WWW.RidingByRiding.Com

bump

2011-06-04T22:37:00.001-04:00

<- Click here to see the full postSorry, no extra data today!

REMINDER

2010-12-10T09:17:00.001-05:00

<- Click here to see the full postSorry, no extra data today!

Reminder, we've moved to: http://www.ridingbyriding.ca/

forum

2010-05-09T22:39:00.001-04:00

- Sorry, no extra data today!

again, data has been moved here from the forum

2010-05-09T22:38:00.003-04:00

- Sorry, no extra data today!

POST DATE MAR 18

Historical

1999
PC - 31
Lib - 13
NDP - 5

1995
PC - 42
lib - 11
ndp - 7

1990
NDP - 35
Lib - 18
PC - 7

2010-05-09T22:38:00.001-04:00

- Sorry, no extra data today!

POST DATE MAR 17

1 riding is mostly outside the new province but contains a small municipality within it (Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock)
3 ridings are split around half-half in terms of population (Dufferin-Caledon, York-Simcoe, Wellington-Halton Hills)
The Niagara and Hamilton regions have 7 ridings
Halton has 3, plus the Halton Hills
Peel has 8 plus Caldeon
York has 7 plus it's portion of York-Simcoe
Durham has 4, one shared with Toronto, and Brock
Toronto has 22 plus the one it shares with Durham.
This makes for 45 ridings completely within the new province plus the three "halfs" mentioned above, for a total of 46.5 ridings, rounded up to 47 (including Brock)

8 of the whole ridings have PC members. 8 have NDP members. 29 are Liberal. All of the half ridings are represented by the PC Party, making for an approximated legislature of:
30 Liberal
10 PC
7 NDP

The Remainder of Ontario would have:
42 Liberal
15 PC
3 NDP

Federally, the new province would have the following representation (using the same addition of half members)
25 Lib
16 CPC
6 NDP

2010-05-09T22:37:00.005-04:00

- Sorry, no extra data today!

POST DATE MAR 17

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&geocode=&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=101714683938336514556.000481fb3a726b98da6a1 I shall be posting this map and making a longer post about the idea of a "Province of Toronto"

2010-05-09T22:37:00.004-04:00

- Sorry, no extra data today!

POST DATE MAR 17

http://www.toronto.ca/mayor_miller/spee ... speech.htm
11 billion dollars. That's the gap between what Toronto pays in taxes, and gets back in federal and provincial spending. At least it was in 2005.

Lets do some calculations.
The 2005 budget for Ontario had a 1.4 billion dollar deficit.
The 2005 budget was 82 billion dollars in revenue (and 83 in spending)
Canada's 2005 budget was 222 billion dollars in revenue, with a 13 billion dollar surplus (spending was at 209)
in 2006, Ontario had 38.9% of Canada's population. 222 X .389 = 86. and 209 X .389 = 81.
in 2005/2006 Ontario sent 23 billion dollars more to the federal government than they got back.
Logically, we can presume half of that is revenue and half is spending. Lets round down to 22 billion.
Therefore. Ontario sent 97 billion dollars to the feds, and got back 70 billion.
97 is 43.7% of 222, while 70 is 33.5% of 209.
97 + 82 = 179 while 70 + 83 = 153
Therefore, if Ontario were a country, in 2005, it would have had a surplus of 26 billion. This includes the 22 billion we sent to Ottawa, and our share of the 13 billion dollar federal surplus.
This year. Federal revenue is at 231 billion and spending at 281 billion.
231 X .437 is 101, while 281 X .335 = 94
Meaning that Ontario's share of the federal deficit is minus 7 billion dollars (IE we are in surplus)
Ontario's deficit this year is 25 billion.
I cannot find specific numbers for Ontario's revenues and exp. this year. however as seen in 2005 it is likely close to federal numbers. 85 in revenue and 110 in exp. is reasonable to expect.
Therefore, the total revenue and exp. of Ontario, if it were a country, would be 186 VS 204, or an 18 billion dollar deficit
Toronto, remember, has about 20% of Ontario's population
186 X 0.2 = 37 while 204 X 0.2 = 41
37 - 41 = -4
Toronto, remember, sends 11 billion dollars more to the government than it gets back.
-4 + 11 = 7
Therefore. Toronto's suprlus this year, if Toronto were a country, would be 7 billion dollars.
Now, it has been stated 1% sales taxes bring in $400 million a year in Toronto. The HST is being introduced at 13%.
0.400 X 13 = 5.200
7.000 - 5.200 = 1.800
Last year, Toronto's new and hated taxes brough in 46 million dollars. Lets round up to 50.
1.800 - 0.050 = 1.750
1.750 billion - 1,750 million
The TTC (Toronto Transit) budget was 1,400, total. That includes about 400 in city subsidy, leaving 1,000 unfunded
1,000 - 1,750 = 750
750 million = 750,000,000
Toronto has 2,500,000 citizens
750,000,000 / 2,500,000 = 300
300 dollars.

So, lets review.
If Toronto were it's own country, it would be in surplus this year (despite the recession, and the billions and billions in deficit we are in) and that surplus would be SO large, we could cancel the new hated taxes, end ALL sales taxes, and make the ENTIRE TTC free, as well as send a cheque for $300 to each person in Toronto.

I have sources for all the numbers I've presented if anyone needs them.

2010-05-09T22:37:00.001-04:00

- Sorry, no extra data today!

POST DATE MAR 15

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/nort ... 567619.stm

I'll make a blog post about this a bit later on

42% - Irish
39% - British
18% - Northern Irish

55% - UK

forum

2010-05-09T22:36:00.001-04:00

- 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.

www.ridingbyriding.com

2010-03-24T22:52:00.000-04:00

-

Reminder, we have a new website www.ridingbyriding.com

Sorry, no extra data today!

Looking Back

2010-03-20T07:24:00.003-04:00

-

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!

Rob Ford to run for mayor! ...Maybe

2010-03-16T05:18:00.000-04:00

<-

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!

Projection

2010-03-11T03:56:00.000-05:00

-

129C 95L 50B 34N - 11MAR2010

visit ridingbyriding.com for more details

Sorry, no extra data today!

International politics.

2010-03-09T22:56:00.001-05:00

<- 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

Projection Update

2010-03-09T00:54:00.001-05:00

-

129C 97L 48B 34N

Sorry, no extra data today!

Summarized Projection

2010-03-04T14:03:00.002-05:00

-
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

So when is the next election?

2010-03-03T16:19:00.003-05:00

-

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

2010-03-03T15:31:00.002-05:00

-

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

2010-03-03T02:42:00.002-05:00

-

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

2010-03-03T02:38:00.001-05:00

-

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

2010-03-03T02:29:00.002-05:00

-

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!

We have a website!

2010-03-02T07:19:00.003-05:00

-

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!

Summarized Projection

2010-02-26T12:51:00.002-05:00

-
126C 102L 47B 33N

Sorry, no extra data today!

Province Watch

2010-02-26T10:13:00.003-05:00

-

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!

Mayoral Candidates lay down ideologies.

2010-02-25T04:57:00.002-05:00

-

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!

Senate Reform pt 2.5

2010-02-23T23:06:00.002-05:00

-

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!

Senate Reform pt 2

2010-02-22T23:33:00.001-05:00

-

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

2010-02-22T23:28:00.000-05:00

-

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!

Letters

2010-02-20T22:47:00.001-05:00

-

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

2010-02-20T20:38:00.002-05:00

<-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.

PR. Part 4 (final)

2010-02-19T18:08:00.003-05:00

-

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!

PR, part 3

2010-02-18T22:13:00.005-05:00

<- 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

PR Part 2

2010-02-18T00:08:00.001-05:00

<- Click here to see the full post

(quick note. I've decided a threshold of 5% is reasonable, and so have edited the examples to fit within this)

The first thing we must do is design a system that will work for Canada. In some places with PR, they have large PR districts. In Japan, they use multiple-province sized districts. In Iraq, each district is the size of a single province. Other countries use nation-wide districts. Israel, Germany, and Russia are examples of the latter. In order for PR to work in Canada, we need to come up with a system of our own design.

I propose that Provinces, in provincial elections, use a single province-wide district. This will simplify the process to its maximum amount. Provinces rarely have such huge changes in vote distribution as is found on the federal level. The only real instance of a true and drastic change would be the West Island of Montreal. The radical regionalization of the vote like we find in the Reform Party or Bloc does not happen at the provincial level.

Federally, however, I propose that each district be made up of one province, or for smaller provinces, multiple provinces. I propose that BC, Alberta, Ontario, and Quebec be PR districts, while a combination of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Territories be a single district; and that Atlantic Canada also be a single district. If done in this way, each district would have the following number of ridings.
Ontario – 106
Quebec – 75
BC – 36
Atlantic – 32
Prairies/North - 31
Alberta – 28

Next, we need to determine the number of PR seats to add. The more we add, the better the chance that we will overturn a majority government; while the fewer we add, the better the chance that regional mis-representation cannot be smoothed over properly. I propose that we add either 20% or 25% of the number of ridings back as PR seats. So that a district with 100 ridings would have either 20 or 25 PR seats tied to it. 20 seats is enough to give you one seat per every 5% of the vote. 25 does it with every 4%. Using 25%, our smallest province, PEI (which has 27 MLAs) would get 7 PR seats, while Federal Alberta (which has 28 MPs) would also get 7. Using 20%, they would only get 5. It would take 14% of the vote to elect one PR member at a factor of 25%, but 20% of the vote to do it at a factor of 20%. While I favor 20% in many ways, I think 25% will sell better, and work better with these smaller districts. I therefore propose that for every 4 MPs, MLAs, MHAs, MNAs, or MPPs each district has, that it gains 1 PR member, rounded up where need be.

A key to making this work in terms of getting fair representation for the opposition is to limit the size of lists. Parties will only be able to submit lists that contain half as many names as there are seats available, rounded up where needed. Therefore, where you have a list of 7 PR members, such as in Federal Alberta, each party will only be able to submit names for half (rounded up) of these 7, or, 4. This limits the amount of members the government can win. Let’s begin looking at some examples.

Newfoundland, provincially, has 48 ridings. I propose that 12 PR members be added. If we were to distribute those PR seats, with no list limit, we would see the following results:
PC – 9
Lib – 2
NDP – 1
This is because the PC Party took 70% of the vote in the last provincial election. Using the proposed list-limit, however, you get the following.
PC – 6 (limited)
Lib – 5
NDP – 1

Combine this with the results from the last election and you get:
PC – 50
Lib – 8
NDP - 2

This brings the total number of opposition seats up to 10 out of 60 (17%) which is more than the 4 out of 48 (8%) they got under the current system. At the same time this allows not only the opposition to get people elected from their lists, but the Government as well. With 6 members, you can elect a Premier, a Deputy Premier, a Finance Minister, Two Women, and a Minority.

Below the fold are examples going back to 1972. Why 1972? Well that was the year we had a federal election that was nearly a tie; a great place to put this electoral system to the test.

Note that these examples show the new totals, added to the ridings elected from our current system.

* = All seats are from the new PR list. The party did not win any ridings.

Newfoundland

2007
PC – 50
Lib – 8
NDP – 2

2003
PC – 40
Lib – 17
NDP – 3

1999
Lib – 38
PC – 19
NDP – 3

1996
Lib – 43
PC – 15
NDP – 1
IND - 1

1993
Lib – 41
PC – 22
NDP – 2

1989
Lib – 37
PC – 28

1985
PC – 42
Lib – 20
NDP – 3

1982
PC – 40
Lib – 15

1979
PC – 40
Lib – 24
NDP – 1*

1975
PC – 37
Lib – 21
RL - 5 (Reform Liberals, or Smallwood Liberals)
Ind - 1

1972
PC – 39
Lib - 14

====================
Prince Edward Island

2007
Lib - 27
PC - 7

2003
PC - 27
Lib - 7

2000
PC - 30
Lib - 4

1996
PC - 22
Lib - 11
NDP - 1

1993
Lib - 36
PC - 4

1989
Lib - 35
PC - 5

1986
Lib - 25
PC - 15

1982
PC - 25
Lib - 15

1979
PC - 25
Lib - 15

1978
Lib - 21
PC - 19

1974
Lib - 31
PC - 9

====================
New Brunswick

2006
Lib - 36
PC - 33

2003
PC - 35
Lib - 32
NDP - 2

1999
PC - 51
Lib - 16
NDP - 2

1995
Lib - 55
PC - 11
NDP - 2
CoR - 1*

1991
Lib - 54
CoR - 11
PC - 6
NDP - 2

1987
Lib - 66
PC - 5*
NDP - 2*

1982
PC - 47
Lib - 24
NDP - 2

1978
PC - 37
Lib - 35
NDP - 1

1974
PC - 40
Lib - 33

--------------------
note
In 1987, the Liberals won every riding. Under the new PR system, they opposition has 9.6% of the seats.
====================
Nova Scotia

