Canadian Election 2019

[DC Al Fine]

We're talking about the federal Liberals here. Do they have the courage to lead a minority government if they win fewer seats than the Tories? I wouldn't bet on it.

What do you mean "do they have the courage?". For the Liberals being in power is the be all and the end all. It takes zero courage for them to stop at nothing to keep power. What would take courage would be to voluntarily let Scheer become PM without having exhausted every possibility! The worst day in power is a hundred times better than the best day in opposition. Why wouldn't they do absolutely ANYTHING to cling to power damn the torpedoes. The last time the Liberals lost their plurality in 2006, they reassured themselves that Harper would have no luck leading a minority government and that his government would collapse just like Clark's in 1979 and that the Liberals would be back within a year...ten years later Harper was still PM and the Liberals came extremely close to being killed off by the NDP. They wont let that happen again.

Well for one, the last time the Liberals tried to do a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois, the Tories broke 50% support and they got their arse kicked in the next election

The Liberals, with their Anglo-Quebecer base and long standing reputation as the The Federalist Party^TM, going into coalition with the Bloc Quebecois is a very different thing than a Liberal-NDP coalition or even horsetrading with Bloc to pass a budget. Legally it might be the same, but the risk profile of a leader surnamed Trudeau getting in bed with the seperatists is very, very different.

[DC Al Fine]

Voted Tory in the advance poll yesterday.

I toyed with voting People's or spoiling my ballot, but my ultimately decided that Scheer and my local candidate were better fits for my views.

You didn't wait until election day? Don't you want to see your vote contribute to the maps?

What I'm finding from my social-media feed is that an *awful* lot of people are "selfie voting" in advance--sort of like a forthright declaration of a commitment to exercise their franchise, the earlier the better; and in a way that implicitly encourages others to follow suit.  And reports are that advance turnout's up 25% from last time, which I think is all about advance turnout, rather than turnout in general.  (And the phenomenon seems particularly common among the "fashionably left"; thus, some of last year's Ontario NDP landslides were even *more* landslidish in the advance polls.)

Which, of course, is hell to those of us who use the polling-map barometer--almost as if good old-fashioned voting on Election Day is becoming a Luddite anachronism a la land lines and print newspapers...

Eh, I have little kids and difficulty finding babysitters. I'm not risking having to entertain a cranky toddler in an Election Day line

[DL]

A coalition means more than one party having cabinet ministers. No one is contemplating that especially not with the BQ which has no interest in governing Canada. There is no need for any formal agreement with the BQ. Harper governed for his first year thanks to the BQ voting for his throne speech and budget. Trudeau is the PM until he is not. He doesn’t need to make any formal deals, he can just introduce bills and get one or another opposition party to vote for it. Some people talk about the Tories forming a minority government with BQ support. No one refers to that as a coalition

[Hatman 🍁]

Voted Tory in the advance poll yesterday.

I toyed with voting People's or spoiling my ballot, but my ultimately decided that Scheer and my local candidate were better fits for my views.

You didn't wait until election day? Don't you want to see your vote contribute to the maps?

What I'm finding from my social-media feed is that an *awful* lot of people are "selfie voting" in advance--sort of like a forthright declaration of a commitment to exercise their franchise, the earlier the better; and in a way that implicitly encourages others to follow suit.  And reports are that advance turnout's up 25% from last time, which I think is all about advance turnout, rather than turnout in general.  (And the phenomenon seems particularly common among the "fashionably left"; thus, some of last year's Ontario NDP landslides were even *more* landslidish in the advance polls.)

Which, of course, is hell to those of us who use the polling-map barometer--almost as if good old-fashioned voting on Election Day is becoming a Luddite anachronism a la land lines and print newspapers...

Eh, I have little kids and difficulty finding babysitters. I'm not risking having to entertain a cranky toddler in an Election Day line

Bring them with you! When my daughter was just 13 months old, she even "helped" me "scrutineer" at a local polling station. I've taken her voting ever since. Gotta start them young!

[toaster]

Voted Tory in the advance poll yesterday.

I toyed with voting People's or spoiling my ballot, but my ultimately decided that Scheer and my local candidate were better fits for my views.

You didn't wait until election day? Don't you want to see your vote contribute to the maps?

