2013 Elections in Canada

[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.

[mileslunn]

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.  As for the 905 belt, the NDP could pick up more but I figure it is unlikely you will get too many who voted Conservative federally going NDP provincially, so any riding the Conservatives got above 45% in the last federal election is probably off limits, which is a good chunk of the 905 belt.  As for the Tories winning in the 905 belt, I think the best is to look at past federal results as the 2007 results closely matched the 2004 results federally and the 2011 results provincially closely matched the 2006 results federally, so if you saw a repeat of the 2008 results federally play out provincially it would result in a Tory minority.  I doubt they will get the 73 seats their federal counterparts got, but 51 seats like they got 2008 is certainly possible and even as little as 45 seats would probably be enough for a weak minority.  Off course the NDP and Liberals could form a coalition if the Tories get 53 seats or less but this has its risks too.

[Hatman 🍁]

Miles, you support scrapping all day Kindergarten? You must not have kids.

[mileslunn]

Miles, you support scrapping all day Kindergarten? You must not have kids.

No I don't, but I do remember when I was five years old and I can tell you as a five year old being away from my parents for half a day was bad enough.  I should note that when my parents went to school in the 50s, there was no Kindergarten, everybody started in Grade 1.  In addition I believe the Drummond Report called for cancelling it so anything in there Tim Hudak is on fairly solid grounds.  If he tries to run on things not in the Drummond Report, that is a different story off course.  I am not sure about other provinces, but to the best of my knowledge I don't believe any of them have all day kindergarten.   I know Quebec has cheap daycare but they unlike Ontario get huge transfers in equalization so they can afford some programs Ontario cannot. 

[Zanas]

I went to an all-day "école maternelle" from 3 to 6, a sort of kindergarten, and I had no trouble with that. Of course it was in France...

Other than that, could you explain what this 905 vote is ? I don't get it.

[Hash]

Other than that, could you explain what this 905 vote is ? I don't get it.

The 905 is the area code for the growing suburban/exurban areas which surround Toronto (it also extends around the Golden Horseshoe to Hamilton and Niagara), which, politically, is generally where Ontarian elections are won or lost - it's a very swingy suburban region which holds many seats. In the 1990s, the federal Liberals swept the 905 and won Ontario/Canada. In 2011, the federal Tories swept the 905 and even broke through in urban Toronto (416). In the 1990s, the Mike Harris Purgatories swept the 905 and won two majority governments; in 2003, the provincial Liberals took back the 905 and won a majority (same deal in 2007). In October 2011, the Liberals held up in the 905 and the Purgatories made no major inroads, which reelected the Liberals. The NDP has usually polled crap in the 905 suburbs (excluding Hamilton obvs), but there are signs that they too are cracking into the 905. Naturally, the next provincial and federal elections in Ontario will be fought and won in the 905.

Area codes are often used to name some regions in Canada, especially in a political context. In Quebec, there's often talk of the '450' (Montreal off-island suburbs) or the '514' (Island of Montreal).

[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.

[Zanas]

Thanks. I had heard the ones in Quebec, but not this one in Ontario as of now. Anyway, we also have our "9-3"...

[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.

[mileslunn]

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. 

[Hatman 🍁]

Miles, you support scrapping all day Kindergarten? You must not have kids.

No I don't, but I do remember when I was five years old and I can tell you as a five year old being away from my parents for half a day was bad enough.  I should note that when my parents went to school in the 50s, there was no Kindergarten, everybody started in Grade 1.  In addition I believe the Drummond Report called for cancelling it so anything in there Tim Hudak is on fairly solid grounds.  If he tries to run on things not in the Drummond Report, that is a different story off course.  I am not sure about other provinces, but to the best of my knowledge I don't believe any of them have all day kindergarten.   I know Quebec has cheap daycare but they unlike Ontario get huge transfers in equalization so they can afford some programs Ontario cannot. 

Good point, it was hard for me when I was 4 or 5, but I had to be shipped off to  babysitter for the afternoon. But, should we be making policy decisions based on the opinions of 4 and 5 year olds? What do the "education people" say?

[RogueBeaver]

Horwath wants a public inquiry into the gas plants appointed within 30 days. I doubt she makes that a confidence-breaker or that Wynne agrees.