2009
NDP - 37
Lib - 15
PC - 13

2006
PC - 28
NDP - 25
Lib - 12

2003
PC - 30
NDP - 19
Lib - 16

1999
PC - 35
NDP - 15
Lib - 15

1998
Lib - 24
NDP - 23
PC - 18

1993
Lib - 46
PC - 12
NDP - 7

1988
PC - 34
Lib - 26
NDP - 4
IND - 1

1984
PC - 49
Lib - 10
NDP - 5
Lab - 1

1981
PC - 44
Lib - 17
NDP - 3
IND - 1

1978
PC - 37
Lib - 22
NDP - 6

1974
Lib - 37
PC - 17
NDP - 4

====================
Manitoba

2008
NDP - 43
PC - 24
Lib - 4

2003
NDP - 42
PC - 25
Lib - 4

1999
NDP - 38
PC - 30
Lib - 3

1995
Lib - 37
NDP - 28
Lib - 6

1990
PC - 36
NDP - 24
Lib - 11

1988
PC - 31
Lib - 25
NDP - 15

1986
NDP - 36
PC - 32
Lib - 3

1981
NDP - 41
PC - 29
Lib - 1*

1977
PC - 40
NDP - 29
Lib - 2

1973
NDP - 37
PC - 26
Lib - 8

--------------------
note
1990. A 3 seat margin becomes a 1 seat margin.
1986, again, 3 seat margin becomes 1.
====================
Saskatchewan

2007
SKP - 44
NDP - 28
Lib - 1*

2003
NDP - 37
SKP - 34
Lib - 2*

1999
NDP - 35
SKP - 31
Lib - 7

1995
NDP - 49
Lib - 16
PC - 8

1991
NDP - 64
PC - 14
Lib - 5

1986
PC - 45
NDP - 33
Lib - 2

1982
PC - 63
NDP - 17

1978
NDP - 52
PC - 23
Lib - 2*

1975
NDP - 46
Lib - 20
PC - 11

====================
Alberta

2008
PC - 84
Lib - 15
NDP - 4
AA - 1*
Grn - 1*

2004
PC - 73
Lib - 22
NDP - 6
AA - 3

2001
PC - 85
Lib - 15
NDP - 4

1997
PC - 74
Lib - 24
NDP - 4
SC - 1*

1993
PC - 61
Lib - 41
NDP - 2*

1989
PC - 69
NDP - 21
Lib - 14

1986
PC - 72
NDP - 23
Lib - 6
RPP - 3

1982
PC - 85
NDP - 8
WCC - 4* (Separatists)
IND - 2

1979
PC - 84
SC - 9
NDP - 5
Lib - 1*

1975
PC - 79
SC - 9
NDP - 4
Lib - 1*
IND - 1

====================
British Columbia

2009
BCL - 59
NDP - 45
Grn - 1*
IND - 1

2005
BCL - 56
NDP - 42
Grn - 1*

2001
BCL - 87
NDP - 8
Grn - 4*

1996
NDP - 47
BCL - 41
Ref - 4
PDA - 2

1991
NDP - 59
BCL - 23
SC - 12

1986
SC - 56
NDP - 29
BCL - 1*

1983
SC - 42
NDP - 29

1979
SC - 38
NDP - 33

1975
SC - 42
NDP - 24
Lib - 2
PC - 1

1972
NDP - 44
SC - 14
Lib - 7
PC - 4

--------------------
note
In 1996 the NDP won a government despite the Liberals having more votes. Our current system gave the (NDP) Government a 3 seat lead over the Opposition. This proposal results in a tie.
====================
Quebec

2008
PLQ - 80
PQ - 63
ADQ - 12
QS - 1

2007
PLQ - 57
ADQ - 52
PQ - 47

2003
PLQ - 91
PQ - 55
ADQ - 10

1998
PQ - 90
PLQ - 62
ADQ - 4

1994
PQ - 92
PLQ - 61
ADQ - 3

1989
PLQ - 108
PQ - 44
Equ - 4

1985
PLQ - 115
PQ - 38

1981
PQ - 96
PLQ - 57

1976
PQ - 84
PLQ - 36
UN - 16
RC - 1
PNP - 1

1973
PLQ - 116
PQ - 17
RC - 5

====================
Ontario

2007
Lib - 83
PC - 35
NDP - 14
Grn - 2*

2003
Lib - 81
PC - 33
NDP - 11

1999
PC - 70
Lib - 46
NDP - 12

1995
PC - 97
Lib - 41
NDP - 24
IND - 1

1990
NDP - 87
Lib - 48
PC - 28

1987
Lib - 111
NDP - 28
PC - 24

1985
PC - 64
Lib - 60
NDP - 32

1981
PC - 84
Lib - 45
NDP - 27

1977
PC - 70
Lib - 44
NDP - 42

1975
PC - 62
Lib - 47
NDP - 47

--------------------
note
In 1975, the NDP took 2 more ridings than the Liberals, however under the proposed PR system, they would have tied, meaning the Liberals remain as Official Opposition.

Up next, federal results.

For Mr.Benoit

2010-02-17T00:00:00.002-05:00

<- Read the full response to Mr.Benoit

Today, I, and everyone in my building (I live in a university dorm, in perhaps the most Liberal riding in English Canada) got a flyer from the Conservative Party. It showed Harper and Iggy, noting that Harper is good and Iggy is bad. Thats great and all, except it was not from the Tories after all, it was from Mr. Leon Benoit, MP. I am no stranger to this particular MP, he sends me a lot of mail just like this. I decided to help him out and respond, so in the space provided for comments I let him know that I do not live in his riding, and that if he wants to use his franking privileges most efficiently, my riding is not one he should be targeting, especially not my building.

I offered to help him, and gave him a link to this post. I will respond to him below the fold.

Mr. Benoit. Thank you again for your letter. As I said, however, sadly, my building is not one you should be wasting your money targeting. As niXtuff blog offers election projection services for free to the public, I've decided I will also offer these services to you and your party, at a 50% discount. Below is a list of Ridings that you SHOULD be targeting.

According to my calculations, your party is already winning St.John's South in Newfoundland. Avalon is within grasp too. Radom-Burin-St.George's however is a great place to drive hard for an extra seat.

In PEI there is a chance you can pick up Malpeque

Nova Scotia is somewhat of a lost cause, but money can keep South Shore from going NDP

In NB, Moncton is a good pick up

Quebec is going to be problematic no matter what you do. Best Case Scenario, you hold on to your current seats. Dump your funding into ridings like Roberval, Pontiac, and Beauport. The others are far more safe.

I'll get back to Ontario later.

BC is another place you'll be struggling to hold on. BC has voted against the government more often than any other province (look it up, its true!) They don't like people who are perceived to abuse power. You will need to spend to hold on. I recommend Fleetwood-Port Kells, Richmond, Surrey North, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast, and Vancouver Island North. Don't waste money in Saanich-Gulf Islands, it is more solidly Tory than you think.

In Alberta, there are three ridings you should focus on. Edmonton-Strathcona, Edmonton-Centre, and Calgary West. That's right, Calgary West. Don't laugh. When your party loses it you'll see. I would stop the Liberals there while I had the chance. Spend like there is no tomorrow.

Saskatchewan. Any spending here is mostly wasted. The NDP might make a showing in Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, and you might want to knock off Goodale again, but neither riding will change unless the polls do in some radical way. (I am telling you all this presuming you want a Majority - these are the ridings you need to win to do it). Ignore this province.

Manitoba is somewhat of a similar story. Do not underestimate the power of the Liberals in Winnipeg South. I would also not write off Winnipeg North. You are not in a position to take it just yet, but when you do, NDPers will be stunned.

Northern Ontario is one place where you can make gains. Thunder Bay-Superior North is one riding you could steal. Sault Ste Marie is another.

Toronto is mostly a write off. Don't worry about winning a majority without a seat in Toronto. Shit happens. Look at the Liberals in 1980. If you really do want one, the targets are, in order, York Centre, Don Valley West, Scarborough Southwest, Etobicoke Lakeshore (yes, that Etobicoke Lakeshore) and Etobicoke Centre. I would not waste your money within city limits. If it looks like you are going to win a majority, enough people will switch to give you a riding or two

Eastern Ontario is pretty solid and won't move against you or for you very much. If you really have ti spend here, do it in Kingston.

Western Ontario is very similar. London-Fanshaew is winnable, and even London-North Centre is within grasp.

In the Eastern GTA (Durham and York) is also very stable. Ajax-Pickering could fall with enough effort, but I would not waste the cash.

If you want gains in Ontario, it will come from the Western GTA and Waterloo area. Bramlea-Gore-Malton is very hard to knock off, but outside of that, the following ridings should get attention to either help you win them, or help you defend them:
Brampton West. Brampton-Springdale. Guelph. Kitchener Centre. Kitchener-Waterloo. Mississauga South. Mississauga-Erindale.

And thus, you win a majority government.

If you want to know where to focus at current polling levels, you'll have to come back in a few days when I post a full riding by riding projection using current polling numbers.

2010-02-15T22:57:00.000-05:00

<- Click here to see the full post

The issue of Proportional Representation has been one that I’ve cared about for many years now. I can recall writing school papers in grade school on the issue. I remember referring to it as PR throughout the paper as it save me from writing Proportional Representation dozens of times. This is a tradition I intend to continue.

We have had a few votes in this country on the issue. One in Ontario and One in Prince Edward Island returned very similar results. Downtown ridings voted narrowly for PR while non-down urban, suburban, and rural ridings voted against it, sometimes by large margins. BC voted twice, and while the result was generally favorable all throughout the province, it failed both times. The question then becomes why?

The biggest argument used against PR is that it will result in more minority governments. Here in Canada, we are familiar with them, but not used to them. As I write this, all provinces in the country have a majority government, ranging from thin majorities in Quebec and BC to very large ones in Newfoundland and PEI. In the recent past we have seen minority governments on the provincial level. Quebec, and Nova Scotia have both come out of this situation in the past few years. In fact, every province has had a Minority government at some point. Newfoundland had one that collapsed nearly instantly, and PEI had a 15-15 tie over 100 years ago. New Brunswick has never elected one, but has seen them due to loss of seats, while Saskatchewan has elected two that both were quickly solidified into Majorities via coalition.

Federally, however, we are most familiar with minorities. Not only because we have been in this situation for the last 6 years, but perhaps mostly because they make for good news stories, even decades after the fact. Politicos across this country know what Pearson did with his minority, and they know that Diefenbaker used them to enter and exit his time in office. King had the most famous minority that, upon further research, turns into a majority. Of course, party lines of the 1920’s are not what we know today.

The one thing that is true for minorities on every level is that they are far more unstable than majorities. It is this instability that people fear when they hear about PR. In order to quell these fears, we must find a way to implement PR without causing a significant increase in the number of minority governments. Doing this is no easy task. PR, by nature, tries to make seats equal votes, and we as a country do not tend to elect parties with over half of the vote. I say there is a way to do this. Find out more below the fold.

A question we must then ask is; what is the reason for PR? Some want these minorities, but in general, most just want everyone’s voice to be represented. That means, in short, two things. First, giving smaller but spread out parties more seats. Historically, this has meant the NDP. Today it also means the Green Party. Most provinces have a clear two party system. Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland have the Liberals and Tories fighting for government, with the NDP picking up what is left. This mirrors the federal situation to a degree. In Quebec, the two big parties are the PLQ and the PQ, with others such as the ADQ and QS being clearly behind. Manitoba and Saskatchewan both have similar systems, with the Liberals in third, and the government a battle between the NDP and the Tories (who are called the Saskatchewan Party in that province). In BC the difference between the two main parties, the Liberals and the NDP and the third placed party, the Greens, is even more stark as the Greens have never won a seat. In Alberta, the Tories are clearly at the top, but there is no clear and long lasting leader amongst the opposition parties. The Wildrose Alliance currently is polling in the high 30’s, but the Liberals managed the same back in the early 1990’s. And lastly in Nova Scotia, and even in the Yukon Territory, the three parties battle it out on an almost equal footing.

The other voices that go unheard are regional. Beyond doing poorly on the provincial level, the Federal Liberal Party has always had trouble in the Prairies, or at least since the 60’s they have. This quite often will mean that a Federal Government may go with very little or no representation from the west. 1980 was one such occurrence where a grand total of 2 MP’s were elected to the government from Western Canada, and both were from Winnipeg. This regional imbalance is part of what causes many of the problems we see today in federal politics. With the Tories ‘locked in’ to winning Alberta, the Liberals winning Toronto, and the Bloc winning Quebec it is difficult to find the right person to turn things around. The NDP, for example, has only recently been able to gain a real foothold in Quebec. We see now how this is changing the politics of that province. What if, however, the NDP had maintained an MP from Quebec for decades? Surly we can all agree that would certainly change the balance of politics. Imagine if you will, a Canadian Alliance MP from Atlantic Canada. An NDPer from Rural Alberta. A Bloc member from the West Island. A Liberal Saskatchewan Farmer. These things would certainly change the way people look at our political parties.

This last point also applies in an important way to the provinces and opposition parties. Currently, in Prince Edward Island, there are 24 Government MLAs and 3 Opposition MLAs. Newfoundland has 44 in the Government, and 5 in the Opposition. Alberta has over 70 in the government and a dozen in the opposition. PEI has seen, on two recent occasions, the entire opposition caucus made up of a single member. New Brunswick, in 1987, elected the Liberals to every single riding. I contend that this is not good for democracy. Some provinces have a history of electing very small opposition caucuses. Alberta, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland in particular, though Nova Scotia, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan have each had their problems in this field.

So we end up back where we began. Clearly we cannot have our cake and eat it too. Or can we? I say we can. The want for more regional balance and proper representation of the “losing” parties, is not incongruent with the desire of Canadians for stable majority governance. In effect, we are looking for a system to bolster the opposition, without defeating the government. For the answer to that, we must look to a country where this occurs and was needed. For that, we turn to Japan.

For decades, Japan had a one and a half party system. The governing Liberal Democrats would consistently capture majorities in the lower house, while the Japan Socialist Party would form an endless string of solid oppositions. Every once in a while, disgruntled members would break from the Liberal Democrats and form their own small parties, but these would not last.

