2021 Canadian general election - Election Day and Results

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

Also, as yet more proof that the NDP replicates all the dysfunctions of European/Commonwealth social democratic parties while being much, much worse at winning votes than they are, I'm marvelling at them possibly fumbling Hamilton Mountain, a held seat they really shouldn't be losing in an election where they're increasing their vote share, by trying to stick Malcolm Allen there. "Ah sure, things can't possibly get worse there, we can hand the seat to our unlucky mate... Oh. Oh no." It's somehow even funnier than Howard Hampton being the candidate in Kenora in 2015.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

How about John Horgan. Does he want the top job?

I can't speak for him obviously. But I can speak for myself. If I were the premier of a major Canadian province, had a majority government and a lot of personal popularity, would I throw that away to lead the fourth party in parliament, a party whose left flank doesn't even like me? Not a chance.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Also, as yet more proof that the NDP replicates all the dysfunctions of European/Commonwealth social democratic parties while being much, much worse at winning votes than they are

FPTP does them no favours here, but in particular I think Jagmeet's approach to politics is particularly bad in our system. The NDP has been focused on a Singh charm offensive, and it has worked insofar as him being the most popular federal leader. But FPTP rewards parties that have solid ground game and build up strongholds, and punishes those that are spread too thin. The clearest example of this might be the PC-Reform split. In both 1993 and 1997, the PCs actually got about the same popular vote as Reform, but way fewer seats. Reform was of course heavily concentrated in the western provinces, while PC supporters were more sprinkled throughout the country.

You used Hamilton-Mountain as an example - I'm not from Hamilton but my sense is that the NDP vote there comes from decades of organizing and mobilizing voters in a heavily working-class city. So when you parachute in an outsider in a campaign that focused more on Singh's image than anything, you can imagine why Hamilton-Mountain residents weren't so keen on voting NDP.

Lib Dems pre-Clegg might actually be a pretty good blueprint for the NDP. As I understand, their campaigns were never as "national" as Labour and Tories, but more focused on areas where they had ancestral support or made recent inroads. It just seems like a smarter play for a party like the NDP than to spend most of your money on a huge national campaign while letting the Liberals beat you on the ground.

[Oryxslayer]

How about John Horgan. Does he want the top job?

I can't speak for him obviously. But I can speak for myself. If I were the premier of a major Canadian province, had a majority government and a lot of personal popularity, would I throw that away to lead the fourth party in parliament, a party whose left flank doesn't even like me? Not a chance.

That's something you also one needs to remember: the provincial NDP parties that have the opportunity to form government through effective provincial two-party duopolies therefore find themselves compelled by Duverger's to expand the coalition beyond that of the national party. Notley would be rejected by the party base if she tried to run beyond the confines of Conservative Alberta, but she works well within that arena.

[TopShelfGoal]

NDP partisans have lost the plot. Other than 2011 when LPC completely collapsed to due Ignatieff's terrible leadership, this is the the NDP's role in Canada. To be the 3rd major party getting 15-20% of the vote and keeping the Liberals from moving to far to the center. That is the metric that they should be judged against, not the seat count. LPC has taken over many of the NDP policies like pharmacare/childcare. By that metric, Singh is doing his job. NDP partisans should be happy if they care about policy and not just rooting for the orange team.

[lilTommy]

NDP partisans have lost the plot. Other than 2011 when LPC completely collapsed to due Ignatieff's terrible leadership, this is the the NDP's role in Canada. To be the 3rd major party getting 15-20% of the vote and keeping the Liberals from moving to far to the center. That is the metric that they should be judged against, not the seat count. LPC has taken over many of the NDP policies like pharmacare/childcare. By that metric, Singh is doing his job. NDP partisans should be happy if they care about policy and not just rooting for the orange team.

Ugh, it's really both we care about I think. We can't hold the LPC to being centre-left-progressive if the party can't elect MPs in ridings. THIS is why FPTP is terrible in Canada. If we had MMP like New Zealand or Scotland even, the focus would be much less on winning specific ridings but rather winning votes overall (think the Labour-Green relationship in NZ).
PLUS the NDP hates when the Liberals get credit for NDP policies and ideas... like childcare, Common Trudeau!, you did not support the $10-a-day deal in even 2019! I digress lol

[H. Ross Peron]

Yes to all of the above; also general unionization would be high I think from public sector workers (Victoria the BC capital being on the island) General west coast progressive-old hippie, new young "woke" vibe. Environmentalists and a solid Indigenous community.

