2013 Elections in Canada

[adma]

I tend to agree here even though I'm a PC voter. There's a fairly large chunk of left leaning voters who aren't attached to either left of centre party. When one of those parties makes cuts, they switch to the other one. That's why the NDP picked up 6 seats in NS in 1997 and why the Liberals are doing so well now.

And in terms of the Maritimes, even the PCs can play something of a "left of centre" valid-voting-option game.

[adma]

Have you spotted a mistake?

No, just wondering what happened to the NDP vote there. The one in Dartmouth can be explained (popular local councillor running for the Libs)

What happened?  Home turf for the provincial Lib leader.

[adma]

An NDP win seems possible but not likely as their vote is extremely concentrated so even if they win the popular vote it won't necessarily mean more seats as they tend to pile up big margins in Northern Ontario, union towns like Windsor and Hamilton and downtown Toronto. 

That's hard to say.  Recent provincial campaigns have been extremely concentrated on grounds of third-party practicality; but electoral winds can raise unexpected sails--if we're looking at the NDP in first, it'll more likely bear out in the form of existing seats remaining relatively stable but hitherto 20-25% seats (or even less) jumping into the "win" column.  And besides, one can counter-argue that the Tory vote is also "extremely concentrated" in much of rural Ontario.

Critical is the 905 vote.  And even there, thanks in part to the Bramalea-Gore-Malton precedent, the NDP can now be deemed a viable sleeper factor rather than completely off the map.

[adma]

Not saying an NDP win isn't possible, I am just saying not likely.  As for Tory vote being mostly concentrated in Rural Ontario, that is true in seats won, but you look at the riding by riding breakdown close to 2/3 of ridings their support was within 10% of their provincial average, whereas in the NDP their results in the ridings they win tends to be wayyy above the provincial average while there is usually more ridings in the province where they are below the provincial average than above. 

And again, there's a reason for that w/the NDP: strategic targeting.  That is, concentrating on the seats they already hold and a select next-tier few they have a chance in, rather than wasting their energy province-wide--something common among also-ran parties that are low in the polls and limited in resources.  (It's also how Elizabeth May won her federal seat in 2011 while the Greens slid everywhere else in the country.  And how the Lib Dems more than doubled their UK seat totals in 1997 while remaining static in overall share.)  Thus, while the Liberals and Tories have tended t/w province-wide campaigns, the NDP (at least since their 90s implosion) haven't.  

But in the event that the polls rise (as is presently the case w/the NDP), the spectrum of targets and "swingable voters" broadens.  True, if one uses a "uniform swing" model, the gains will be limited; but in practice, the swing is higher in the lower-tiers than in the presently-helds.  And when it's seen that a party's competing for first place, a swing can become a wave.

And it's not just w/the NDP--consider Ontario's provincial PCs in 1990 vs 1995.

[adma]

Incidentally, if you want proof that I'm not out to lunch in countering Miles Lunn's judgment of ONDP potential (or lack thereof), let's go back to here, re the Kitchener-Waterloo byelection.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=148414.msg3354800#msg3354800

And we all know what happened.

[adma]

Incidentally, if you want proof that I'm not out to lunch in countering Miles Lunn's judgment of ONDP potential (or lack thereof), let's go back to here, re the Kitchener-Waterloo byelection.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=148414.msg3354800#msg3354800

And we all know what happened.

Not saying it isn't possible, just looking though at the data.  While I agree there are probably more Liberals who would swing over to the NDP than PCs, the PCs have a much stronger base so they don't need to pick up nearly as many.  Also lets remember by-elections traditionally have low turnouts so one should be careful in reading too much into them.  In addition, the Tories federally got 44% in Ontario while Mike Harris got 45% in 1999 so I doubt very many Harris voters or federal Tories will cross over and vote NDP provincially.  They might vote Liberal, but not likely NDP.  True many who weren't old enough to vote in 1999 will probably go NDP and likewise there is the newer immigrants who are wild card, but when you consider those demographics tend to have lower turnouts, I would suspect around 80% of voters in the upcoming election would be ones who also voted in 1999.  When it comes to inter-provincial migration, Ontario hasn't gained a lot of people like the Western provinces have (although I happen to be one who was old enough in 1999 but lived in BC then), but it hasn't lost a lot like the Atlantic provinces have either.  Most of its growth has been from immigration.  I am trying to argue the NDP cannot win, I am just saying if you use statistical odds like Nate Silver did on 538, the odds are not in their favour.  That being said they are better than what they were six months prior to the 1990 election and likewise better than the probability of the NDP forming the official opposition in March 2011. 