This began to fall apart in the 1980s when the JSP started to go on a more moderate trajectory. Over time, the opposition began to fracture. Finally, in 1993, the LDP faced a number of problems, and a series of large defections crippled the party. In the election that year, 9 parties were elected to the Diet (House) and the LDP lost its majority. The opposition used this rare opportunity to form a government of their own. Two weak coalition governments were formed that made many reforms. One of which was to officially apologize for Japan’s actions during WW2. The other, was electoral reform.

Sadly, this opposition government did not last. The LDP was able to return to government by forming a coalition with the Socialists, having one of them serve as Prime Minister. In the following election, the LDP returned to power and would remain there until 2009 when the Democratic Party (which was formed when, over time, the parties from that 1993 government slowly merged into one) won the first non-LDP majority government in modern history.

So just what did they do in Japan? Clearly it has not impeded the formation of Majority governments, nor has it caused smaller parties to spring up out of nowhere. In fact, over this same period, the number of major parties shrank. This is due to the type of PR used in Japan. Let’s review some of our basic options.

Ireland uses a type of PR called STV. This is what BC wanted to do. Due to the popularity of that debate I won’t go into great detail. Ontario and PEI wanted MMP. This is what is done in Germany and New Zealand. Parties can win local seats, but the PR seats are then applied so that when all is said and done, at the end of the day, the total share of seats each party has is as close as possible to the total share of vote they received. Japan has a system somewhat similar to MMP, but with a key and crucial difference. Japan uses a so-called Parallel system. That means that the number of seats won from the PR lists is decided by the share of vote, with no consideration given to the “end of the day” number. Parallel PR, in a way, treats the seats won in ridings, and the seats won from lists as parallel, or separate entities. Lets examine some examples.

The country of Samplestan has 100 seats. 80 ridings and 20 seats in the PR list.
The Sample Party has won 55% of the vote and 54 of the 80 ridings.
The Test Case Party has won 45% of the vote and 26 ridings.

MMP would give the Sample Party 1 PR seat, and the Test Case Party 19, for an end total of 55 and 45 respectively.

Parallel PR however would give the Sample Party 11 PR seats (55% of the PR seats) and the Test Case Party 9 of them (45%) for an end total of 65 and 35.

So what does this mean? To put it simply, Parallel PR has a much more difficult time overturning a majority government than MMP does. Parallel PR also makes it far easier to estimate the number of list seats that a party will win, rendering nearly impossible the chance that a party can win more ridings than expected and have as a result, candidates from its list not make it into parliament.

So, what does this all mean for Canada? Well lets go back and look at Samplestan. The winning party has managed to win over two thirds of the seats, but this by no means guarantees them a seat in all the areas of the country. The opposition’s chances are even lower. Under MMP, the government would only get a single PR seat. That top seat is usually reserved for the leader, meaning areas of the nation could well go under represented within the government. In countries like Canada, where politics are very regionalized, this can be a problem. Imagine if you will, a Liberal victory in the 1990s with only a few extra PR seats. Nearly all these PR seats would need to go to the West or Quebec to properly balance the party.

Perhaps more importantly is the concept if the official opposition as the “Government in waiting”. Again, back to the 1990s, when the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance never managed to elect more than two members east of the Manitoba-Ontario border. On the flip side we have the Bloc Quebecois. Normally, parties place their leader in the first PR slot, as the leader represents the entire country, not just one riding; however in the Bloc’s case, there is a good chance the leader may not even make it into Parliament, as the party is already over-represented.

The answer, then, is to apply Parallel PR to Canada. Let’s look at a past election as an example; The 2000 Federal Election. The results were as follows:
Liberal – 172 – 40.85%
Alliance – 66 – 25.49%
Bloc – 38 – 10.72%
NDP – 13 – 8.51%
PC – 12 – 12.19%
This is a total of 301 seats. I am going to add 80 PR seats to the mix. Let’s compare the two systems. Under MMP:
Liberal – 172
Allinace – 97
Bloc – 41
NDP – 32
PC – 46
In this example, the Liberals have taken their 172 ridings, more than the 155 seats they would have qualified for, and so the extra is kept as over-hang seats. This example also puts us into a minority government. Now we compare to Parallel
Liberal – 205
Alliance – 86
Bloc – 47
NDP – 20
PC – 22
The Liberals would retain a majority government, although by a smaller margin. They would get 33 extra seats from the PR lists, and they could, and likely would use these seats to bolster their standing from the West and Quebec, while still leaving slots for those from Ontario and the Atlantic. The Alliance would have had 20 seats to play with, enough to get some real representation from Central and Atlantic Canada. The Bloc would have 9 seats, enough to get a Leader elected, a few extra MPs, and perhaps Anglo MPs. The PC Party, which finished 5th, would get 10 extra MPs, enough to vault them into 4th, and enough to give them some big names in all areas of Canada. Lastly the NDP, who had one of their worst elections ever, would still win 7 seats, and would likely have at least one Quebec MP.

This allows both the government and opposition to be represented across the country, it allows votes for “losing” parties to still count, while at the same time, maintaining the stability of Majority governments.

The above are simple examples to explain my ideas. In my following post, I will provide more hard and fast examples. For now, an extra bonus; I’ve applied 80 PR seats to the 1993 election, and achieved the following results:

Liberal – 210
Reform – 67
Bloc – 65
NDP – 15
PC – 15

New Blog - The Info Bin!

2010-02-14T06:09:00.003-05:00

-

I wish to inform my readers that I've opened up a new blog, The Info Bin. From time to time I do research that does not fit into anything specific. A few hours ago I was working on Japanese elections. Just now, I am looking at the history of Communist parties from the former Soviet Union. Not all of my research is election related. Regardless, I've decided to start a "blog" so that I may post there with the results of my "Research" so that I may share my findings.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Latest Projection

2010-02-13T00:21:00.002-05:00

-

A new Environics poll is out showing the Liberals with a lead outside the margin of error. Adding that to the matrix we get the following results:

CPC - 117 - 32.42%
Lib - 111 - 31.12%
BQ - 47 - 9.95%
NDP - 33 - 16.83%
Grn - 0 - 8.64%

Sorry, no extra data today!

Latest Projection - Spotlight Ontario

2010-02-10T20:45:00.001-05:00

-

As per request, our Riding By Riding projection for Ontario

Sorry, no extra data today!

Giambrone is out

2010-02-10T17:23:00.002-05:00

-

Due to his string of scandals, Adam Giambrone has dropped out.

I wont analyze this, the media will be doing enough of that. So how will this effect the race.

Well right now, with Adam out and Minnan-Wong/Ford yet to declare, we only have three "real candidates". And this is where I see them standing at this moment.

Smitherman - 42%
Rossi - 27%
Pantalone - 27%

Sorry, no extra data today!

Latest Projection

2010-02-08T15:10:00.002-05:00

-

In short, we are looking at 2006 all over again, with a few more NDP seats at the expense of the Bloc.

The Liberal's momentum has slowed but they still have a slight edge here. Unless they can pull out a wider lead in Ontario, they will start to waste votes in Quebec, and even a tie in the national popular vote will lead to a Tory government.

Sorry, no extra data today!

TTC on strike - of sorts

2010-02-08T07:19:00.005-05:00

-

There are reports this morning that the TTC Union has decided to "work to rule" and purposefully delay service in response to customers asking them to do their jobs properly. Clearly the message from the Union, and its Drivers to Customers is "Either let us treat you badly, or we won't drive you at all"

UPDATE

City TV ran into the head of the TTC Union - Bob Kinnear - who states that the Union is not behind this. Okay, fair enough. I remember him pleading with employees during the last wildcat strike. I apologize to the ATU, the reality is this is not from them, it is from the operators who are unwilling to show passengers respect, even when asked to. When even the Union can't control it's workers, you know things are bad.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Question Period, in America?

2010-02-05T10:51:00.003-05:00

-

It has come to my attention that there is a movement afoot to get Question Period, or Question Time in the United States. The movement, called Demand Question Time is pushing for the President, and possibly his cabinet, to face legislators questions.

I had this idea myself quite a while ago. My idea was that every second Tuesday of the month, the President would sit down with Congress and answer questions. Like here in Canada, each member would get a supplementary question, so that they may ask their primary question, and one follow up. This would allow them to counter any evasive answers. There would, like here, be time limits on Questions and Answers to ensure that one side or the other does not ramble on to run out the clock.

My idea would see a 90 minute Question Period. The first two questions would go to the Majority Leader in the Senate, followed by the Minority Leader in the senate. The next two, to the Majority Leader of the house, and then the Minority leader of the house. The following questions would keep this pattern. Maj-Sen, Min-Sen, Maj-Hou, Min-Hou. This would split the questions between the two chambers, and between the two parties. There have been suggestions to have the questioners randomly picked, I'd not be opposed to this so long as the leaders get the first round of questions. Another way to counter having trained seals ask questions is to limit the number of questions a single member can ask to one (and its follow up) every 3 months or so.

Questions should be limited to 45 seconds, and answers to 2 minutes. IIRC this is what they do here in Canada. In reality, the entire time is not always used. Normally you want 'bad' questions done away with as soon as possible, and normally a 'good' question is asked very quickly. An simplistic answer is "Why do you suck as president?" being followed by "I don't". Short questions and answers also have a much better chance of making it onto the repeating news cycle, so a short quick jab followed by a short effective defense helps both sides 'win'. Normally an entire question and it's supplementary will be done in 3 minutes. At least that is how things work here. This would allow for a full cycle of 12 minutes, allowing 7 questions from each half of each house in each session. This may not sound like much, and it is not, but the point of modern question period is less getting real answers, and more of drawing the pubilc's attention to problems so that they demand real answers.

Americans curious about how we do Question Period need only to check You Tube for "Question Period Canada". I personally recommend the "Big Gas" clip :)

Sorry, no extra data today!

Toronto Centre (provincial) By-Election

2010-02-04T20:58:00.008-05:00

-
Final Results

Lib - 12327 - 47.0%
NDP - 8685 - 33.1%
PC - 4030 - 15.4%
Grn - 806 - 3.1%
IND - 101 - 0.4% (Candidate Rama Raj)
Lbt - 99 - 0.4% (Libertarian Party)
Fpo - 89 - 0.3% (Freeom Party of Ontario)
IND - 67 - 0.3% (John Turmel)

What is important here is the swing. The Liberals lost less than 1% of the vote, comparing it to the general election three years ago. What we do see is that a quarter of PC voters, and most Greens were willing to switch to a party they thought could win (The NDP) to try to force the Liberals out. I will take the Green number with a grain of salt - that party does not perform well in by-elections at all times - but the PC number may be of some real significance. What if a quarter of voters from either the Tories or NDP is willing to switch to the other to push the Liberals out of office? I ran the numbers and came up with this:

Lib - 61
PC - 31
NDP - 14

All in all, a great night for the Ontario Liberals.

--------
Old Post
--------

I will be following the results of the by-election online, and you can too from here:

http://www.elections.on.ca/en-ca

I will be "live blogging" by editing info into this post as the night goes on.

9:14pm
The NDP is in the lead, but it is only 1% of the polls in.

9:15pm
NDP - 36
Lib - 15
PC - 4
Grn - 2
Oth - 1
Total votes, not percentages. It is very early.

9:22pm
Lib - 893
NDP - 726
PC - 308
Grn - 56
Oth - 19
Libs in the lead. NDP second. 15% of polls in. The race is taking shape, it is too late at this point for anyone but the Liberals or NDP to win, and while the Liberals have a lead, it is not clear just yet.

9:30pm
Lib - 3176 - 46.6%
NDP - 2322 - 34.1%
PC - 1031 - 15.1%
Grn - 198 - 2.9%
1/3rd of polls in
The Liberals have pulled out a wider lead, will it last?

9:38pm
The lead is pretty clear at this point
Lib - 45.8%
NDP - 32.1%
With 50%+ of the polls in, I'm going to call it a win here. Glen Murray is the new MPP for Toronto Centre.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Toronto Projection Soup

2010-02-04T14:28:00.002-05:00

-

My last post may have been a bit confusing, so I wanted to clarify.

There are blocs of voters that will vote for certain candidates of types of candidates. Therefore I wanted to make clear the following.

Presuming that Minnan-Wong, and Ford do not run, and that Pantalone drops out. Currently, I would expect the polls to realistically be at:

Smitherman - 38% (Centre Left)
Giambrone - 30% (Left)
Rossi - 30% (Centre Right)
Others - 2%

If Pantalone is in, the split between him and Giambrone would be 18-12

If Minnan-Wong or Ford runs, the split between that candidate and Rossi would be 15-15

If Minnan-Wong and Ford run, the split between the two would be 10-5 in Minnan-Wong's favour.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Liberals close in on Tories

2010-02-03T07:53:00.003-05:00

<- Click here to see the full post
Full data below the fold.

With recent polls showing the Liberals and the Tories running neck and neck, it is only reasonable to expect the projections to catch up. Here are our current federal numbers.

CPC - 131 - 33.1%
Lib - 96 - 30.1%
BQ - 47 - 9.9%
NDP - 34 - 17.0%

There is a strong Liberal Trend.

So, what's happened? To answer that we need to go back, far back, to 2006. In 2006 Canadians realized they do not like the Liberal Party because of sponsorship; so they threw the red bastards out, and elected the blue ones.

