Federal Election Polls

[TimG]

Over 25% of Canada thinks this is an important issue (environmental issue polling, not GPC polling). So I disagree with you that if the 3 major parties think its a low priority issue that it is therefore low priority to Canadian.

This is a perfect example of how the FPTP forces people to prioritize before they vote instead leaving to ego driven politicians to figure it out later. In this case, a majority of Canadians like that doing "something" about GHGs is a good as long as someone else pays for it. But a majority of Canadians will not change their vote because of it. That is Canadians telling the politicians what their priorities are.

You still haven't answered my question. How did she get pushed by 2 seats into a career-ending move?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/carbon-tax-promise-has-julia-gillard-choking-on-her-words/story-e6frfig6-1225930322757

I see it more as the pet-peeves of the MS parties get done and undone repeatedly, and important stuff gets pushed to the side in that struggle.

If it was really important people would vote for the party that does something about it. If MS parties refused to act on an apparently important issue the only conclusion is:

1) It is really not that important.

2) "acting" would lose more votes than "not acting".

[punked]

It is game over for the Liberals. It is time for them to switch their votes and pick side. Iggy can't win this is between Layton and Harper. For years my Liberal friends have told me I should vote Liberal because the NDP would never have a shot. Well here it is.

New Environics:

CON 39

NDP 25

LIB 22

BQ 7

GRN 6

http://www.environics.ca/news-and-insights?news_id=76

[Harry]

Ok, the Liberals are done as this poll confirms - what are they going to get now - 50 seats?

Party 08 GE / Apr 5 / Apr 17 / Apr 21

Cons / 38 / 38 / 39 / 39 / up 1%

NDP / 18 / 20 / 22/ 25 / Up 7%

Libs / 26 / 25 / 24 / 22 / Down 4%

Bloc 10 / 8 / 9 / 7 / Down 3%

Grn / 7 / 8 / 6 / 6/ Down 1

Otr / 1 / 1/ 1/ 1 / No Change

Latest Environics poll shows clear Conservative lead

Quebec surge carries NDP into second place Toronto

With one week left in the federal election campaign, the federal Conservatives maintain a solid

lead over the opposition, but the NDP has now moved ahead of the Liberal party

in the race for second place as a result of an unprecedented rise in support in

Quebec, according to a new poll released by Environics Research Group.

The telephone poll of 964 eligible voters was conducted from April 18 to 21, 2011 and has a margin

of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points, nineteen times out of twenty.

The Conservatives, with the support of 39 percent (unchanged since our poll released on April 18) of

decided voters, now have a 14-point lead over the second place NDP which has

the support of 25 percent (up three points) of decided voters. Support for the Liberals

has fallen to 22 percent (down two points) and support for the Green Party

stands at 6 percent (unchanged). One percent of decided voters would vote for

other parties. Seven percent would vote for the Bloc Québécois nationally, down

two points, which translates into 28 percent in Quebec. One in five Canadians

are either undecided (14%, down three points) or will not vote at all (4%).

http://www.environics.ca/news-and-insights?news_id=76

Edited April 25, 2011 by Harry

[punked]

If the NDP bust down the Liberal firewall in Toronto the Liberals will be done as a party for the next 4 years. They would be forced to actually do some rebuilding.

[Harry]

This Environics poll was only in the field until April 21, which is before Layton had his big successful rally in Montreal.

Notice also that Harper has hardly moved, only 1%, since the last election.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Harry

[icman]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/carbon-tax-promise-has-julia-gillard-choking-on-her-words/story-e6frfig6-1225930322757

Thanks for the link. However, there were no facts in that link which pertained to how 2 Senate Greens had the clout to force Julia into a corner. Actually, there were few facts at all in the link your provided, other than the surface facts of the proposal's existence, and a diatribe castigating Julia for her duplicity.

Don't blame the Greens on this. Julia is pushing this for some other reason that is not at all apparent from the crappy coverage. It seems to me, based on the GPA MP receiving a co-deputy chair spot on the committee that is looking into how best to implement a possible carbon fee structure, that the Greens are being used as her pawns to create some authenticity on the committee, so that greenies (not just green party members) won't have an excuse to flame the process as rigged.