Actually, the K-W byelection turnout was 47%--remarkably high for a byelection, and only 3 points lower than in the '11 general election.  So the "byelections have low turnouts" excuse doesn't work there--and also, you're veering away from your original "NDP can't win because their vote is too concentrated" point.  Address the 34% Horwath vs 31% Hudak hypothetical--don't try to veer it into "natural" 45% Harris/Harper territory.  And don't misuse Nate Silver; his methodology is customized for a US context where the sharpness of the red-blue divide renders things much more cut-and-dried--which makes for (IMO) some pretty calcified discussion over on the US boards.  It's like the US election geeks' psephological travels are entirely on the Interstate, as if backroads, blue highways, and Route 66s don't exist. 

The three-way (or more?) situation in Ontario is, by comparison, far more dynamic--even when it appears otherwise; parse the stats carefully, the poll-by-polls, etc, and you'll find lots of weird patterns and odd possibilities.  And it's my recognition of that dynamism--those figurative "backroads, blue highways, and Route 66s"--that explain why I was far more on the mark than you were re Kitchener-Waterloo--and let me go further: if we're looking at a 34% Horwath/31% Hudak circumstance, if the byelection situation was instead a general-election situation, with Witmer stepping down and Fife carrying the NDP banner for a frontrunning Andrea Horwath, I wouldn't be surprised if such a result repeated itself.

Of course, that's disregarding the possibility that the 34-to-31 could just as well revert to a "normal" 41 Hudak/24 Horwath.  But unlike you, I'm not casting "normal" in stone...

[adma]

I certainly don't think 45% is the natural Tory support, I simply believe that those who voted for Harris or Harper are unlikely to go NDP in large numbers due to ideological differences.  The NDP could win but as the forum poll shows when done by seats even when ahead they are still not ahead in seats which is what matters.  

But in this "done by seats" thing, you're still using crude uniform- or quasi-uniform swing methofology.  I'm trying to tell you that in a circumstance like this: it doesn't work.  Or if it does work, it's relative to a circumstance like the federal NDP in the Maritimes whose broad numbers are skewed deceptively high by the Jack Harris/Peter Stoffer/Yvon Godin supermajorities.  What I'm trying to tell you is that in the event of a Forum-poll situation at the ballot box, you're going to get more Kitchener-Waterloo-type "surprises", not a Harris/Stoffer/Godin situation (or a Quebec Anglo-Liberal or US black-majority Democratic gigamajority situation).  That's what comes with an "off-Interstate" comprehension of how election stats work; sure, the Interstate may get you there quicker, but it's dreary and boring and doesn't give you a "feel" for what you're going through.  And it's what cocked you up really badly in K-W: you went by raw deductive reasoning, but didn't have a "feel" for actual ground circumstances and potential voter psychodemographics, etc.

However, I *will* grant you that the Tories have historically had a stronger ground game all around, which places them in an overall better position to hold and build upon a certain base--but, once again, that's straying.  For the sake of argument, let's stick with the 34 Horwath/31 Hudak circumstance (which, yes, is where PC/NDP switching really starts to happen)--and let's not get sidetracked by "what Tories need to do to hold their base" ideological-strategizing blablabla, either, let alone cul-de-sacs about junior kindergarten, etc...

If the NDP falls short, it won't be because they can't win enough seats at 34%.  It'll be because they can't sustain 34%--Ontario caution, and memories of the Rae-government debacle, rearing its ugly head again.

[adma]

And the PCs sinking below 30% is quite a slump.

[adma]

What intrigues me is if Hudak's suffering the inverse of what used to be the "female leadership" problem--that is, just as female party leaders used to be framed as shrill or ineffectual losing propositions, Hudak, caught btw/ a pair of reasonably dynamic female leaders, is looking weaselly and wan, and even less like an appetizing premier-in-waiting than he did vs McGuinty...