In 2008, Canadians realized they do not like Stephane Dion. They really do not like Stephane Dion. Frankly, I don't blame them. That brings us to 2009. Iggy became leader. At first, Canadians were excited, but by the time the summer hit, people realized that they don't much care for Iggy either. Then came the Prorogue scandal. It's not so much that Canadians hated the idea of a proroguation (and sure some did, but in general, Harper is right, they don't care) What this scandal did was bring to the surface the fact that Canadians don't like Stephen Harper either. Over the years they've been so focused on the Liberals and their leaders, they have forgotten that they never really liked Harper in the first place. This scandal has reminded them of just why they don't like him.

So now it's a race between Harper (who they don't like) Iggy (whom they also don't like) and Layton (who they clearly don't like) It's no wonder polls have a Bloc comeback and the Greens in the double digits.

Atlantic
CPC - 14
Lib - 12
NDP - 6

Quebec
BQ - 47
Lib - 20
CPC - 7
NDP - 1

Ontario
Lib - 51
CPC - 44
NDP - 11

Prairies
CPC - 22
NDP - 4
Lib - 2

Alberta
CPC - 26
Lib - 1
NDP - 1

BC
CPC - 17
NDP - 10
Lib - 9

Territories
CPC - 1
Lib - 1
NDP - 1

The Polls, according to Rob Ford

2010-02-02T15:37:00.003-05:00

-
According to a Toronto Star article Mr.Ford has commissioned his own poll showing him with 13% of the vote.

I for one don't see what the big whoop is, as I myself projected a slice of the political pie to go to a right-wing candidate in this year's municipal election. In that post I projected the polls to be as follows:

Smitherman - (L) - 38%
Pantalone - (N) - 18%
Rossi - (L) - 15%
Giambrone - (N) - 15%
Minnan-Wong - (C) - 12%
Mammoliti - (N) - 2%

Since then, Giambrone has been hot, and Pantalone has not. Rossi, as I projected he would, has taken a clear stand and has occupied the ground formerly taken by Jon Tory. Smitherman, meanwhile, remains ahead of his nearest rival by a 2-to-1 margin.

Ford's poll shows little, but confirms:

Smitherman - 46%
Giambrone - 17%
Ford - 13%

As this is a poll, even a slightly skewed one, I will update my official projections as of this time to the following:

Smitherman - (L) - 38%
Giambrone - (N) - 18%
Rossi - (L) - 15%
Pantalone - (N) - 12%
Minnan-Wong - (PC) - 10% [Combined 15% if only one runs]
Ford - (C) - 5% [Combined 15% if only one runs]
Mammoliti - (N) - not a chance

Sorry, no extra data today!

New Senators

2010-01-29T14:47:00.004-05:00

-

This will be a short post.

Harper has appointed 5 new senators. What does this mean?

First, it means that for the first time since the 1990's, the Tories have a plurality in the Senate. Even more interesting is that prior to the 1990's, the last time they managed this was when Bennett was Prime Minister. The Tories take control of the upper chamber less often than they take government, so this indeed is something of note.

Once all the appointments go though, the party standings will be as follows:
CPC - 51
Lib - 49
Oth - 5

So who are these people anyway?

The Quebecois of the bunch is a law and order type.
One of the Ontarians, is an immigrant from India. Hindu immigrants have been somewhat friendly towards the Conservatives, and this may be an attempt to shore up that front of the party.
The other three hail from Ontario, Newfoundland, and New Brunswick. All of them are sitting PC members in their respective provincial legislatures.

And that is the short of it.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Palestine Election 2010

2010-01-25T09:13:00.004-05:00

-

This is the election that will never be, or so it seems. Palestine has been due for an election for quite some time now but has been unable to hold one due to the fact that the country is split in two.

Beyond the geographic split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, there is a political split, with Fatah (and pals) controlling the West Bank, and Hamas (and pals) controlling the Gaza Strip. Neither, of course, really want's to lose their grasp on power in their half to risk gaining power in the other half (less it be ripped away though a civil war like it was the first time) The situation may then just remain as-is.

But what is the situation as-is? I've decided to take a look at another Wikipedia page found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_members_of_Palestinian_Legislative_Council and come up with a few numbers.

First of all, I tried to find out where this broken assembly currently stands. If I have my count right, Hamas and friends have 65 seats, while Fatah and friends have 47. I decided to make it interesting, and try to split the vote between the two. This is difficult as the Proportional Representation seats are assigned nationwide. What I decided to do was place all Fatah reps in the West Bank and all Hamas in Gaza. This seemed logical. This is what I came up with.

West Bank (2.6 mil)
Fatah - 42 (34 list)
Hamas - 19

Gaza Strip (1.6 mil)
Hamas - 46 (26 list)
Fatah - 5

So what do these numbers mean? Not much, sadly, they are pretty useless. This is, however, the closest we can get to the "situation as-is", and my simple calculation here and now, sadly, looks about as close as we will get to a Palestinian election this year.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Projection... for Ireland!

2010-01-25T06:43:00.004-05:00

-

In our efforts to branch out our coverage, we've decided to provide some coverage of the ever pending Irish election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Irish_general_election

A little history. Ireland has two main parties, Fianna Fáil (FF) and Fine Gael (FG). There is also a strong Labour Party. To summarize - and I'm dumbing it down a little to be concise - either FF wins on it's own, or FG and Labour wins with a coalition government. FF and FG have a very similar yet very different history. They were once a single party split by the idea of having the English monarch in Ireland. For this reason, neither party was really "left" or "right" of the other, but the co-operation with Labour over time has pulled FG to the left while FF has been allowed to drift to the right.

Now recent history. FF has been hurt by the recession, and it's perceived mismanagement of the situation. They have dropped like a rock in the polls, coming in third place by some counts. I've decided to run a poll average plus some trend and baselines and see if I can come up with a seat projection for the coming election. This is what I have.

FG - 57 (Gov)
FF - 43
Lab - 38 (Gov)
SC - 14
Grn - 8
Ind - 5
CC - 1

While there will errors in this count, of course, but it is a good rough guide as to what may happen when the election is called; of course, that could be 2012.

Sorry, no extra data today!

And so what of the ADQ?

2010-01-23T17:34:00.002-05:00

-

My last post on Quebec touches on the ADQ's problems, but what of them? What is next? Lets for a moment take a look at another provincial-only right-wing party. The Wildrose Alliance. They are, at the moment, polling for government in Alberta, but what of them before they became "hot"?

To fully understand what happened in Alberta, you have to go all the way back to the 1971 election of the PC Party. In 1971, and following this in 1975 and 1979, Social Credit remained the official opposition. In 1982, 2 members of the party started their own party, and managed to get re-elected, and take 12% of the vote. In 86 a western separatist party took 5% of the vote. In fact, outside of 89 and 2001, there has always been some kind of right-opposition in Alberta.

Lets glance back at Quebec for a moment. In 1985, the PC Party made an entrance, and took a whole 1% of the vote. In 1989, there was no major right-wing opponent to the Liberals, but outside of this, there also, like Alberta, been a right-wing opposition party. Recently, that has been the ADQ. Now, back to Alberta. In 1997 a man named Randy Thorsteinson lead the Alberta Social Credit party though an election and brought it to within spitting distance of the NDP. He later quit due to precived bias against him (he is Mormon) Thorsteinson went on to found the Alberta Alliance, which won a seat in the 2004 provincial election, electing Paul Hinman, also a Mormon. As the only MLA, Hinman went on to become leader. By the 2008 election, a new party, the Wildrose Party had spring up as another right-wing alternative. It had the big names, and big dollars, but lacked the grassroots organization and in-place party machine the Alberta Alliance did. The two decided to merge and throw in their chances with a single party. Although they came very close to re-electing Hinman, they failed. Now it is 2010. The party has a new leader, they found a seat for Hinman, have two floor crossers, and are polling near 40%.

So, what does this mean for Quebec? It means, in short, the ADQ may be dead in a few years, but the "ADQ" may yet take government. How? The same way Reform Party member Stephen Harper become Prime Minister. Though mergers, party re-branding, and other such things. There were roomers a few years ago that should Charest ever lose government, that the federal Conservatives would make a serious attempt to organize a provincial party in Quebec. How much water this holds is unknown, but the fact that it is a possibility does mean a possible bittersweet end to the ADQ. Clearly the ADQ was never able to move beyond Dumont, but one thing they did gain was a present party machine, and grassroots connections. Even if many of their supporters have drifted, those who were once "in the know" likely remember others "in the know" making connections easy to re-establish.

I for one feel that this is the path the ADQ is going to be heading down. Weather it changes it's name, or merges with some upstart party, I do not see the ADQ in it's current form lasting for very much longer, while at the same time I do not see the idea of a right-wing francophone opposition party vanishing any time soon.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Quebec

2010-01-22T22:10:00.003-05:00

- MORE BELOW THE FOLD!

Recently, over at 308.blogspot they've claimed that with current poll numbers, the ADQ could be eliminated from the map. I wanted to check to see just how true this was. They are currently sitting on near half the vote they took last time; halving their vote in every riding would indeed wipe them from the board. Only two of their MNA's have seats that they could realistically win in the next election, and that is presuming a strong showing. In reality, it is going to come down to weather or not their leader can hold on to his own seat. Right now it is not looking good.

So how are things looking for the other parties. Well lets examine this using Quebec's two 'communities'.

First, among francophone.
PQ - 50%
PLQ - 30%
QS - 8%
ADQ - 7%
PV - 4% (AKA the Greens)

And among non-francophones
PLQ - 77%
PV - 8%
PQ - 7%
QS - 3%
ADQ - 1%

When combined you get:

PQ - 41%
PLQ - 39%
QS - 7%
ADQ - 6%
PV - 5%

The most interesting thing to note here is not the lack of support for the PQ or ADQ among non-francophones, as this has always been the case, but the fact that the Green Party is #2 among this group. Perhaps it is of little real use, but interesting to note nonetheless.

Below the fold, regional breakdowns, as well federal information.

There is also a region by region breakdown. In the Montreal area...

PLQ - 40%
PQ - 37%
QS - 9%
PV - 7%
ADQ - 5%

in the Quebec city area...

PLQ - 37%
PQ - 35%
ADQ - 15% (this is good news fro them)
QS - 8%
PV - 4%

The last figure for the ADQ may mean they might be able to hold on to their seats, but it is iffy at best.

Federal numbers

BQ - 40%
Lib - 23%
CPC - 17%
NDP - 15%
Grn - 4%

Among Francophones

BQ - 48%
Lib - 18%
CPC - 15%
NDP - 15%
Grn - 3%

Among Non-Francophones

Lib - 43%
CPC - 22%
NDP - 19%
Grn - 8%
BQ - 7%

Again, we note the Greens do better among non-francohphones

Montreal

BQ - 36%
Lib - 27%
NDP - 18%
CPC - 12%
Grn - 6%

And Quebec City

CPC - 30%
BQ - 30%
NDP - 20%
Lib - 14%
Grn - 4%

Update

2010-01-22T21:28:00.001-05:00

-

CPC - 133
Lib - 91
BQ - 48
NDP - 36

No commentary

Sorry, no extra data today!

TO Mayor - Rossi attacks transit

2010-01-22T16:29:00.001-05:00

-

Rocco Rossi has finally positioned himself in the race for mayor, and has put himself exactly where we put on a week ago, on the right.

Rossi has come out swinging against the evils of public transit (how dare we help those who cannot afford cars!) and has used the same pathetic excuse to kill it that politicians like Mike Harris did to permanently stop transit projects in this city, saying that its only "temporary" thing until we "have the money" Or, reading it more properly, until we have EXTRA money... since when does government ever have "extra" money? Never, and that's precisely when Rossi wishes to build our public transit improvements.

Sorry, no extra data today!

A little Randomness

2010-01-20T05:14:00.002-05:00

<- Click here to see the full post

Every once in a while I like to do a random post of personal interest to myself. I will hide the details below the fold, but in short, this post is about overpopulation and arable land.

I've taken the amount of arable land, and applied an arbitrary number to it based on my personal observations, and decided that 1 sq KM of land can support 1,000 people. Using this as a base, I decided to find out which countries are over populated. Using some stats from Wikipedia, I've put the results below.

First note that I've decided to only use countries with over a million people, and even then to only list a few of them that are of particular interest. and even then, only note ones that are overpopulated (or underpopulated) by a good margin. Note the percentage noted is the inverse of the population that can be supported. Hence, a nation that can support 1 million, but has 10 million, will be listed as 90%.

Overpopulated by
Gaza Strip - 92.44%
Israel - 52.42%
Switzerland - 47.38%
Belgium - 19.90%
Ecuador - 99.64%
Netherlands - 54.65%
South Korea - 66.53%
United Kingdom - 7.15%
Egypt - 62.52%
Japan - 65.80%
Bangladesh - 48.61%

And some countries are, by these numbers, underpopulated. Here is a list of those.
Iraq - 117%
Afghanistan - 162%
France - 201%
Brazil - 214%
United States - 458%
Canada - 1,183%
Australia - 2,231%

And lastly, if the countries had as many people as they could "support" they would have this many people, above and beyond their current population.

USA - 1,354 million
Russia - 1,075
Australia - 448
Brazil - 400
Canada - 383
India - 358

Provinces

2010-01-18T23:48:00.002-05:00

-

A short update on the provinces.

Ontario -
Toronto Centre is currently vacant, and Ottawa West-Nepean will be soon. Both MPP's are running for mayor, and both will likely be replaced by Liberals, though there is a chance the Tories can steal the latter.

Current official party standings are...
Lib - 71
PC - 25
NDP - 10
Vac - 1

Quebec
The members who quit the ADQ because of it's now former leader have yet to re-join the party, if they will at all.