What I'm finding from my social-media feed is that an *awful* lot of people are "selfie voting" in advance--sort of like a forthright declaration of a commitment to exercise their franchise, the earlier the better; and in a way that implicitly encourages others to follow suit.  And reports are that advance turnout's up 25% from last time, which I think is all about advance turnout, rather than turnout in general.  (And the phenomenon seems particularly common among the "fashionably left"; thus, some of last year's Ontario NDP landslides were even *more* landslidish in the advance polls.)

Which, of course, is hell to those of us who use the polling-map barometer--almost as if good old-fashioned voting on Election Day is becoming a Luddite anachronism a la land lines and print newspapers...

It's almost like you are trying to convince people that this is a bad thing?  Good on those people for voting early and sharing it.

[T'Chenka]

So people... what do you think the odds are on these outcomes happening?

Scenario A
LIB + NDP + GRN = greater than 50%

Scenario B
CON + B-Q = greater than 50%

And how about this:

Scenario C
LIB + NDP = almost 50% but not quite
LIB + NDP + GRN = greater than 50%
Scheer becomes Prime Minister anyway

Scenario D
CON + B-Q = greater than 50%
Trudeau becomes Prime Minister anyway

[DC Al Fine]

Rough guesses

A: 50%
B: 50%
C: 20%
D:  5%

[DL]

It’s now looking like the Greens will end up with no more than 2 or 3 seats so it’s unlikely their seats will matter in the calculation of who can form government. I suspect the Liberals and NDP alone will get 170+ rendering the Greens irrelevant

[Walmart_shopper]

So people... what do you think the odds are on these outcomes happening?

Scenario A
LIB + NDP + GRN = greater than 50%

Scenario B
CON + B-Q = greater than 50%

And how about this:

Scenario C
LIB + NDP = almost 50% but not quite
LIB + NDP + GRN = greater than 50%
Scheer becomes Prime Minister anyway

Scenario D
CON + B-Q = greater than 50%
Trudeau becomes Prime Minister anyway

Scenario A: 80%
Scenario B: 5%
Scenario C: 25%
Scenario D: 20%

[adma]

Voted Tory in the advance poll yesterday.

I toyed with voting People's or spoiling my ballot, but my ultimately decided that Scheer and my local candidate were better fits for my views.

You didn't wait until election day? Don't you want to see your vote contribute to the maps?

What I'm finding from my social-media feed is that an *awful* lot of people are "selfie voting" in advance--sort of like a forthright declaration of a commitment to exercise their franchise, the earlier the better; and in a way that implicitly encourages others to follow suit.  And reports are that advance turnout's up 25% from last time, which I think is all about advance turnout, rather than turnout in general.  (And the phenomenon seems particularly common among the "fashionably left"; thus, some of last year's Ontario NDP landslides were even *more* landslidish in the advance polls.)

Which, of course, is hell to those of us who use the polling-map barometer--almost as if good old-fashioned voting on Election Day is becoming a Luddite anachronism a la land lines and print newspapers...

It's almost like you are trying to convince people that this is a bad thing?  Good on those people for voting early and sharing it.

Within the context of this forum, it is from a political-science and just general election-map-geekery POV.  That is, advance polls don't show up on maps like this (Toronto, 2011)



By voting in advance, voters forfeit a role in creating a fine-grained "electoral psychogeography".  Or, the advance-voting phenomenon is the electoral equivalent of opting for the Interstate as if the Route 66 alternatives out there didn't exist.

Btw/this and Ontario opting for "megapolls" last year (i.e. ridings which once might have had 150-200 polling subdivisions being reduced to as little as 20-25), it'd seem as if dumbing-down the electoral map is all the rage...

[Hatman 🍁]

Voted Tory in the advance poll yesterday.

I toyed with voting People's or spoiling my ballot, but my ultimately decided that Scheer and my local candidate were better fits for my views.

You didn't wait until election day? Don't you want to see your vote contribute to the maps?

What I'm finding from my social-media feed is that an *awful* lot of people are "selfie voting" in advance--sort of like a forthright declaration of a commitment to exercise their franchise, the earlier the better; and in a way that implicitly encourages others to follow suit.  And reports are that advance turnout's up 25% from last time, which I think is all about advance turnout, rather than turnout in general.  (And the phenomenon seems particularly common among the "fashionably left"; thus, some of last year's Ontario NDP landslides were even *more* landslidish in the advance polls.)