Yes this is all there as well, though has been as liable to help (once) Liberal and (now) Green candidates as Dippers. But it all adds up to a landscape in which, for once, the NDP often benefit as the comparatively middle of the road option between relative extremes, at least on the sort of issues that are particularly sensitive on the Island...

Outside of Victoria, is Vancouver Islands population still more working class than hippies/migrants from urban areas?

[jaichind]

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3149738/conservative-vote-plunged-canadas-most-chinese-electorates-did?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=share_widget&utm_campaign=3149738

"Conservative vote plunged in Canada’s most Chinese electorates. Did party pay price for tough stance on Beijing?"

I am surprised this actually made a difference.  Most of the BC Chinese are from HK and all things equal I would think they would vote the opposite of what the CCP tells them to vote for.  A bunch of them do have financial ties to HK but for the majority I cannot imagine the amount of money involved would make any sort of difference.

I mean, I am pro-CCP overall but I do not care what they say, I am voting Trump no matter what.  And we are talking about people that are more anti-CCP than pro-CCP.

[adma]

Heat has already alluded to this, but since Tommy Douglas the only NDP leader who was even sort of from the west was Audrey McLaughlin, who grew up in Ontario and moved to the Yukon as an adult. With that possible exception, they've all been easterners. The federal NDP should fare much better in the west than it does; it's hard not to imagine that this has something to do with its constant longing for what is not there.

And of course, even more tenuously than Audrey, Jagmeet presently by way of parachute.  (Which is a little like Justin by way of maternal ancestry.  Maybe even lamer.)

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3149738/conservative-vote-plunged-canadas-most-chinese-electorates-did?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=share_widget&utm_campaign=3149738

"Conservative vote plunged in Canada’s most Chinese electorates. Did party pay price for tough stance on Beijing?"

I am surprised this actually made a difference.  Most of the BC Chinese are from HK and all things equal I would think they would vote the opposite of what the CCP tells them to vote for.  A bunch of them do have financial ties to HK but for the majority I cannot imagine the amount of money involved would make any sort of difference.

I mean, I am pro-CCP overall but I do not care what they say, I am voting Trump no matter what.  And we are talking about people that are more anti-CCP than pro-CCP.

Hmm, I'm not sure CCP policy explains it all. For one, Scheer was by no means the pro-CCP candidate in 2019. But I understand that feelings about the CCP are themselves polarizing within first-generation Chinese communities. Given that, I don't think this issue alone would create an almost universal LPC swing in areas with high Chinese-Canadian concentrations.

Just taking a guess here, could it have been outreach? Community outreach is hugely important in immigrant communities, especially ones with relatively low levels of English knowledge (CensusMapper shows that in both the GTA and MetroVan, the census tracts with the highest share of people who don't speak English or French correlate very strongly with tracts with high shares of Chinese-Canadians, more so than other immigrant groups). Given this, I assume outreach is even more important for this demographic, as language barrier can prevent one from meaningfully engaging with the national campaigns.

So if the Liberals did better at engaging with Chinese-Canadian communities, and/or the Conservatives did worse than before, that might explain it.

[adma]

He was. Unfortunately he was also a poor leader of the new federal NDP. Not really his fault - it hardly being a surprise that an agrarian socialist who saw politics in essentially moralistic and religious terms struggled to connect with the 'new Canada' emerging in the 1960s - but an important warning that success in one context does not lead automatically or inevitably to success in others.

And the fact said "poor leadership" didn't prevent Douglas from being reverentially embraced by the party, or being voted "Greatest Canadian" by CBC online vote in 2004, tells you a lot about why it's jumping to conclusions to declare Jagmeet to have been a "disaster" in both '19 and '21.  It's simply the nature of the electoral beast.

And in general:  sure, Americans might look at Canada's FPTP system in blunt terms of winners vs losers vs why-do-they-bothers.  And I understand:  if things worked the American way, seats like Battle River-Crowfoot would likely be uncontested acclamations.  But believe me, it's more barometrically interesting when, in the name of democracy, they *aren't*, when there's a Lib/New Democrat/Green on the ballot even though they're seldom likely to hit double digits.  And because of the Canadian way not being like the American way, even the bottom-feeding no-hopers from the other major parties are seldom as wingnutty as their US counterparts, in the "you have to be nuts to run as a Liberal in xxx riding" sense.  Said suicide runs can often be practice for credible (and winning) local runs.  So it'd be like running as a Dem in Wyoming knowing that the odds are long-to-negligible, and still getting pleasure out of the run, out of getting a feel for the state, out of poring over the precinct results and comparing to past elections, etc.  It's worth it even if the "winning" part is absent...