PLQ - 66
PQ - 51
ADQ - 4
QS - 1
IND - 3

British Columbia
The seatless Conservatives have been doing somewhat well in recent polls.

BCL - 49
NDP - 35
IND - 1

Alberta
Expetations are that the Alliance will either win government or opposition in the next election.

PC - 68
Lib - 9
WAP - 3
NDP - 2
IND - 1

Manitoba
The lone vacant riding is solid NDP.

NDP - 35
PC - 19
Lib - 2
Vac - 1

Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan Party continues to lead in the polls.

Sask - 38
NDP - 20

Nova Scotia
PC Party to elect a new leader in October

NDP - 32
Lib - 11
PC - 9

New Brunswick
The Liberals are trailing in the polls, perhaps more than any other incumbent government. Word is that the new user fee for ambulance usage is an issue.

Lib - 33
PC - 22

Newfoundland
Williams remains popular.

PC - 43
Lib - 4
NDP - 1

Prince Edward Island
The Tories may finally pick a leader this year, but the chances of that are low. They've had an interim leader for 3 years now.

Lib - 24
PC - 3

While on the topic of Other Legislatures in Canada, we may as well take a quick glance at the Senate.
This wikipedia page (Parts of which I created) explains the situation very well.

CPC - 46
Lib - 49
PC - 2
IND - 3 (including Anne Cools)
VAC - 5

There are no retirements before Parliament returns, and presuming Harper appoints new senators, the standings at that time will be:

CPC - 51
Lib - 49
PC - 2
IND - 3

Sorry, no extra data today!

TO Mayor 2010

2010-01-15T16:13:00.000-05:00

-

A picture is worth 1000 words.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Tories take hit

2010-01-14T21:59:00.000-05:00

-

Current projection
CPC - 135
Lib - 87
BQ - 48
NDP - 38

No commentary

Sorry, no extra data today!

Toronto, first poll!

2010-01-14T07:46:00.002-05:00

-

A new poll has come out ranking who people would vote for Mayor in Toronto. The results are as follows:

Smitherman - 44%
Giambrone - 17%
Rossi - 15%
Pantalone - 5%
Mammoliti - 4%

The poll states that 58%, however, were undecided, so the real base numbers are as follows:

Smitherman - 18%
Giambrone - 7%
Rossi - 6%
Pantalone - 2%
Mammoliti - 2%
I'm also going to add:
Minnan-Wong - 2%

Rossi, due to Tory's departure, can have a real run. I still maintain that you can't have three successful NDPers in the race, and that Mammoliti is the one set for a drop. Pantalone, and Minnan-Wong, I think, are under-rated.

So where do I see the race at this time? IE- if people truly knew all the candidates? Simple. Right here:

Smitherman - (L) - 38%
Pantalone - (N) - 18%
Rossi - (L) - 15%
Giambrone - (N) - 15%
Minnan-Wong - (C) - 12%
Mammoliti - (N) - 2%

I can see Mammoliti dropping rather than being embarrassed so badly.

Needless to say, Smitherman, at this time, has a good lead.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Projection Update

2010-01-07T17:21:00.002-05:00

-

Our first official projection update in a while, but they confirm what we've been saying, that not much has changed.

CPC - 142
Lib - 81
BQ - 47
NDP - 38

Regions:

Atlantic
CPC - 14
Lib - 12
NDP - 6

Quebec:
BQ - 47
Lib - 18
CPC - 9
NDP - 1

Ontario:
CPC - 49
Lib - 42
NDP - 15

Central Prairies:
CPC - 23
NDP - 3
Lib - 2

Alberta:
CPC - 27
NDP - 1

BC:
CPC - 19
NDP - 11
Lib - 6

Sorry, no extra data today!

Tory not to run for Mayor of TO

2010-01-07T02:12:00.003-05:00

-

Thats the roomer according to the Toronto Star. I mentioned the possibility in my earlier post - what is the point of losing yet again? His weight now will come with his endorsement. If he endorses Minnan-Wong, suddenly he becomes the leading right-wing candidate for Mayor, and replaces Tory. If, and people may think this is silly, but it is still possible, he endorses Smitherman, it could vault him into an even further lead.

If the latter happens, I say it will be bad for Smitherman. Why? The campaign will turn into a Smitherman VS Not-Smitherman, and with no evidence that he could win such a race, whomever comes out as the top Not-Smitherman will win.

Who is this good for? Rossi, without a doubt. There is now space for a blue liberal / red tory to run. Rossi, who's connections are by in large the same connections John Tory has, can use that to pull himself on to a level playing field.

As of today (and remember, a week is a long time in politics) I can see Smitherman and Pantalone both topping 30%, but the winner taking less than 35%.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Two Alberta PC members defect to Alliance

2010-01-05T03:34:00.002-05:00

-

Two Calgary area MLA's have defected to the Wildrose Alliance. This news story:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2010/01/04/calgary-mlas-conservative-wildrose-alliance.html
explains the details. In short, the Wildrose Alliance now has 3 MLAs, displacing the NDP as the third largest party in the legislature. I for one am surprised, I thought that the window for defections had passed.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Toronto, 2010

2010-01-03T05:18:00.005-05:00

<- Click here to read more!!

I decided to take the current wikipedia page for the 2010 Toronto Municipal Election and rate the candidates they have listed. This, is what I came up with.

You will notice two "F"s. One candidate is the former last placed candidate. When I ran in the 2006 Toronto Municipal Election in Ward 19 I was able to win 511 votes in just the ward, while he did not top 200 city wide. For this reason I do not consider him a serious candidate to win. Another F on the table is "Pinball Clemons" who is not a Canadian, and therefore cannot run.

One thing that stands out is the large number of NDPers who may try to replace current mayor David Miller (also of the NDP). Many people think of Toronto as a large "NDP" municipal entity, but the reality is that Toronto has only ever had three real "NDP" mayors. John Sewell, Barbara Hall (who since has become a Liberal), and David Miller (who has been publicly supporting the Green Party recently). NDPers have much more luck getting elected to council. Due to the very crowded NDP field, some candidates, like Olivia Chow, may decide not to run at all, and this is exactly what I project her to do. Frances Lankin, while known, is not as high profile as some of the other NDP candidates. Mammoliti and even Nash suffer from this as well. The one thing the NDP has been known for is running a single candidate, and if Pantalone and/or Giambrone run, there will be great pressure on these two to drop out of the race.

On the right, Rob Ford gets a low rating because his politics is more in line with the former Canadian Alliance party, which never came close to winning even a single seat in Toronto. Denzil Minnan-Wong, while to the right of the remaining candidates, has done quite a bit of work to position himself as the unofficial "Opposition Leader" to David Miller, and that may pay off. Micheal Thompson, while not as politically astute as Minnan-Wong, is African-Canadian, and may try to tap into that voter bloc. Thompson, as well, is from Scarborough, while all the other remaining serious candidates are from either the former city of Toronto, or North York.

For the Liberals, we have a trio of candidates. Rosco Rossi has positioned himself as the "Official" Liberal Candidate, and that is very clear. This is similar to 06 when Stephen LeDrew, fresh off being the President of the Federal Liberal Party ran for mayor. While LeDrew finished with less than 2% of the vote, he did finish third. Rossi will make all the lists the media makes, and will be interviewed quite often. He could well count on 5% of the vote, but getting beyond that will be difficult. He will vacuum up all the voters looking for a grit to park their ballot with, and as a result, may harm fellow Liberal Shelly Carrol's chances. With more left of centre candidates running than right of centre candidates, Carrol could be squeezed out, and with bigger names putting their names into the hat, I don't foresee her pulling off a victory.

The final two candidates are Liberal George Smitherman and Tory John Tory (that was not a pun). The Media have decided these are the two front runners and so, as we enter the election, they are. This does not mean either of them will win. Remember that the last Federal Liberal leadership race was between Rate and Iggy, and Dion won. In Alberta, the former "third placed" candidate for the PC Party leadership is now the Premier. With such a crowded field, there is no guarantee either of these two will win.

A closer analysis of the "serious" candidates is included below.

What we end up with is the following list.

George Smitherman - Liberal
John Tory - PC
Joe Pantalone - NDP
Denzil Minnan-Wong - Conservative
Adam Giambrone - NDP
Michael Thompson - PC

Lets go one by one.
Pantalone has been in municipal politics for 25 years, and is the most experienced on the list. As David Miller's Deputy Mayor, he could be seen as the "successor" to Miller's legacy, for better or for worse. Pantalone comes across as one of the "Scary NDP" types that the right-wingers branded David Miller as. He had the highest council expense tab, but countered saying his assistants have followed him though the years and are very experienced. After 25 years, one could call him a career politician. Pantalone has the best chances of getting the unofficial NDP nod, and the other players would hope he does. He is a known quantity, and there would not be the need to "dig up dirt" on him, or invent new attack lines - the old and existing ones will work fine. Pantalone's attitude towards his job seems very similar to Miller's and as such a Pantalone victory would be more "business as usual" with regard to how Toronto has been run over the past 7 years.

Adam Giambrone is 33. Despite this relatively young age, he has managed to serve as federal New Democratic Party President, and is currently the chair of the TTC, the largest transit system in the country. Giambrone has taken his work very seriously, and has been able to remain relatively "clean", though he has had his run ins with trouble. In 2009 he sent an e-mail to a Councillor from a neighboring ward warning him to steer clear of his business. Giambrone is on the up, unlike Pantalone who is looking to put a cap on his career. A successful run for Mayor followed by a successful term could lead to the leadership of the Federal New Democrats, Provincial New Democrats, or should the province return to old voting trends, the Premier's chair. Giambrone may run regardless of what Pantalone does, and if he does he could pose a threat to the Conservatives and Liberals as he is much harder to attack. Giambrone is clearly viewed as the most pro transit of the candidates.

Michael Thompson is the city Councillor perhaps best known for suggesting that Toronto Police should be able to stop black teenagers in black neighborhoods looking for guns. Making the comment more notable is the fact that Thompson is himself black. Thompson is the least known of the others on the short list but his name does appear in the newspapers. Quite often the media will come to him for comment, or note that he is one of a group of Councillors doing something. When asked, however, most Torontonians likely could not tell you much about Michael Thompson. This lack of information can serve him well. Being the only major candidate for Mayor from Scarborough since the mega city was created over a decade ago could garner him votes from that part of the city. Being a visible minority may garner him votes from that minority, despite the fact that his tough law-and-order stances are often out of line with the city as a whole. Thompson is also not as politically astute as the others, and he may yet prove to have a Mel Lastman like tendency to speak off the cuff and get himself in hot water.

Denzil Minnan-Wong is the most right wing person on the short list. More than that, Minnan-Wong is right wing in a way that separates him from past "right wingers". Stephen Harper recently commented that he does not wish to cut transfers to persons or province, but rather, wants to cut salaries of government workers. It is this 'new right' sort of thinking that Minnan-Wong shows in his policies. Minnan-Wong focuses on tax cuts and cutting the 'gunk' out of city government. Over the past three years, Minnan-Wong has done everything in his power to become the visible opposition leader to David Miller. While right wing, Minnan-Wong is not exactly the same kind of "right wing" that tends to scare urban voters. He focuses on talking about tax cuts, not service cuts, on streamlining departments, not eliminating them. Despite this, if elected Minnan-Wong would be the most right wing mayor Toronto has had in the modern era. With solid ideas and a clear direction, Minnan-Wong is least likely to be lead around by City Council, and is the most likely to conflict with it. He comes across as the "Change" Candidate. Weather or not Toronto wants the kind of change he brings remains to be seen.

George Smitherman is gay. That is one of the first things that people will tell you about him. He also used to be Deputy Premier, Miniter of Health, and the Minister of Energy. Unfortunately, he was Deputy Premier when the HST was proposed, Miniter of Health during the C. Difficile issue, and Minister in charge of the OLG during it's recently scandals. Smitherman lies on the left of the Liberal party, and this has often put him at odds with Dalton McGunity, who lies on the right. Smitherman's biggest problem, perhaps, is that he has a tendency to come across as a little 'slick'. When the scandals of the past are taken into account, Smitherman can appear to be 'one of those Politicians only out for himself'. While this will not put him down against Tory or Patnalone, it could hurt his chances of the race boils down to Smitherman vs Giambrone, Thompson, or Minnan-Wong. Currently, Smitherman can be considered the "Front Runner".

John Tory is running again. Perhaps best known for losing, he has lost the 2007 provincial election and the 2003 municipal election. Tory currently hosts a radio show and the idea of losing yet again may push him not to run. My gut says he will, with such a crowded field he could squeak in even on a quarter of the vote. Tory is the most centrist of the candidates, but in recent years has appeared to drift to the right. Tory is known for his rivalry, real or imagined, with George Smitherman. Much as Smitherman appears as a "politician" so does Tory. Tory is a very well known quantity, and likely has more name recognition than any other candidate. Tory is also perhaps the only candidate who's endorsement could be very important. Mayoral elections in Toronto usually boil down in one of three ways. PC vs NDP. Liberal VS NDP. Or PC VS Liberal. Smitherman, endorsement or no endorsement, will lead the Liberals. Pantalone and Giambrone are well known as NDPers, an endorsement from one of the other will mean little. Even a Smitherman endorsement of some other Liberal will likely mean naught as we would likely head to a PC vs NDP race. Should Tory endorse either Minnan-Wong or Thompson, however, it would vault that candidate into a clear second place against Smitherman. Win or not, John Tory will have the most impact on the race.

To review, in summary, we have four groups of three.