Which, of course, is hell to those of us who use the polling-map barometer--almost as if good old-fashioned voting on Election Day is becoming a Luddite anachronism a la land lines and print newspapers...

It's almost like you are trying to convince people that this is a bad thing?  Good on those people for voting early and sharing it.

if you're on this site, there's an assumption that you like election maps, no? When you vote advance your vote doesn't go in to the poll by poll maps.

[jaichind]

So people... what do you think the odds are on these outcomes happening?

Scenario A
LIB + NDP + GRN = greater than 50%

Scenario B
CON + B-Q = greater than 50%

And how about this:

Scenario C
LIB + NDP = almost 50% but not quite
LIB + NDP + GRN = greater than 50%
Scheer becomes Prime Minister anyway

Scenario D
CON + B-Q = greater than 50%
Trudeau becomes Prime Minister anyway

Scenario A: 80%
Scenario B: 5%
Scenario C: 25%
Scenario D: 20%

Should not A and B add up to nearly 100%  Unless you think PPC will win a bunch of seats more than the 1 it might win. 

[DC Al Fine]

It’s now looking like the Greens will end up with no more than 2 or 3 seats so it’s unlikely their seats will matter in the calculation of who can form government. I suspect the Liberals and NDP alone will get 170+ rendering the Greens irrelevant

Agreed, and even if the Greens do make the difference at 2-3 seats, it still makes governing rather difficult. You don't want your governing majority thrown in peril by three MP's going out to dinner and eating some bad shellfish

[Walmart_shopper]

So people... what do you think the odds are on these outcomes happening?

Scenario A
LIB + NDP + GRN = greater than 50%

Scenario B
CON + B-Q = greater than 50%

And how about this:

Scenario C
LIB + NDP = almost 50% but not quite
LIB + NDP + GRN = greater than 50%
Scheer becomes Prime Minister anyway

Scenario D
CON + B-Q = greater than 50%
Trudeau becomes Prime Minister anyway

Scenario A: 80%
Scenario B: 5%
Scenario C: 25%
Scenario D: 20%

Should not A and B add up to nearly 100%  Unless you think PPC will win a bunch of seats more than the 1 it might win. 

It isn't seats but rather voting percentage. In any case I think the likelihood of Libs/NDP/Greens getting over 50% is 80%, of Cons/BQ getting over 50% only 5%,, and 15% chance of I have no clue.

[toaster]

Voted Tory in the advance poll yesterday.

I toyed with voting People's or spoiling my ballot, but my ultimately decided that Scheer and my local candidate were better fits for my views.

You didn't wait until election day? Don't you want to see your vote contribute to the maps?

What I'm finding from my social-media feed is that an *awful* lot of people are "selfie voting" in advance--sort of like a forthright declaration of a commitment to exercise their franchise, the earlier the better; and in a way that implicitly encourages others to follow suit.  And reports are that advance turnout's up 25% from last time, which I think is all about advance turnout, rather than turnout in general.  (And the phenomenon seems particularly common among the "fashionably left"; thus, some of last year's Ontario NDP landslides were even *more* landslidish in the advance polls.)

Which, of course, is hell to those of us who use the polling-map barometer--almost as if good old-fashioned voting on Election Day is becoming a Luddite anachronism a la land lines and print newspapers...

It's almost like you are trying to convince people that this is a bad thing?  Good on those people for voting early and sharing it.

if you're on this site, there's an assumption that you like election maps, no? When you vote advance your vote doesn't go in to the poll by poll maps.

Agreed, but not people voting in advance polls' fault.  That's all.  The impression I got from the post was kind of like a "Who are they to think they should be voting in advance polls" nonsense.  I'm happy people are sharing they are voting, and encouraging others to do the same, even if it means fewer maps / less accurate maps.

[Oryxslayer]

Voted Tory in the advance poll yesterday.

I toyed with voting People's or spoiling my ballot, but my ultimately decided that Scheer and my local candidate were better fits for my views.