The Herald Sun's stories are almost as bad as the Toronto Sun's - all screeching and no facts.

Edited April 25, 2011 by icman

[Harry]

Nanos Leadership Index - April 24

Harper up, Layton a steady second, Duceppe down

Harper 105.7

Layton - 73.2

Ignatieff - 40.5

Duceppe 5.3

http://www.nanosresearch.com/election2011/20110424-LeadershipE.pdf

Edited April 25, 2011 by Harry

[Harry]

NDP up 15% to an amazing 41%, while Conservatives drop 6% to only 12% in Quebec

So my question is, will the Conservatives still win any seats in Quebec?

Environics - April 21

Quebec

NPD - 41%, Up 15%

Bloc - 28%, Down 9%

Libs - 15%, Up 1%

Cons - 12%, Down 6%

http://www.environics.ca/news-and-insights?news_id=76

Edited April 25, 2011 by Harry

[punked]

NDP up 15% to an amazing 41%, while Conservatives drop 6% to only 12% in Quebec

So my question is, will the Conservatives still win any seats in Quebec?

Environics - April 21

Quebec

NPD - 41%, Up 15%

Bloc - 28%, Down 95

Libs - 15%, Up 1%

Cons - 12%, Down 6%

http://www.environics.ca/news-and-insights?news_id=76

With 12% they are going to be hard pressed to win seats but they might be able to hold onto a few.

[Smallc]

With 12% they are going to be hard pressed to win seats but they might be able to hold onto a few.

They'll keep at least 4, I think.

[Harry]

Maybe, but the NPD is still surging.

L'effet Layton se fait sentir

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/dossiers/elections-federales/201104/23/01-4392923-leffet-layton-se-fait-sentir.php

[punked]

They'll keep at least 4, I think.

Meaning a Loss of 10. That means that they will have to find 24 seats they can pick up it looks like there are no pick ups in the Maratimes, I don't see any in BC, Alberta, Sask, or Manitoba. The NDP eating their Lunch in Quebec means the Cons need to find a lot of seats in Ontario. This election is coming down to a big push for the Cons in Ontario, the NDP outside of Ontario with the Liberals on the side lines. The only thing standing between Harper and a Majority is going to be the NDP across the country. Crazy.

[jbg]

Why does nonpartisan democracy seem so much less popular than PR? It's completely constitutional and seems to actually strengthen the advantages of having a Parliament made up of local representatives. I'm actually curious. It doesn't seem to be used in many developed democracies at all. Maybe if we just greatly restricted political party funding and discouraged the level of party discipline that is currently enforced...?

We tried that in our country. It lasted two (2) elections; 1788 and 1792. And those were essentially elections where George Washington ran unopposed, after beating the Canadians British in another forum.

Edited April 25, 2011 by jbg

[Smallc]

Meaning a Loss of 10.

7

[Evening Star]

We tried that in our country. It lasted two (2) elections; 1788 and 1792.

Yeah, it's how Washington was elected. But why was it abandoned? Were there structural problems with it or was it simply that parties formed and became powerful? (My understanding was that the latter was the case.)

Edit: OK, now I see that you've added this:

And those were essentially elections where George Washington ran unopposed, after beating the Canadians British in another forum.

--

Today, though, parties allow a shortcut for the voter to understand the views of their representatives. The party platform is more or less the individual platform. In a complicated world, this simplifies the decision-making process for the voter, and allows the voter to be more easily informed on how their representative of choice is likely to represent them in Parliament.

This could actually sound like an argument in favour of nonpartisan democracy. I can see the corruption issue but what's wrong with just strictly enforcing rules about donations and lobbying?