Right Wingers: Minnan-Wong, Tory, Thompson
Left Wingers: Smitherman, Giambrone, Pantalone

Reformers: Giambrone, Minnan-Wong, Thompson
Politicians: Pantalone, Smitherman, Tory

So, where will the chips fall at the end of the day? Toronto has a history of electing Reformers to office, but at the same time the current top three candidates are all very "politician" like. My gut says that the Thompson campaign will fall by the wayside as things go on, and that Giambrone may not even run. If this is the case, it could well be a real four man race to the finish line, with Tory, Smitherman, Pantalone, and Minnan-Wong each having a good chance of winning, each representing one of the four main parties (with the federal and provincial Tories seen as different). Together, I project they would clear 85% of the vote, and that the winner may end up with a final total of 30%. I also see that there could be changes to the way Toronto elects its Mayors if this does happen, especially if Minnan-Wong wins.

All that being said, remember that a week is an eternity in politics. Things will happen between now and the election on October 25th that we just don't know yet. Which lesser candidates run and drop can also have a major impact on the final result. We will keep an eye on what is going on and keep you up to date.

~Teddy

US Third Party Politicians

2010-01-01T15:09:00.003-05:00

-

In Canada, it is somewhat rare to find a legislature with only two parties represented.
At the moment, four provinces (BC, SK, PE, NB) qualify. In the US however, it is rare for anyone except a Democrat or a Republican to get elected. Independents do win. Joe Lieberman, for example. Technically, he leads his own statewide party that nominates only him, but in reality of course, he is an Independent. I decided to take a quick look to find third party elected politicians in the US.

First, former members. A Green was elected to the state house in Maine and a member of the Constitution Party in Montana. Neither members currently hold seats. A Green was elected in Arkansas, but defected to the Democrats.

There are only two states with current real third party members that have been elected to the legislature. In New York, the state assembly has four parties. Along with the D's and the R's, there is a member of the "Working Families" party. The party is generally moderately left wing. There are also members of New York's "Independence Party", which descended from the 1992 presidential bid of Ross Perot. The party is right wing. One member was elected from this party and another has defected from the Republicans. The member for the WFP is from Long Island and the original member from the IP is from up state.

The only other state with third party members is Vermont. There, a strong "Progressive Party" has won seats for the past number of years. They currently have one State Senator, from Burlington, the state capital. In the state house, there are 5 members from the Progressive Party, from all over the state. Although Bernie Sanders has never returned the affection, the Progressives have been his biggest supporters. Sanders, currently, is a United States Senator from Vermont and officially sits as an Independent. The Progressives could be considered NDP-like in terms of policy.

Sorry, no extra data today!

My personal thoughts

2009-12-31T10:30:00.002-05:00

-

So Harper has prorogued Parliament. Is he running away from the opposition? You are damn right he is. I may have voted for him in 2006, but I certainly did not in 2008. He's done many things to make me, 'cross', lets say.

Harper plans to appoint at least 5 new Senators and get some form of Senate Reform though the Senate at least. I don't know if he can pass it though the house, but there are good chances he can, somehow.

While I disagree with many of the things he's done, I do see, from my own numbers, that he is headed towards a Majority. So, what do I think of that?

I think it's just fine.

Why? Is Harper not a threat to Democracy?

Perhaps he is, but chances are he's not. People said the same thing about Chretien (read "The Friendly Dictator") and Mulroney, and Trudeau, and just about any other PM with a Majority. I really don't think Harper is 'evil' at heart, or that he would pass a bill ending Democracy. Come on, that is ridiculous. He will do, as every PM, Liberal or Tory, has done, and use his powers to unfairly block things bad for his polling numbers. He will take advantage of power and use it to boost his own party. This is not shocking news, the Liberals and PC Party are masters at this, even the NDP in BC dabbled in the practice. One reason why many people do find it shocking is Harper's Reform roots. That's gone now, clearly, and what once appeared (in 2003) to be a Reform takeover of the PC Party, has come out (in 2009) to be just the opposite. Harper was never a small r reformer, he's always been a small c conservative, and now he's a big C Conservative too.

I don't consider myself to be either a Conservative or a conservative. I do like to think of myself as a reformer (small r) and a liberal (small l) and a Green (big G). I do, however, know history. I also know that stability is important. Having 4 more years of a Harper minority and the instability it brings will hurt Canada far more than having 4 years of a Harper majority. A Harper Majority puts the country on a singular and clear path, giving him and his men control over the levers for long enough to implement policy, and see it though. Even if it's not policy I agree with, I do think that it should be given a fair shot to succeed or fail on it's own merits. If it fails, any good government would abandon it, and any bad government will be voted out of office. If it's good policy, than I will be surprised.

Regardless, my point is that 4 years with Dictator Harper is not going to destroy Canada, despite the rhetoric, and perhaps its time to just "get it over with" so that we can watch him fail, and return to another decade of competent Liberal governance, with a new leader who can actually inspire people for a change.

~Teddy

Sorry, no extra data today!

Parliament Prorogued.

2009-12-31T10:27:00.002-05:00

-

Until the start of March.
I declare now that we will try our best to have a real website up and running by the time Parliament resumed. Until then we may see reduced posting levels here. I will, however, over the next few days do a final09/first10 projection using recent polling numbers.

~Teddy

Sorry, no extra data today!

End of the year

2009-12-28T01:58:00.002-05:00

-

This will be a shorter post. It is the end of 2009, so where do we stand? The answer is that we are in a very similar place to where we were at the end of 2008. The only real differences are in the Liberal Party.

Dion is gone and Iggy has taken his place. While they shared similar polling numbers, Dion was tested by the electorate while Iggy has not yet been. When the 2008 campaign started, polls had said we could expect a 2006 like result, but Dion's fumbles lead us to something different. Iggy could well do better, or worse. He is the only real change on the political landscape.

The only other changes of note are economic. Harper managed to maintain a lead throughout most of the year despite a severe recession. With a bounce back expected, he could well see his poll numbers rise.

Sorry, no extra data today!

The next election

2009-12-20T02:25:00.002-05:00

-

The question everyone comes here to find out is what will happen in the next election.

The answer, as far as we can tell, is that Stephen Harper will win a majority.

Over the past year, Canadians have become more comfortable with the idea for a Harper majority, even if the Tories continue to make mistakes (so would the Liberals)

Ignatieff did catch the public's imagination for quite a while, but after he dropped off the radar, the idea of Harper winning a majority now seems almost inevitable.

If Harper is going to win why is he currently not polling at majority levels? The answer is that Canadians are still looking for another answer. People are not paying attention to the polls right now, they are buying x-mas presents for their children. When an election starts and people focus in, they will see how close Harper is (always within 15 seats) they will realize that he will win no matter what, and that they 'might as well just' give him a majority.

Of course, things can change, but at this moment, Harper looks set to win a majority in the coming spring or fall election.

So what does this mean? Well for one thing it is great news for Harper. It is bad news for those who are currently in a good position to be elected as Tory Leader (and lets face it, at this point that list is very short. Prentice, Flaherty, Kenney, and that's about it) but it is good news for the other possibilities who may be in a better position to challenge in 4 years; MacKay, and Day are two possibilities. Bernard Lord comes to mind, even Jean Charest if he can wiggle out of the Premier's office before his party loses to the PQ. With 4 years of good service in cabinet, Bernier, Barid, Van Loan, and Cannon all could make a solid run.

This is likely good news for the Bloc, as Harper would be much easier to skewer than Ignatieff would be, or Harper's replacement should he dare win yet another minority. The NDP also benefits as the country will move further away from how they want it to be, giving them more ammo in the following election. Both parties will also be free to pick a new leader, which they both likely will do in a few years regardless.

For the Liberals this can be a good thing. It gives them an excuse to sit down and take the party apart before putting it back together again. It is bad news for Ignatieff, who will be out, and also for the current "old guard" but great news for people like Justin Trudeau. Trudeau is currently "too young" to be a realistic contender for the leadership in these difficult times, but facing a Harper Majority, there is a good chance the Liberal Party will be willing to 'take a chance on a Trudeau' again and give him a good 2-3 years as opposition leader without the risk of an election.

Lastly, this is good news for Canada as a whole. Minority parliaments, while useful, often serve to only amplify the divisions that exist in this country. Whatever the Tories do while in office, it will be consistent to a single ideology. Rather than sitting and spinning our wheels, we will start moving somewhere. Weather that is a place Canadians want to go, however, is another question for another time.

Sorry, no extra data today!

More updates

2009-12-16T18:11:00.004-05:00

-

Updates on various items.

Quick update on the Senate, just to note, if Harper pulled the "Mulroney 8 senators thing" he would have a Majority instantly.

In the provinces.

In Nova Scotia, and Manitoba, the NDP government continues to lead the polls.
In Prince Edward Island, the Liberal government continues to lead.
In Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, the Tories continue to lead, though in Saskatchewan they call their Tories the "Saskatchewan Party"
When averaged out, the following provinces are currently horse-races.
BC, between the Liberals and the NDP
Alberta, between the PC Party and the Alliance
Ontario and New Brunswick, between the Liberals and the PC Party
Quebec, between the Liberals and the PQ

Sorry, no extra data today!

Senate Update

2009-12-15T00:34:00.003-05:00

-

As of this moment, in the Senate we have...

Lib - 50
Con - 46
Oth - 5
Vac - 4

Which means that if Harper were to appoint new Senators, that the Tories would have the same number of Senators as the Liberals. 2011 is still the date for the Tories to gain a majority in the chamber.

The "Other" column includes Independents, and "Progressive Conservatives" who are effective Independents.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Alberta

2009-12-13T03:43:00.003-05:00

-

A quick review on the situation in Alberta. Everyone is buzzing about a new poll showing the Alliance in first place. I ran the numbers though my mini Alberta ElectoMatic, and got the following results:

WAP - 47
ALP - 22
PC - 10
NDP - 4

Now I caution, that this is a single-poll projection, and hence, should be taken with a grain of salt.

However, since October, we've had 4 polls; so lets run them though the matrix to get a much more solid projection.

PC - 39 - 35.5%
WAP - 24 - 30.7%
ALP - 16 - 23.2%
NDP - 4 - 10.5%

So why is the Alliance doing so "bad"? Same reason the PC Party does "bad" in our single-poll projection. Their vote is too spread out. The single poll does go out of it's way to note the Alliance is leading in all rural areas plus the cities. What this will translate to on the ground is many strong second places. In order to win, the party needs to solidify its vote, or, just plain get more votes.

You may also notice that comments are now moderated. This is due to a recent spam attack.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Moving to a website, eventually

2009-12-11T11:05:00.000-05:00

-

I have some good news and some bad news.

I've decided to reveal the "big news" - that we will be moving niXtuff to a real .com website. The bad news is that GoDaddy, PayPal, and my bank do not seem to get along well. I do not have a credit card and due to that it may be impossible for me to get a website. I am working on this, however, and will let you all know more when I know more.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Please, call me Teddy

2009-12-08T00:02:00.002-05:00

-

Along with the news from yesterday, a request. While my real name is Nick J Boragina, online, people know me as "Teddy". Hence, please refer to me as such.

Also, on the update front, with few polls showing little change, our projection remains unchanged.
The Tories remain between 140-150
The Liberals remain between 80-90
The Bloc remains between 45-50
and the NDP remains between 30-35

A province-by-province update will come out later this week.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Huge news!

2009-12-06T23:56:00.003-05:00

-

Sometime over the new few weeks I will have a huge announcement to make with regards to niXtuff. I hope to be able to do so tomorrow, but may not have everything ready by then.

I cannot wait to let everyone in on what's coming!

Sorry, no extra data today!

Update

2009-12-03T02:27:00.002-05:00

-

Quick update before we get back to full speed.

CPC - 144
Lib - 89
BQ - 46
NDP - 29

No commentary.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Advertisments

2009-11-26T09:43:00.000-05:00

-

Good news and bad news. The good news is that I will be ramping up the level of posts, the bad news (to some) is that I will be putting a limited number of advertisements on the blog. Speaking of which does anyone know how to make Project Wonderful ads work with blogspot?

Sorry, no extra data today!

Down and Up

2009-11-22T06:44:00.004-05:00

-

With the threat of an election before the new year being at an all-time low, I am announcing that niXtuff will be going on a roller-coaster ride. First, we will be going down. Activity will slow; but worry not, this is not the end. I will continue to update projections when possible, but will not focus on the visible.

What I will be doing is behind the scenes work. I will refine the ElectoMatic, and likely, release it to the public after the next election (If it works as well as I think it will, everyone will want a copy)

I am also looking to moving to a real website, and not a free blogger site. I will, of course, keep you updated.

We will have our grand re-opening on January 1st 2010.

To entertain you until then, and beyond, I strongly recommend reading this graphic novel / web comic

Sorry, no extra data today!

Class 2 Transportation Emergency ends

2009-11-18T20:39:00.000-05:00

-

All back in order in Toronto.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Toronto - Class 2 Transportation Situation

2009-11-18T19:34:00.003-05:00

-

I'm declaring a Class 2 Transportation Situation in Toronto.

The subway is down from Bloor to Eglinton, and was down during Rush hour.

More on our classes.

Class 1 - Total disruption of a Major route (Yonge Subway, 401, Lakeshore West) for both peak transportation periods. Example: When the city blew up.

Class 2 - Total disruption of a Major route during at least one peak period. Example: The unfortunate accident near Lawrence Station that took a life last year.

Class 3 - Partial disruption of a Major route or Total disruption of a Busy route (IE Eglinton West bus, Allen expressway, Sroufville GO line) during a peak period, or a class 2 incident outside of peak.