You didn't wait until election day? Don't you want to see your vote contribute to the maps?

What I'm finding from my social-media feed is that an *awful* lot of people are "selfie voting" in advance--sort of like a forthright declaration of a commitment to exercise their franchise, the earlier the better; and in a way that implicitly encourages others to follow suit.  And reports are that advance turnout's up 25% from last time, which I think is all about advance turnout, rather than turnout in general.  (And the phenomenon seems particularly common among the "fashionably left"; thus, some of last year's Ontario NDP landslides were even *more* landslidish in the advance polls.)

Which, of course, is hell to those of us who use the polling-map barometer--almost as if good old-fashioned voting on Election Day is becoming a Luddite anachronism a la land lines and print newspapers...

It's almost like you are trying to convince people that this is a bad thing?  Good on those people for voting early and sharing it.

if you're on this site, there's an assumption that you like election maps, no? When you vote advance your vote doesn't go in to the poll by poll maps.

Agreed, but not people voting in advance polls' fault.  That's all.  The impression I got from the post was kind of like a "Who are they to think they should be voting in advance polls" nonsense.  I'm happy people are sharing they are voting, and encouraging others to do the same, even if it means fewer maps / less accurate maps.

Yeah this is more a failing of Canada to match advance voters to their poll, which should always be done no matter what country or election, simply for administrative reasons. The side affect is that I can then make more accurate maps, rather than be forced to either ignore the advance voters or dispersing the advance poll numbers across every poll equally - both methods have their flaws.

[King of Kensington]

If the NDP hits 25% in Ontario, then the dam breaks and the second tier target seats come into play.   

[adma]

Agreed, but not people voting in advance polls' fault.  That's all.  The impression I got from the post was kind of like a "Who are they to think they should be voting in advance polls" nonsense.  I'm happy people are sharing they are voting, and encouraging others to do the same, even if it means fewer maps / less accurate maps.

Though keep in mind, too, how fewer/less accurate maps also does a disservice to future electioneering/canvassing by providing an ambiguous impression of ground-level conditions.

And yes, it's good that more people are voting.  But this phenomenon of advance voting stealing the electoral oxygen is actually quite new and yet ill-pinpointed; and yes, in many ways truly a double-edged-sword product (even if higher-operating) of a viral-social-media "selfie age".  Sort of like those towns and places and sunflower and lavender fields that open their arms to the selfie crowd, only to be overrun by the same; and said selfie crowd so eager to play follow-the-leader that they develop little incentive to dig deeper than the perfect selfie.  In this case, the "digging deeper" means that no, you don't *have* to vote in advance; it doesn't make you any less of a citizen; and you don't have to follow-the-leader in that respect.  And at this rate, it might actually be no less crowded on e-day--I've heard of people surprised by advance-polling lineups.

So, psephologically speaking, it's a real unexpected-consequence circumstance that's yet to be fully absorbed--who knows if we might have ridings this time where over half the vote is cast in advance.  And really--for the sake of this forum or for geographic political science in general, that's not good...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It isn't something that one could ever prove, but there might be practical - governance, discourse - implications to less and less detailed information like that. I do sometimes wonder if some of the more bizarre and inexplicably stupid political blunderings seen in this country over the past decade might have been... if not averted then maybe lessened... if our politicians actually knew who was voting for them. Uniquely, of course, they have no real idea at all.

[DC Al Fine]

It isn't something that one could ever prove, but there might be practical - governance, discourse - implications to less and less detailed information like that. I do sometimes wonder if some of the more bizarre and inexplicably stupid political blunderings seen in this country over the past decade might have been... if not averted then maybe lessened... if our politicians actually knew who was voting for them. Uniquely, of course, they have no real idea at all.

Any specific examples where you're suspicious?

[Hatman 🍁]

Agreed, but not people voting in advance polls' fault.  That's all.  The impression I got from the post was kind of like a "Who are they to think they should be voting in advance polls" nonsense.  I'm happy people are sharing they are voting, and encouraging others to do the same, even if it means fewer maps / less accurate maps.

Though keep in mind, too, how fewer/less accurate maps also does a disservice to future electioneering/canvassing by providing an ambiguous impression of ground-level conditions.