[DL]

There should be a public inquiry into the $400 million gas plant cancellation. i would like to see the inner circle of the Liberal campaign - people like Don Guy and Warren Kinsella all supoenaed to testify about their role in the decision and to have all campaign memos entered into evidence where the Liberals decided to that it was worth wasting half a  billion dollar to save two seats.

[RogueBeaver]

We're in complete agreement.

[mileslunn]

Weren't the gas plants both being built by private companies as opposed to OPG thus meaning the government would have to pay compensation for loss profit.  Dumb move to approve them without thinking of the results and even dumber to cancel them.  Off course if these were safe Tory ridings or NDP ridings they would have left them alone.  That being said McGuinty did get hurt for his wind power in Rural Ontario as many residents of Rural Ontario are furious about the wind farms.  Otherwise much like their federal counterparts they spend too much time thinking about what appeals to Toronto and not the other regions where Liberal support is much softer.  I suspect this played a role in the PCs winning traditional Liberal ridings like Chatham-Kent-Essex.

[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...

[mileslunn]

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.  Yes Ontario doesn't have as sharp a divide as the US does, but if you go from right to left which is PC to Liberal to NDP, voters can easily move one slot over, but few will slide two slots over.  Otherwise there aren't a whole wack of PC-NDP switchers.  Looking at the scene in Ontario, I think Andrea Howarth is well liked thus her high poll numbers and Ontarioans much like Canadians often like many of the left leaning ideas the NDP espouses, at the same time the high deficit and the fact the NDP is unlikely to make the necessary cuts is probably their greatest risk.  As for the PCs, its funny that when Hudak wasn't releasing those right wing white papers, he was close to the 40% mark, so I would argue the Tories are only doing as badly as they are as the ideological right only represent about 30% of the population.  If you want to succeed you cannot turn them off like Joe Clark or John Tory did but you cannot be beholden to them.  You have to much like Harper has done throw them some bones on trivial issues while on the big issues steer clear of them.  I also think too another factor which we will see more in polls as we get closer is turnout as generally it seems parties on the right are underpolled while parties on the left are overpolled.  I don't think the polls are wrong, I think it has more to do with the fact the demographics who the right is strongest amongst generally have the highest voter turnout while the ones the left is highest amongst tend to have weaker turnouts.  Part of the reason Obama was re-elected is he was successfully able to bring out many of the left wing voters in similar numbers as the right.  The problem is no party in Canada other than perhaps the federal Conservatives has as strong a GOTV as the Democrats do never mind the US is less white than Canada and the median age is also slightly younger too.  In many ways the demographics in Canada are more like most European countries which the left has had far less success in recent elections. 

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

However, I *will* grant you that the Tories have historically had a stronger ground game all around

Though we shouldn't forget that there's a tendency to exaggerate the importance of such things.

[DC Al Fine]

However, I *will* grant you that the Tories have historically had a stronger ground game all around

Though we shouldn't forget that there's a tendency to exaggerate the importance of such things.

Our Tories won 18 seats by 3% or less and have a majority of 11. It can be very important.

[RogueBeaver]

PLQ race is getting rather sharp-edged. Despite being a professional's party among professional's parties, 1983 was even fiercer and 1970 had the convention outright rigged.

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-quebecoise/201301/29/01-4616292-couillard-deplore-la-campagne-de-denigrement-de-bachand.php?

[RogueBeaver]

The ad wars have begun in BC.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/30/british-columbia-election/

[Hatman 🍁]

electionpredictions.org is now taking predictions for the BC and Ontario elections.

I'm thinking of doing a prediction thing on my site for the BC election (instead of doing my own)

[RogueBeaver]

EKOS has a new BC poll with the Dippers leading 39-27. Also, Abacus has an Ontario poll: 33-31-30 PC. That Place projects 41-33-33 as Hudak continues to have an image/urban problem.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2013/02/pcs-narrowly-ahead-in-three-way-ontario.html?spref=tw

[LastVoter]

Wouldn't smaller towns be more prone likely to have Tories voting NDP than 905 belt(excluding Hamilton and the college towns)?