP - 51
Grn - 3*
IND - 2
2006
CPC - 157
Lib - 127
BQ - 55
NDP - 42
IND - 1
2004
Lib - 177
CPC - 131
BQ - 64
NDP - 36
IND - 1
2000
Lib - 201
CA - 87
BQ - 46
PC - 21
NDP - 19
IND - 1
1997 (see note)
Lib - 183
Ref - 75
BQ - 51
PC - 35
NDP - 29
IND - 1
1993
Lib - 206
Ref - 68
BQ - 64
PC - 15
NDP - 12
IND - 1
1988
PC - 202
Lib - 106
NDP - 57
Ref - 1
1984
PC - 255
Lib - 68
NDP - 49
IND - 1
1980
Lib - 175
PC - 126
NDP - 46
SC - 2*
1979
PC - 161
Lib - 151
NDP - 37
SC - 10
1974
Lib - 170
PC - 119
NDP - 23
SC - 15
IND - 1
1972
Lib - 136
PC - 129
NDP - 41
SC - 20
IND - 2
Note -
1997 would be the only election in any of these examples where a Majority is turned into a Minority. With 301 ridings, the Liberals won 155 of them, just e seats into Majority territory. 1997 is also the election that sparked the merger on the right, as if the right had been united, they would have won more seats than the Liberals. That becomes clear here as the Liberal Majority is turned into a Minority. The Liberals would need 4 seats to gain a Majority here, and likely would find them with support from the NDP, meaning a Reform-PC-BQ alliance would not be enough to overtake the government.
2008
Atlantic
Lib - 20
CPC - 13
NDP - 6
IND - 1
Quebec
BQ - 54
Lib - 18
CPC - 18
NDP - 3
IND - 1
Ontario
CPC - 62
Lib - 47
NDP - 22
Grn - 2*
SK/MB
CPC - 26
NDP - 6
Lib - 3
Alberta
CPC - 31
NDP - 3
Lib - 1*
British Columbia
CPC - 26
NDP - 11
Lib - 7
Grn - 1*
=============
2006
Atlantic
Lib - 23
CPC - 12
NDP - 5
Quebec
BQ - 55
CPC - 19
Lib - 18
NDP - 1*
IND - 1
Ontario
Lib - 66
CPC - 50
NDP - 17
SK/MB
CPC - 23
Lib - 7
NDP - 5
Alberta
CPC - 32
Lib - 2
NDP - 1*
British Columbia
CPC - 21
NDP - 13
Lib - 11
=============
2004
Atlantic
Lib - 26
CPC - 9
NDP - 5
Quebec
BQ - 64
Lib - 29
CPC - 1*
Ontario
Lib - 101
CPC - 42
NDP - 17
SK/MB
CPC - 23
Lib - 6
NDP - 6
Alberta
CPC - 30
Lib - 4
NDP - 1*
British Columbia
CPC - 26
Lib - 11
NDP - 7
IND - 1
=============
2000
Atlantic
Lib - 22
PC - 12
NDP - 5
CA - 1*
Quebec
BQ - 46
Lib - 45
PC - 2
CA - 1*
Ontario
Lib - 113
CA - 9
PC - 4*
NDP - 3
IND - 1
SK/MB
CA - 17
Lib - 9
NDP - 8
PC - 1
Alberta
CA - 27
Lib - 4
PC - 2
British Columbia
CA - 32
Lib - 8
NDP - 3
=============
1997
Atlantic
PC - 16
Lib - 14
NDP - 10
Quebec
BQ - 51
Lib - 33
PC - 10
Ontario
Lib - 114
PC - 6
Ref - 5
NDP - 3
IND - 1
SK/MB
Ref - 13
NDP - 11
Lib - 9
PC - 2
Alberta
Ref - 28
Lib - 4
PC - 1*
British Columbia
Ref - 29
Lib - 9
NDP - 5
=============
1993
Atlantic
Lib - 35
PC - 4
Ref - 1*
Quebec
BQ - 64
Lib - 26
PC - 3
IND - 1
Ontario
Lib - 111
Ref 7
PC - 5*
NDP - 1*
MB/SK
Lib - 19
NDP - 8
Ref - 7
PC - 1*
Alberta
Ref - 26
Lib - 6
PC - 1*
British Columbia
Ref - 27
Lib - 9
NDP - 3
PC - 1*
=============
1988
Atlantic
Lib - 24
PC - 15
NDP - 1*
Quebec
PC - 73
Lib - 18
NDP - 3*
Ontario
PC - 56
Lib - 53
NDP - 15
SK/MB
PC - 14
NDP - 14
Lib - 7
Alberta
PC - 29
NDP - 2
Lib - 1*
Ref - 1*
British Columbia
NDP - 22
PC - 15
Lib - 3
=============
1984
Atlantic
PC - 29
Lib - 10
NDP - 1*
Quebec
PC - 68
Lib - 25
NDP - 1*
Ontario
PC - 91
Lib - 28
NDP - 23
IND - 1
Prairies
PC - 45
NDP - 13
Lib - 3
British Columbia
PC - 22
NDP - 11
Lib - 2
=============
1980
Atlantic
Lib - 23
PC - 16
NDP - 1*
Quebec
Lib - 84
PC - 5
NDP - 3*
SC - 2*
Ontario
Lib - 62
PC - 47
NDP - 10
Prairies
PC - 39
NDP - 17
Lib - 5
British Colubmia
PC - 19
NDP - 15
Lib - 1*
=============
1979
Atlantic
Lib - 25
PC - 22
NDP - 3
Quebec
Lib - 77
SC - 10
PC - 6
NDP - 1*
Ontario
PC - 67
Lib - 41
NDP - 11
Prairies
PC - 44
NDP - 12
Lib - 5
British Columbia
PC - 22
NDP - 10
Lib - 3
=============
1974
Atlantic
PC - 21
Lib - 17
NDP - 1
IND - 1
Quebec
Lib - 70
SC - 15
PC - 7
NDP - 1*
Ontario
Lib - 65
PC - 33
NDP - 12
West
PC - 58
Lib - 18
NDP - 9
=============
1972
Atlantic
PC - 26
Lib 14
Quebec
Lib - 66
SC - 20
PC - 5
NDP - 1*
IND - 1
Ontario
PC - 49
Lib - 44
NDP - 16
IND - 1
West
PC - 49
NDP - 24
Lib - 12
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)