[Хahar 🤔]

He was. Unfortunately he was also a poor leader of the new federal NDP. Not really his fault - it hardly being a surprise that an agrarian socialist who saw politics in essentially moralistic and religious terms struggled to connect with the 'new Canada' emerging in the 1960s - but an important warning that success in one context does not lead automatically or inevitably to success in others.

And the fact said "poor leadership" didn't prevent Douglas from being reverentially embraced by the party, or being voted "Greatest Canadian" by CBC online vote in 2004, tells you a lot about why it's jumping to conclusions to declare Jagmeet to have been a "disaster" in both '19 and '21.  It's simply the nature of the electoral beast.

It seems obvious to me that Tommy Douglas's canonization has a lot more to do with his time as premier of Saskatchewan than with his tenure as leader of the NDP, which was not successful by any measure I can think of. I don't really know what "the nature of the beast" being referred to here is, but I am reasonably sure that the NDP is not a Dutch-style confessional party that is content simply to get its message out; its purpose is to win elections, and given that Jagmeet Singh is not doing that and is not doing anything to bring the party closer to that, I'm not sure by what standard he could be considered anything but a failure. Maybe in forty years he'll be named one of the Greatest Canadians, but I wasn't under the impression that that is why the NDP exists. Maybe I'm wrong.

[VPH]

Yes to all of the above; also general unionization would be high I think from public sector workers (Victoria the BC capital being on the island) General west coast progressive-old hippie, new young "woke" vibe. Environmentalists and a solid Indigenous community.

Yes this is all there as well, though has been as liable to help (once) Liberal and (now) Green candidates as Dippers. But it all adds up to a landscape in which, for once, the NDP often benefit as the comparatively middle of the road option between relative extremes, at least on the sort of issues that are particularly sensitive on the Island...

Outside of Victoria, is Vancouver Islands population still more working class than hippies/migrants from urban areas?

Indeed. E.G., based on census data, compared to BC as a whole North Island--Powell River has a higher percentage of people employed in forestry/agriculture, mining, and health care and social assistance. Also a higher unemployment rate and a lower median income. As another example, Courtenay--Alberni is similar although with a decently sized retail sector and less mining presence.

[njwes]

Any good Twitter account(s) that you guys can suggest that have been pumping out maps of this election result?

[Oryxslayer]

The point of the NDP, as many note, is for them to hold the Liberals in check from the left. Their 'goal' therefore is not 170, but a much smaller bar that constantly moves: can the Liberals only get into power with the agreement of the NDP because other small parties are too numerous? Put simply: Lib+NDP>170, but also CON+NDP>170. That forces the Libs to the table at a disadvantage. So the NDP benefits from not just a weak Liberals, but a stronger yet still out-of-power Conservatives.

By this measure, we can see Singh's results as a failure because he is unable to take seats from the Liberals. He would need a lot more, likely solely Liberal seats, based on these results. But in this election the NDP lost two seats to the Libs, won one Green, and two Con. In 2019 the NDP lost Quebec to the Libs and Bloc - which was kinda unavoidable - but the party only won three seats off the Libs. And two - St. Johns East and Nunavut, were more off personality than party, I need more info on Winnipeg Centre.

By these metrics then Singh is failing because the Libs more or less have free reign since the Bloc can also be courted for votes. The NDP does not need all the seats to see it's policies, it just needs a few more, but as long as Trudeau keeps willing pluralities in their targets then it won't happen.

Any good Twitter account(s) that you guys can suggest that have been pumping out maps of this election result?

Canada's Federal elections site takes months to publish data from below the topline so...

[njwes]

Any good Twitter account(s) that you guys can suggest that have been pumping out maps of this election result?

Canada's Federal elections site takes months to publish data from below the topline so...

Sure, but waiting for final election returns didn't stop the map-making Twitter community from churning out 100s of 2020 U.S. election maps from the election night itself onward.

[Oryxslayer]

Any good Twitter account(s) that you guys can suggest that have been pumping out maps of this election result?

Canada's Federal elections site takes months to publish data from below the topline so...

Sure, but waiting for final election returns didn't stop the map-making Twitter community from churning out 100s of 2020 U.S. election maps from the election night itself onward.

They are the only ones that publish it. US we have county and city boards. The only things done so far are heatmaps of party support, cause the only data available is what you can see on news sites. I'm part of that US community of mapmakers lol.

It's also apparently very archaic in that the agency has the data internally, just has to go through hoops before public release.

[politicallefty]

It seems that one of the NDP's biggest problems is that their best results are typically when the Liberals are faltering nationally. As noted a couple posts above, the expectations cannot be to become the governing party or even the official opposition. It seems like the strong result in 2011 has changed expectations. In an alternate universe, the NDP became the main centre-left party as the Liberal Party was unable to regroup. That didn't happen in this universe, so there's little point speculating in this topic.