Class 4 - Partial disruption of a busy route, or total disruption of a minor route (IE Sheppard East, in Scarborough) during a peak period, or a class 3 incident outside of peak.

Class 5 - All other transportation emergencies.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Sorry

2009-11-17T23:46:00.002-05:00

-

Sorry for the lack of updates recently. Life.

In general, polls have not changed much, meaning our projection will not change much.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Web Comic

2009-11-14T00:25:00.002-05:00

-

A personal post.

I have a webcomic now apparently... I'm more surprised than you! http://nixtuffcomix.webs.com/

Sorry, no extra data today!

ADQ or NAUDQ

2009-11-12T11:58:00.002-05:00

-

More news about the ADQ. The ADQ, who's name in english translates, roughly, to the Democratic Action Party, has managed to be un democratic without taking any actions at all. The Non-Action Un-Democratic party of Quebec, last we saw, was on the table in the OR waiting to be shocked by the docs. Well it got it's shock, and the news it, its not going to make it.

Newly Minted ADQ leader Gilles Taillon has decided to call it quits. The longtime ADQ leader has been embroiled in controversy since he took over the helm. First, his margin of victory over his main rival was two votes, one of which was cast by a Quebec satire TV show. His main rival then came up with some BS excuse to quit the caucus and did so, bringing a pal along.

The long and the short of it is that the ADQ has always been tied to the right. Stockwell Day, while leader of the Canadian Alliance, sent out feelers to the party, and even this very minor back room lip service helped him to beat out the PC Party by 2 points in the province. Harper at first kept his distance - and won 0 seats in the province - then decided to work with the ADQ, winning nearly a dozen seats, and polling, at times, neck and neck with the Bloc. The ADQ in return for this cozy arrangement went from 4 to 41 MNAs and formed the official opposition. Taillon, it appears, did not like this buddy-buddy deal, and wanted to distance the ADQ from the federal Tories. This, it seems, was his undoing.

What happens now is actually pretty clear. Gerard Deltell will, in a short amount of time, be crowned ADQ leader. Caire and Picard will rejoin the caucus, and all will be right again. Or perhaps not.

The ADQ is going to take a hit for all of this. A big hit. I for one expect the party will have trouble finding 100 candidates for Quebec's 125 ridings. The ADQ will remain a third option for Francophones outside of Montreal, but will be just that, the third option. QS will remain the alternative for Montrealers, and Vert/Greens will remain the alternative for anglophones province wide.

The only good news is that Deltell's riding is the most secure riding for the ADQ in the province. Meaning that when he faces the next election, he has a 50-50 chance of getting a single ADQer back into the assembly. Perhaps then, the ADQ can start the rebuilding process.

Sorry, no extra data today!

By-Elections

2009-11-09T23:52:00.003-05:00

-

In Cumberland in NS, the Tories have won with about 45% over the NDP at 25%. This is what the ElectoMatic was suggesting.

In Hoch. the Bloc won with the NDP in second, narrowly ahead of the Liberals; again in line with the ElectoMatic.

In Montm. the Tories won, something that the ElectoMatic did not forsee at all, though as noted in my earlier projection there is a strong right-wing base in the riding.

In New West. in BC, the NDP is cruising towards a victory of a larger margin than projected by the ElectoMatic.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Alberta Projection

2009-11-08T11:56:00.002-05:00

-

I finally ran the numbers though the wringer. According to the most recent poll, I have the following results:

PC - 52
WAP - 19
Lib - 9
NDP - 3

Why would the PC Party retain a majority? Because the PC votes and the Alliance vote are very similar. There are dozens of ridings the PC Party is winning here by 5%-10% over the Alliance, meaning much of that vote is being wasted. More to come.

Sorry, no extra data today!

More on Transit

2009-11-08T01:52:00.002-05:00

<- Click here to see the full post

This post contains information about the changes due to the busway, and information on accessibility within the TTCs various routes.

With the new accessible routes, more and more of the TTC network is becoming accessible. It is become so widespread that it is easier to list the non-accessible routes than it is to do the opposite. So which routes are non-accessible? Other than the three seeing changes on November 22nd, we have...

All the streetcar routes.

Express routes 142 and 141. Night routes 312 St. Clair, and 352 Lawrence West. As well as the following daytime routes:

6 Bay
52 Lawrence West
59 Maple Leaf
171 Mount Dennis
77 Sweansea
90 Vaughan
71 Runnymeade
117 Alness
160 Bathurst North
33 Forrest Hill
196 York University Rocket

Of these...
171 is a public bus route, but it's primary purpose is to be an 'employee shuttle' getting TTC workers to and from the Mount Dennis bus garage.
160 Bathurst North mirrors two bus routes that are accessible. 196 Rocket is a short cut of a route that is accessible. 77 and 71 bus routes interline with one another, so if one is to be made accessible, the other would have to be as well. 117 goes deep into an industrial area, but the 105 bus, which is accessible, mirrors it on the main drag.

This leaves us with the following.

6 Bay.
This route runs downtown, and is one of the few buses to do so. Most other downtown routes are rail based, either streetcar, subway, or GO Train. 6 Bay is the weak link in the system. Streetcars are not accessible, and many downtown stations are not either. Bay is not far from Yonge, and there is no Yonge bus for most of the day. Making this route accessible would be a very important step towards making the city accessible. The problem is that the bus garage that this bus route operates out of is the newest of the garages, and hence, had last pick of equipment at the time of the move. Hopefully some of the newly ordered accessible buses will go to that garage, and then to this route.

52 Lawrence West.
This is one of the more 'main' routes of the TTC network. While it's sister route, 58 Malton, may be accessible, the fact that this route is not does leave gaps in the network. This route certainly should be a priority.

77/71 Runnymeade. 33 Forrest Hill. 90 Vaughan. 59 Maple Leaf.
All these routes are physically close to accessible routes, but are not themselves. All of them run through residential areas, and connect those areas to areas for shopping or working. They may find that they are the last to be converted.

Also in this recent set of service changes are changes due to the busway to York University opening. The 196 Rocket and VIVA Orange will change, of course, to use this new busway. What may be of interest is that other routes will be changing as well. In order to get the most out of the new busway, a new exit/entrance to Downsview station has been built that empties right on to Allen Road. Due to this there are a few changes. The 105 Dufferin North will use this new entrance, and therefore, not run along Wilson Heights Blvd at all. 117 Alness will also use this new entrance and not Wilson Heights. The biggest change is going to occur to the 104 Faywood route. This route will now head from Wilson to Finch, then down Dufferin to Wilson Heights, and finally down to Downsview. It will connect the two stations but go out of it's way to do so. This requires the removal of service on Overbrook (at least it will once the gaping hole in Finch is fixed) It also means reduced service levels on Wilson Heights. The fact that it connects two subway stations, however, can be a bonus. I personally recommend using it to transit between the two in the event of subway disruptions (as the replacement shuttles would likely be full to the brim of people who do not read this blog!)

Blog Announcement: Public Transit

2009-11-08T01:25:00.003-05:00

<- Click here to see the full post

I've decided to make a change to this blog.

One blog I read often is Steve Munro .ca Over there Steve talks about Transit, but every once in a while does a review of plays and movies. I am not interested in either of those two, but rather read his blog due to this focus on Transit. He is free to post about what he wants, as it's his blog.

Well, this is my blog, and I've decided to put the new "Read More" option to good use. I will, from time to time, make posts regarding Public Transit in Toronto and elsewhere. I will, however, hide them 'below the fold' so that those who do not wish to read them will not have to. To begin, our first story, below the fold.

The TTC in what has become an unusual move, has put out it's service changes early. Also early is the Official Service Summary, a technical document explaining the workings of each route in numbers. This document is useful for anyone who wants to know how "frequent" that "frequent service" bus really is. For the record, a "headway" is the time between when the front bumper of one vehicle passes a point, and the front bumper of the next vehicle passes the same point. Due to red lights and traffic it's idealized, of course, but it is a good guidepost to go by.

There are not many changes to look at. In November we get some bike racks, and a few diversions ending. The Bathurst streetcar gets two new trips, southbound, on sunday, in the morning. The only route with a 'true' improvement is my home bus route, 106 York University, which goes back to its last-winter headway of 8 minutes and 15 seconds in the morning peak. The afternoon peak also will see an improvement. In December, the St. Clair streetcar will run from Yonge St to Lansdowne, leaving a much smaller Lansdowne to Keele area for shuttle buses to cover.

Beyond this, we gain some new accessible routes. 107 Keele North, 10 Van Horne, and 89 Weston will now all run accessible low floor buses (or high floor buses with lifts) at all times of the day. Remember, this starts November 22nd.

The last change is due to the busway to York University. A closer examination of the busway and accessible services is in the next post.

Stelmach sticking around

2009-11-07T23:44:00.002-05:00

-

Ed Stelmach has won over 77% in his leadership review, and will stick around as Premier of Alberta. This itself might not be news, but what results from this may well be. If you remember, there were roomers of possible defectors sitting in the PC Caucus that were going to switch to the WAP. With Stelmach staying, and no change visible on the horizon, if anyone is going to switch, now is the time to do it. As we mentioned before on this blog, we expect the real number to be closer to 2 and not the 10 that has been speculated. We also project that if this is to happen, it will happen on Monday (after the defectors take Sunday to think). If Tuesday morning comes and there are no defectors, there may well never be.

The more interesting possibility is what I call a 'passive defection'. That a Tory in a rural riding (one the WAP could well win on it's own) would resign his seat. This would give Smith (WAP Leader) a place to run and win.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Party found collapsed on floor, weak pulse, not breathing

2009-11-07T18:53:00.003-05:00

-

The ADQ has been loaded in an ambulence and is heading off towards the hospital. The party is all but dead. According to http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/gone+track+defectors/2195377/story.html two prominent ADQ MNAs have quit the party, including the failure of a politician who recently lost by two votes to another failure of a politician in the ADQ leadership race. Now, the ADQ is a party in Quebec, and Quebec is French, so let me translate all of this into English.

The ADQ is lying on a hospital table, and the docs are about to shock it. They've just yelled "CLEAR" and are going in. The next little while will determine weather or not the party will come back, or weather it is too late.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Some good news

2009-11-07T00:17:00.002-05:00

-

Toronto has won the 2015 Pan Am games. Like the Olympics, this draws in crowds, and media attention. Also like the Olympics, this has side effects attached to it.

Economic:
This is good for the economy. People debate weather the games "cost" more than it "brings in" but these are false options. The "costs" often include construction, and the spending on that (by the government) goes to corporations and individuals. The economic benefit is therefore not cost minus 'profit' but cost plus 'profit'. The only one that stands to 'lose' is the Government's chequebook; and since the 'profit' of the games is not taxed at 100%, the games would 'lose' money regardless.

Political:
Being Mayor of Toronto, and to a lesser extent, Premier of Ontario, and Prime Minister of Canada in 2015 suddenly has become more important. We will have one provincial election, two municipal elections, and one, two, or more federal elections between now and then. The job of Mayor becomes much more sexy with this on the table, and it may give big names like Tory and Smitherman more of a reason to run. This would also give Harper and McGunity, presuming they get re-elected, a good 'break' and 'excuse' to leave.

Other:
This likely means much better public transit for Toronto. One of the big things that governments spend money on when they win bids such as this one is building a better and better public transit network to move around all the visitors to the games. Toronto has some great plans, but with the recent economic troubles, it became possible that like other past good ideas that have been proposed for public transit in Toronto, that this one could just become a "what could have been". My personal worry was that this recession would either directly or indirectly kill some of the great plans for transit that we have. Personally, my fear levels have been reduced, and I feel much more confidant about our future.

This is something that will pop up repeatedly, especially locally, again and again between now and 2015. Congrats to the committee who won us this bid.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Alberta Polls

2009-11-05T12:02:00.002-05:00

-

A new poll by Ekos shows the Alliance again in second place.

Province Wide
PC - 34%
WAP - 28%
ALP - 20%
NDP - 9%

Edmonton
PC - 34%
ALP - 27%
WAP - 17%
NDP - 13%

Calgary
WAP - 34%
PC - 30%
ALP - 20%
NDP - 8%

Rural
PC - 38%
WAP - 32%
ALP - 15%
NDP - 6%

More on this later, including an official projection

Sorry, no extra data today!

What-If, The next step

2009-11-01T06:28:00.006-05:00

-

Next, I applied the same idea to more elections. I did a very educated 'guesstimation' of the 2006 and 2004 elections. I then compared it to a 4 party system by combining the PC and CA votes during the 90s. I even then compared this to 1988, 1984, 1980, and 1979 with this simple formula:

The Bloc wins 50 seats in Quebec. In 1979 and 1980 they take those seats from the Liberals, and in the 80's from the Tories. The Alliance wins all PC western seats, and half their Ontario seats. The remainder of the Ontario seats go to the Liberals. (This is very realistic when compared with what we now know) This is for the 5 party system. For a 4 party system, I only did the 50 bloc seats from above. In 1979 I re-added 6 to the Liberals to account for Social Credit.

This is my result:

I present the following arguments:

Since 2004, we've had a minority government in Ottawa. This is about 1500 days. Lester B Pearson lead about 1500 days of minority governance.
All other Prime Minister's combined, lead about 1500 days of minority governance.

Therefore, 1/3rd of our minority governments have occurred since 2004.

As is visible above, so long as the Bloc exists, we will have a minority government 9 out of 10 times. As is also visible above, only then both the Bloc and Reform/Alliance exist, will the Liberals win endless strings of government (9 out of 10). Therefore, I conclude the following.