Well, take any 5 contiguous ridings and combine them into one super riding. Candidates are nominated by parties or can be independent, and parties can put forward multiple candidates. You could even allow them to put forward as many canadidates as there are available seats (in this example, that's 5). Candidates are listed on the ballot with their party affiliation, as they are now. Voters vote for the candidates using any PR voting method (Single Transferable Vote comes to mind. A ranked list and point system also comes to mind). The top 5 candidates go to Ottawa for that riding.

In this system, there are no more seats in Ottawa than now, and the candidates are as beholden to the constituents in their districts as they are now - the only difference is that the district is 5 times larger.

STV is basically the same as AV/instant-runoff voting, except with the possibility of multiple winners per constituency, right? So how is this PR, especially if you can have independent candidates?

Edited April 25, 2011 by Evening Star

[punked]

7

I thought the Cons had 14 seats in Quebec?

My bad it is clear they have 11. Still means they need to find 21 seats I think all of them have to come in Ontario because of the NDP's rise out west.

Edited April 25, 2011 by punked

[nittanylionstorm07]

Yeah, it's how Washington was elected. But why was it abandoned? Were there structural problems with it or was it simply that parties formed and became powerful? (My understanding was that the latter was the case.)

This could actually sound like an argument in favour of nonpartisan democracy. I can see the corruption issue but what's wrong with just strictly enforcing rules about donations and lobbying?

STV is basically the same as AV/instant-runoff voting, except with the possibility of multiple winners per constituency, right? So how is this PR, especially if you can have independent candidates?

The problem with nonpartisan representation is that it will always default to partisan representation... it's human nature. You can make political parties illegal, but then they would just call themselves "caucuses" in the legislature.

The Nebraska State Legislature is the only nonpartisan unicameral legislature in the US. The unicameral is great... and the nonpartisan is a great idea, however, the political parties always announce "recommendations" for who people should vote for, so in effect, it cancels it out.

One good thing about going that far though is that it forces voters to educate themselves on the candidates before they vote.

[Evening Star]

I didn't know that about Nebraska, actually. I get what you're saying about how people tend to organize themselves into groups. And I'm not completely against 'caucuses' forming. But we can at least place restrictions on how much power these groups end up wielding over individual members.

One good thing about going that far though is that it forces voters to educate themselves on the candidates before they vote.

Yes, this is a major plus in my books.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

OK, reading the Wikipedia on Nebraska's legislature, this sounds all right to me:

There are no formal party alignments or groups within the Legislature. Coalitions tend to form issue by issue based on a member's philosophy of government, geographic background, and constituency.

[nittanylionstorm07]

OK, reading the Wikipedia on Nebraska's legislature, this sounds all right to me:

It works for Nebraska because 48% of Omaha, 50% of Lincoln, and everywhere else is strongly conservative/Republican.

It probably would work for, say, Alberta. It probably would not work on a federal level.

[punked]

Doesn't the NWT have a no party system for its Legislature?

[nittanylionstorm07]

Doesn't the NWT have a no party system for its Legislature?

...and Nunavut. They are consensus governments, though, which work well for them.

[punked]

NEW EKOS...........

Cons: 34

NDP: 28

Libs: 24

Green: 7

Bloc: 6.2

http://ipolitics.ca/2011/04/25/ndp-leapfrogs-liberals-to-landin-second-spot-in-astonishing-campaign-twist/

Makes you wonder if as the election approaches if some pollsters were holding some numbers back hoping for a turn around. Now they have to make their numbers look better and closer to the actual election.

[nittanylionstorm07]

NEW EKOS...........

Cons: 34

NDP: 28

Libs: 24

Green: 7

Bloc: 6.2

http://ipolitics.ca/2011/04/25/ndp-leapfrogs-liberals-to-landin-second-spot-in-astonishing-campaign-twist/

Makes you wonder if as the election approaches if some pollsters were holding some numbers back hoping for a turn around. Now they have to make their numbers look better and closer to the actual election.

Holy carp. I will say I looked at the last election results vs. polls, and EKOS in 2008 was CPC -2.8 LPC +0.2 NDP +1.2 BQ -0.2 GRN +2.8, so they are fairly accurate.

[Harry]

Holy crap! The NDP are closing in on Harper!