As most know, their highest seat count before 2011 was 1988, under a PC Majority. Their support cratered during the Chretien years only to pick up once again as the Liberals lost their majority in 2004 and government entirely in 2006 (and gaining even more as the Liberals fell even further in the following two elections). Their old base in Saskatchewan is long gone, failing to even get a foothold in Saskatoon or Regina. The old rurban ridings are long gone too. The only bright spots are having and holding a strong base in BC and winning a second seat in Alberta for the first time ever. I think the most damning points are the fact that they are apparently getting shut out of Toronto and only winning a single seat in Quebec, both exactly the same as 2019.

[adma]

It seems obvious to me that Tommy Douglas's canonization has a lot more to do with his time as premier of Saskatchewan than with his tenure as leader of the NDP, which was not successful by any measure I can think of. I don't really know what "the nature of the beast" being referred to here is, but I am reasonably sure that the NDP is not a Dutch-style confessional party that is content simply to get its message out; its purpose is to win elections, and given that Jagmeet Singh is not doing that and is not doing anything to bring the party closer to that, I'm not sure by what standard he could be considered anything but a failure. Maybe in forty years he'll be named one of the Greatest Canadians, but I wasn't under the impression that that is why the NDP exists. Maybe I'm wrong.

You realize that within a parliamentary democracy, "winning elections" isn't bound to winning government outright, as opposed to on a seat-by-seat basis--and also that "failed" bids at one level of government can act as practice runs for another level.  Indeed, there's many symbiotic levels at which elections, and running in the same, work; and they're not crudely bound to simply "winning".

Elections are a network of routes btw/ Point A and Point B which infer infinite routes beyond, they aren't a simple boring GPS-guided Interstate corridor.

[adma]

And with all of this hand-wringing over the NDP and its purpose...anyone want to speculate on the future of the Conservatives, O'Toole's leadership, etc?

[StateBoiler]

It seems obvious to me that Tommy Douglas's canonization has a lot more to do with his time as premier of Saskatchewan than with his tenure as leader of the NDP, which was not successful by any measure I can think of. I don't really know what "the nature of the beast" being referred to here is, but I am reasonably sure that the NDP is not a Dutch-style confessional party that is content simply to get its message out; its purpose is to win elections, and given that Jagmeet Singh is not doing that and is not doing anything to bring the party closer to that, I'm not sure by what standard he could be considered anything but a failure. Maybe in forty years he'll be named one of the Greatest Canadians, but I wasn't under the impression that that is why the NDP exists. Maybe I'm wrong.

You realize that within a parliamentary democracy, "winning elections" isn't bound to winning government outright, as opposed to on a seat-by-seat basis--and also that "failed" bids at one level of government can act as practice runs for another level.  Indeed, there's many symbiotic levels at which elections, and running in the same, work; and they're not crudely bound to simply "winning".

Elections are a network of routes btw/ Point A and Point B which infer infinite routes beyond, they aren't a simple boring GPS-guided Interstate corridor.

The NDP has less influence on Parliament than a party that runs candidates in only one province, for the 2nd election in a row.

So much talk in this thread about the 4th party, compared to little about what is the future of Trudeau and O'Toole.

[Oryxslayer]

It seems obvious to me that Tommy Douglas's canonization has a lot more to do with his time as premier of Saskatchewan than with his tenure as leader of the NDP, which was not successful by any measure I can think of. I don't really know what "the nature of the beast" being referred to here is, but I am reasonably sure that the NDP is not a Dutch-style confessional party that is content simply to get its message out; its purpose is to win elections, and given that Jagmeet Singh is not doing that and is not doing anything to bring the party closer to that, I'm not sure by what standard he could be considered anything but a failure. Maybe in forty years he'll be named one of the Greatest Canadians, but I wasn't under the impression that that is why the NDP exists. Maybe I'm wrong.

You realize that within a parliamentary democracy, "winning elections" isn't bound to winning government outright, as opposed to on a seat-by-seat basis--and also that "failed" bids at one level of government can act as practice runs for another level.  Indeed, there's many symbiotic levels at which elections, and running in the same, work; and they're not crudely bound to simply "winning".

Elections are a network of routes btw/ Point A and Point B which infer infinite routes beyond, they aren't a simple boring GPS-guided Interstate corridor.

The NDP has less influence on Parliament than a party that runs candidates in only one province, for the 2nd election in a row.