Canada might be a "Liberal Country" but English Canada is "Conservative"

The Liberals are not the Natural Governing Party without Quebec. The Tories are. The Tories cannot, however, fill that role when split in half. The only time the Liberals have beat a unified Conservative party is either when Quebec is in their back pocket, or when there is 'something wrong' with the Conservative Movement (IE got to ditch Mulroney, we don't like Manning/Day/Harper, etc)

I also present that Minority Governments, in this country, can be damaging. While they have 'worked' over the past few years, I argue that they only add to the pre-existing stress on the country, especially where unity is concerned.

Quebecois have also shown multiple times in the past that they lean to the left, not to the right. If Harper now leads "Canada's Natural Governing Party (TM)" then this could only add to stresses on unity

Therefore. I present the following unsettling conclusion.

Canada cannot continue to exist so long as the Bloc Quebecois exists.

Am I wrong in this assessment? Perhaps. Time will tell.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Interesting What-If

2009-11-01T05:23:00.003-05:00

-

I've decided to run an interesting what-if scenario. Over at 308.blogspot, they ran a piece on removing parties, and what would happen. See more info here Click Me! I've decided to add parties. Using the 2000 election as a base, I've decided to see what would have happened in the 2008 election, if the parties were split the way they were in 2000 (PC and CA)

NL
Lib - 5
PC - 1
NDP - 1
(2006 was used as a base for NL due to the anybody-but-harper campaign. Harris, however, was declared Elected)

PE
Lib - 4

NS
NDP - 5
Lib - 3
PC - 3 (Including Casey)

NB
Lib - 6
PC - 3
NDP - 1

ATLANTIC
Lib - 18
PC - 7
NDP - 7

(Personal note - I'm a bit shocked at this myself!)

Manitoba
CA - 7
NDP - 4
PC - 2
Lib - 1

Saskatchewan
CA - 12
Lib - 2

Alberta
CA - 25
Lib - 2
NDP - 1

British Columbia
CA - 25
NDP - 8
Lib - 3

WEST
CA - 69
NDP - 13
Lib - 8
PC - 2

Territories
Lib - 1
NDP - 1
PC - 1

Quebec
BQ - 56
Lib - 16
PC - 1
CA - 1 (in Pontiac)
NDP - 1 (in Outremont)

(See my note later)

Ontario
Lib - 62
CA - 24
NDP - 18
PC - 2

TOTAL
Lib - 105
CA - 94
BQ - 56
NDP - 40
PC - 13

And there you have it. Stephane Dion would have been popular enough to get elected Prime Minister... If the right were still divided.

Note that in Quebec I gave the Alliance the seat they would have won by the math. This happens to be the seat currently held by Andre Arthur. I feel he would have been more likely to run as an Alliance candidate than a "Conservative" one.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Provinces

2009-10-31T07:53:00.002-04:00

<- More numbers below the fold

A little news in the provinces.
A by-election in Newfoundland has been won by a Liberal. Marshall Dean is the first new face for the Newfoundland Liberals elected in a decade.

There have been few polls in the provinces, but this also means there are a few polls in the provinces. In nearly every province, the government is due to re-elect a majority. New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec, however, are all very close two way races between the two main parties. We do not expect elections in any province for at least a year.

Ontario
72 - Liberal - Dalton McGunity
25 - PC - Tim Hudak
10 - NDP - Andrea Horwath
0 - Green - Frank de Jong - New leader picked Nov 15 2009 (Mike Schreiner vs None of the Above)

Quebec
67 - Liberal - Jean Charest
51 - Parti Quebecois - Pauline Marois
6 - Action Democratique - Gilles Taillon (Sylvie Roy, Leader in the Assembly)
1 - Quebec Solidarie - Amir Khadir
0 - Parti Vert - Guy Rainville

British Columbia
49 - Liberal - Gordon Campbell
35 - New Democrats - Carole James
1 - Independent - Vicki Huntington (Leans right)
0 - Green Party - Jane Sterk

Alberta
70 - PC - Ed Stelmach
9 - Liberal - David Swann
2 - New Democrats - Brian Mason
1 - Wildrose Alliance - Danielle Smith
1 - Independent - Guy Boutilier (Leans right)

Manitoba
34 - New Democrats - Greg Selinger
19 - PC - Hugh McFadyen
2 - Liberal - John Gerrard
0 - Green - James Beddome
1 - Vacant - Concordia, leans NDP

Saskatchewan
38 - Saskatchewan Party - Brad Wall
20 - New Democrats - Dwain Lingenfelter
0 - Liberals - Ryan Bater
0 - Greens - Larissa Shasko

Nova Scotia
32 - New Democrats - Darryl Dexter
11 - Liberal - Stephen McNeil
9 - PC - Karen Casey (Interim) New leader picked 2010
0 - Greens - Ryan Watson

New Brunswick
33 - Liberal - Shawn Graham
22 - PC - David Alward
0 - New Democrats - Roger Duguay
0 - Greens - Jack MacDougall

Newfoundland and Labrador
42 - PC - Danny Williams
4 - Liberal - Yvonne Jones (Interim) New Leader picked 2009/2010
1 - New Democrats - Lorraine Micheal
1 - Vacant. Terra Nova (strong PC), date not yet set

Prince Edward Island
24 - Liberal - Robert Ghiz
3 - PC - Olive Craine (Interim) New leader picked 2010
0 - Green Party - Sharon Labchuck
0 - New Democrats - James Rodd

Yukon
9 - Yukon Party - Dennis Fentie
5 - Liberal Party - Arthur Mitchell
2 - New Democrats -Elizabeth Hanson
2 - Independent - John Edzerza (Leans NDP) - Brad Cathers (Leans Yukon Party)

Harper falls from Majority

2009-10-29T00:59:00.001-04:00

-

CPC - 152
Lib - 74
BQ - 49
NDP - 33

No commentary

Sorry, no extra data today!

Provinces

2009-10-25T08:02:00.004-04:00

-

We got it all:

Ontario
72 - Liberal - Dalton McGunity
25 - PC - Tim Hudak
10 - NDP - Andrea Horwath
0 - Green - Frank de Jong - New leader picked Nov 15 2009 (Mike Schreiner vs None of the Above)

Quebec
67 - Liberal - Jean Charest
51 - Parti Quebecois - Pauline Marois
6 - Action Democratique - Gilles Taillon (Sylvie Roy, Leader in the Assembly)
1 - Quebec Solidarie - Amir Khadir
0 - Parti Vert - Guy Rainville

British Columbia
49 - Liberal - Gordon Campbell
35 - New Democrats - Carole James
1 - Independent - Vicki Huntington (Leans right)
0 - Green Party - Jane Sterk

Alberta
70 - PC - Ed Stelmach
9 - Liberal - David Swann
2 - New Democrats - Brian Mason
1 - Wildrose Alliance - Danielle Smith
1 - Independent - Guy Boutilier (Leans right)

Manitoba
34 - New Democrats - Greg Selinger
19 - PC - Hugh McFadyen
2 - Liberal - John Gerrard
0 - Green - James Beddome
1 - Vacant - Concordia, leans NDP

Saskatchewan
38 - Saskatchewan Party - Brad Wall
20 - New Democrats - Dwain Lingenfelter
0 - Liberals - Ryan Bater
0 - Greens - Larissa Shasko

Nova Scotia
32 - New Democrats - Darryl Dexter
11 - Liberal - Stephen McNeil
9 - PC - Karen Casey (Interim) New leader picked 2010
0 - Greens - Ryan Watson

New Brunswick
33 - Liberal - Shawn Graham
22 - PC - David Alward
0 - New Democrats - Roger Duguay
0 - Greens - Jack MacDougall

Newfoundland and Labrador
42 - PC - Danny Williams
3 - Liberal - Yvonne Jones (Interim) New Leader picked 2009/2010
1 - New Democrats - Lorraine Micheal
2 - Vacant. Terra Nova (strong PC), date not yet set, and The Straits and White Bay North (Strong PC) October 27

Prince Edward Island
24 - Liberal - Robert Ghiz
3 - PC - Olive Craine (Interim) New leader picked 2010
0 - Green Party - Sharon Labchuck
0 - New Democrats - James Rodd

Yukon
9 - Yukon Party - Dennis Fentie
5 - Liberal Party - Arthur Mitchell
2 - New Democrats -Elizabeth Hanson
2 - Independent - John Edzerza (Leans NDP) - Brad Cathers (Leans Yukon Party)

Sorry, no extra data today!

Something New

2009-10-25T02:47:00.001-04:00

-

Wanted to give notice that I am going to create something new for everyone.

I am going to create a small table so that I can display riding by riding results easily, rather than having to copy it as in my other post showing all the votes.

The up side is that I can do all 308 ridings in a single image.
The down side is that margins of victory will not be clear.

After I create this I will attempt to update it to show the margin.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Projection Update

2009-10-23T09:24:00.002-04:00

-

CPC - 155
Lib - 74
BQ - 46
NDP - 33

No commentary

Sorry, no extra data today!

By popular demand, Riding by riding

2009-10-20T08:41:00.003-04:00

<- Click here to see the full post

What you see above you recognize, this is the standard posting we make, showing the province by province results. What you might not know is that with each and every projection, our system, the ElectoMatic, projects each and every riding. I've had a request to show some of these, so I decided to show them all. Below the fold is our current riding by riding projections, based on the most recent polling data, for all 308 ridings across the country.

(click on images to zoom in if needed)
(click on post title to expand post if "read more" button is not visible)

Tories take over 2 million from taxpayers

2009-10-20T00:26:00.003-04:00

-

The Conservative Party has taken $2,602,581 from taxpayers this month.

But its no biggie the Liberals took $1,815,230

The NDP took $1,256,701, the Bloc $689,478, and the Greens $468,455.

More than that, they'll do it again in January!

Its the quarterly allowances each party gets every 4 months based on the number of votes they received in the last election. Here is the Elections Canada webpage on it
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pol&document=qua2009&dir=pol/qua&lang=e

Sorry, no extra data today!

Taillon elected leader of the ADQ

2009-10-19T04:07:00.003-04:00

-

By 2 votes if you can believe it.

The party had a pathetic 28% turnout of members for their 2-day long phone in vote. If three quarters of your own members don't even bother to vote for leader, you have a pretty big problem. If those who do vote are so divided that one person, a single person, voting for one candidate and not another could change the race, then you have another problem.

Taillon has cancer, something that became an issue earlier in the race when his opponent suggested he be unable to lead because of it. He also 'quit' the national assembly by running in a riding that the ADQ could not have won, even in the best circumstances. Why on earth he wants to lead the party is beyond me. Beyond that, a former MNA quit upon hearing the news, and another one criticized her fresh new leader. This is not what a party able to win does, even Dion did not have such sharp criticisms this early, or ever.

Dare I say that the ADQ has been seriously harmed by this entire adventure. I would not say it impossible for the party to fall to 5th place in the polls, and even remain there though a General Election. I do, however, think they might be able to hold on to a seat or two by the skin of their teeth even if such a 5th placed disaster happens.

The long story short here is that the ADQ is 'toast' for the next half decade.

Sorry, no extra data today!

New Provincial Leaders pt2

2009-10-18T04:34:00.002-04:00

-

So what does all of this mean? Well much of it was expected. Greg Selinger was expected to win, and he is not expected to change much. The only real difference is a new face and name. Remember, though, that this government has served for 3 terms, and there is a history of long-time and popular premiers resigning and being replaced, only to have their party bomb in the following election. It's not a poor reflection on the new leader, but rather that voters grow tired of a party ofter time. Weather the Manitoba NDP is going to suffer this fate is as of yet unknown. Selinger is likely not going to suddenly take hold of the imagination of regular Manitobans, he's a known face (he was finance minister) and a his party is a known quantity. His best bet at winning the next election is to convince Manitobans that he and his party have done a good job and deserve to be re-elected. Alternatively, he can try to scare the voters away from the PC Party. This will be difficult at best as the Manitoba PC Party is one of the most moderate provincial PC parties in the country.

Smith being elected leader of the Wildrose Alliance is bigger news. Earlier in the race, citing trusted sources, there was a report that as many as 10 PC MLAs would cross the floor to sit with the Alliance if Smith won the leadership. With or without Smith, the Alliance made waves when they won a by-election in Calgary, putting former leader Paul Hinman back into the house. Hinman won election in 2005 and was the only Alliance candidate to do so, he then served as leader until yesterday. This was a clear signal that the party is not going away. Alberta has had many one-shot wonders. Parties have been known to come and go, but Hinman's win shows that the Alliance just might have some real staying power.

Lets examine what happens if the defections take place. First, this would mean the WAP now has 11 seats, more than the Liberal's 9. Hinman (presumably) would then become the new Leader of the Opposition, at least until Smith can find a seat somewhere. There is then the question of what the single independent member does. If he joins, it could make for 12 members in the Alliance, but then again he might be one of the so-called 10. Chances are, however, that not a full 10 will switch, if any at all. If 8 members defect to the WAP, they would tie with the Liberals at 9, but due to precedence, the Liberals would remain the official opposition. If 1 member defects, they would tie with the NDP, but remain in 4th place. If these threats are true, there is a good chance that the number of defectors will in fact be between 2 and 8. There is also the possibility of a passive defection. That is a member resigns his seat in a riding that the Alliance could win, allowing Smith a way into the legislature.

At this point, all we have is a hypothetical threat, and a single poll. What we do know is that the Alliance has not vanished from the Alberta landscape. What that means, however, is undefined at this time.

Sorry, no extra data today!