And yes, it's good that more people are voting.  But this phenomenon of advance voting stealing the electoral oxygen is actually quite new and yet ill-pinpointed; and yes, in many ways truly a double-edged-sword product (even if higher-operating) of a viral-social-media "selfie age".  Sort of like those towns and places and sunflower and lavender fields that open their arms to the selfie crowd, only to be overrun by the same; and said selfie crowd so eager to play follow-the-leader that they develop little incentive to dig deeper than the perfect selfie.  In this case, the "digging deeper" means that no, you don't *have* to vote in advance; it doesn't make you any less of a citizen; and you don't have to follow-the-leader in that respect.  And at this rate, it might actually be no less crowded on e-day--I've heard of people surprised by advance-polling lineups.

So, psephologically speaking, it's a real unexpected-consequence circumstance that's yet to be fully absorbed--who knows if we might have ridings this time where over half the vote is cast in advance.  And really--for the sake of this forum or for geographic political science in general, that's not good...

PEI regularly has more than 50% vote in advance polls. It's gotten to the point where a party will win every poll on election day, but still lose the riding.

The discrepancies between election day voting and advance voting also has implications when you watch the ballots come in on TV.  People may go to bed thinking X party did terrible, and not really think about the election again - when in reality said party may have done quite well thanks to later counted advance votes.

[T'Chenka]

So people... what do you think the odds are on these outcomes happening?

Scenario A
LIB + NDP + GRN = greater than 50%

Scenario B
CON + B-Q = greater than 50%

And how about this:

Scenario C
LIB + NDP = almost 50% but not quite
LIB + NDP + GRN = greater than 50%
Scheer becomes Prime Minister anyway

Scenario D
CON + B-Q = greater than 50%
Trudeau becomes Prime Minister anyway

Scenario A: 80%
Scenario B: 5%
Scenario C: 25%
Scenario D: 20%

Should not A and B add up to nearly 100%  Unless you think PPC will win a bunch of seats more than the 1 it might win. 

It isn't seats but rather voting percentage. In any case I think the likelihood of Libs/NDP/Greens getting over 50% is 80%, of Cons/BQ getting over 50% only 5%,, and 15% chance of I have no clue.

I meant the scenarios to be % of SEATS not votes, but it's my fault that I neglected to mention that in my post.

[EastAnglianLefty]

It isn't something that one could ever prove, but there might be practical - governance, discourse - implications to less and less detailed information like that. I do sometimes wonder if some of the more bizarre and inexplicably stupid political blunderings seen in this country over the past decade might have been... if not averted then maybe lessened... if our politicians actually knew who was voting for them. Uniquely, of course, they have no real idea at all.

This is possible, but some MPs will have good enough canvassing data to be able to answer that question with reasonable certainty. And I see no evidence that they're actually any better at lining up their perception with reality.

[adma]

PEI regularly has more than 50% vote in advance polls. It's gotten to the point where a party will win every poll on election day, but still lose the riding.

The discrepancies between election day voting and advance voting also has implications when you watch the ballots come in on TV.  People may go to bed thinking X party did terrible, and not really think about the election again - when in reality said party may have done quite well thanks to later counted advance votes.

Good point about PEI--that, plus the modest size of the ridings, can render poll-by-poll maps there rather misleading.

[adma]

It isn't something that one could ever prove, but there might be practical - governance, discourse - implications to less and less detailed information like that. I do sometimes wonder if some of the more bizarre and inexplicably stupid political blunderings seen in this country over the past decade might have been... if not averted then maybe lessened... if our politicians actually knew who was voting for them. Uniquely, of course, they have no real idea at all.

And then there's the possibly deliberate obfuscations of "megapolling" of the sort Ontario instituted in 2018 (and Toronto after megacity)--the bigger the polling subdivision, the more inscrutable the ground conditions.

Which sort of befits the election which gave us Premier Doug Ford--big, dumb, galoomphing polling subdivisions where you *really* have to read between the lines to figure out deeper patterns.  Almost like it was designed to confound political forces with a more ground-level grassroots approach to electioneering.  (And with "technology" as an excuse, i.e. newfangled electronic balloting systems allowing one to rationalize away all that complicated stuff.  It's almost as if these dweebs aim to ultimately do away with polling subdivisions altogether.)