So much talk in this thread about the 4th party, compared to little about what is the future of Trudeau and O'Toole.

I guess that's because the other three parties paths forward are clear. The Libs have their typical routes to majorities and minorities. The Conservatives now have a path to a minority without numerous gains in the 905, and that's where their future lies. The BQ meanwhile will continue to CAQ-ify cause the CAQ ain't going nowhere, becoming more partisan in it's regionalism. There is no future for the NDP if it can't threaten the Libs, so that prompts serious questions beyond that of leadership.

[TopShelfGoal]

And with all of this hand-wringing over the NDP and its purpose...anyone want to speculate on the future of the Conservatives, O'Toole's leadership, etc?

If they are smart then the Conservatives will keep O'Toole. I see a lot of room to grow with him, he is not like Scheer who was basically a cul de sac electorally. O'Toole ended the election with much better personal ratings than he had 6 months ago and I think Canadians liked his "moderate" image but it will take some time for people to trust it. People are rightfully skeptical of the CPC when it tries to sell a moderate image (hell even O'Toole was throwing out red meat during the leadership race). If they stick with him and he stays consistent with what he said this election. he will have a good chance.

Knowing the CPC though they will fire him and go with someone like Polievre or Leslyn Lewis who would both be disasters.

[adma]

There is no future for the NDP if it can't threaten the Libs, so that prompts serious questions beyond that of leadership.

One might argue that the Libs' ability to suppress the NDP vote is a response to a perceived threat.  And sure, three consecutive lost supermarginals in Davenport; but, a supermarginal is a supermarginal.  One might say that the NDP "keeps the Libs limber" so to speak--they're purposeful through the veil of their apparent uselessness.  

In fact, *all* of the parties keep one another limber--and that includes the Greens and PPC.  Even their losing tallies, and the way they shake up, riding by riding, polling station by polling station,  offer insight and lessons to the rest, even if there's only 2 parties that are realistically contending for governent.

Whereas a strict US-style binary 51-49 race might be *superficially* interesting because of how tight it is; but it can be boring in how dumb and "un-limber" it is.  Rifling through precinct results where there are only 2 parties to speak of is flabby and dull as dishwater...

[Хahar 🤔]

It seems obvious to me that Tommy Douglas's canonization has a lot more to do with his time as premier of Saskatchewan than with his tenure as leader of the NDP, which was not successful by any measure I can think of. I don't really know what "the nature of the beast" being referred to here is, but I am reasonably sure that the NDP is not a Dutch-style confessional party that is content simply to get its message out; its purpose is to win elections, and given that Jagmeet Singh is not doing that and is not doing anything to bring the party closer to that, I'm not sure by what standard he could be considered anything but a failure. Maybe in forty years he'll be named one of the Greatest Canadians, but I wasn't under the impression that that is why the NDP exists. Maybe I'm wrong.

You realize that within a parliamentary democracy, "winning elections" isn't bound to winning government outright, as opposed to on a seat-by-seat basis--and also that "failed" bids at one level of government can act as practice runs for another level.  Indeed, there's many symbiotic levels at which elections, and running in the same, work; and they're not crudely bound to simply "winning".

Elections are a network of routes btw/ Point A and Point B which infer infinite routes beyond, they aren't a simple boring GPS-guided Interstate corridor.

Sure, I'm aware that there are ways for an election to be successful that aren't forming government. In 2011 the NDP didn't form government, and yet that was the most successful election in party history because they took concrete steps on that path. Now, though, we don't even have to talk about forming government, because to do that you have to win new votes and win new seats and right now the NDP is not doing either of those things in any significant sense. As far as I can tell, there has not been any actual argument made for why Jagmeet Singh has been successful, only arguments that what we see as his failure isn't what matters.

You talk about a network of routes between Point A and Point B; what is Point B for the NDP? How exactly are their current leader and electoral strategy advancing them toward it? It doesn't appear to be by winning votes. If the election was a success because all the NDP candidates got valuable experience running an election campaign, well, the NDP runs a full slate at every election. By that standard, every election is a success for the NDP because it participates so fully in the democratic process. Maybe that's the purpose of the NDP, but I'd like to think there's something more. There certainly seemed to be something more when Jack Layton was leader.

And with all of this hand-wringing over the NDP and its purpose...anyone want to speculate on the future of the Conservatives, O'Toole's leadership, etc?

I think the reason we're talking about the NDP so much is simple; most of us are inclined toward the party and would vote for it if we were Canadian. I agree that the fate of the Conservative Party is interesting and I'd like to discuss that, too, but it doesn't have any emotional valence because I don't have any particular desire for the Conservative Party to succeed.