Federal Election Polls

[Triple M]

Apparently EKOS will be starting a daily tracking at 4pm today

[ToadBrother]

I think realistically most people are going to have to come to terms with Harper having done a reasonably good job. He honestly did. I still want Stéphane Dion back...His party torpedoed him so hard.

Harper "managing" his caucus should only really bother Reformers, it led to more centrist policy and kept out the crazy...IMO.

Are you saying that the only thing keeping a Conservative government from turning into a pack of lunatics is a single man?

[The_Squid]

I think the only thing we know for sure is that someone is wrong since Nanos has the Liberals up by 3.5 points.

---SNIP---

I think he's saying that the Liberals winning a huge majority with 40% of the vote is BS too...

Think about what Proportional Representation in the 97 or 2000 election would have given us... There probably would be two right-wing parties still... there probably wouldn't have been a sponsorship scandal... there wouldn't be this wild swing to the right under the Harper gov't, since they would have needed votes from other parties to pass legislation...

Edited October 6, 2015 by Charles Anthony
[ ---SNIP---]

[angrypenguin]

I think the only thing we know for sure is that someone is wrong since Nanos has the Liberals up by 3.5 points.

---SNIP---

Agreed. Someone is wrong.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Charles Anthony
[ ---SNIP---]

[PIK]

http://abacusdata.ca/budget-propels-conservatives-to-8-point-lead/

These guys have the conservatives starting to move ahead. Now this is that young guy from sun news and he did a good job the last time.

Edited October 6, 2015 by PIK

[dialamah]

http://abacusdata.ca/budget-propels-conservatives-to-8-point-lead/

These guys have the conservatives starting to move ahead. Now this is that young guy from sun news and he did a good job the last time.

In April? Are you sure that's the link you wanted to post?

[PIK]

Wrong one. I thought it was low, I heard today on the radio it was 10 pts. My mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.

[CITIZEN_2015]

What on earth is wrong with these pollsters!! On the same day (October 1st) that Nanos and Innovative Research show Liberal leading by 2% then the same day Innovative Research is showing 8% lead for conservatives. And all claiming margins or errors between 1% to 3%!!!!!. Where do they get their data!!!! Where this 10% difference comes from?

Edited October 6, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[ToadBrother]

What on earth is wrong with these pollsters!! On the same day (October 1st) that Nanos and Innovative Research show Liberal leading by 2% then the same day Innovative Research is showing 8% lead for conservatives. And all claiming margins or errors between 1% to 3%!!!!!. Where do they get their data!!!! Where this 10% difference comes from?

Hard to say. I have some inherent distrust of Nanos as far as short term trends go, but I do have a hard time believing the Tories have opened up such a massive lead. We'll have to see what happens as the other pollsters publish their latest samples.

[CITIZEN_2015]

This seems a likely outcome at this point (until the TPP bump comes in) and I'mt elling you right now, if the Conservatives win with less of the popular vote people are going to lose their shit. It was BS when Chrétien won that way too and just goes to show how unrepresentative our electoral system can be.

The worse part that likely not many realize here is that with 31.6% if they form a government not only they don't have the popular vote (Liberals having 32.4%) but also they have ONLY about 20% of eligible voters agreeing with them or their policies and voting for them as about 30 to 35% do not participate because they don't agree with them (or others). A 20% vote rules over the remaining 80% who did not agree.

Edited October 6, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[ToadBrother]

The worse part that likely not many realize here is that with 31.5% if they form a government not only they don't have the popular vote (Liberals having 32.3%) but also they have ONLY about 20% of eligible voters agreeing with them or their policies and voting for them as about 30 to 35% do not participate because they don't agree with them (or others).

But that's rather the wrong way to look at it. The Conservatives remain the government until such time as the Prime Minister resigns or they are defeated on a confidence motion in the House. They aren't forming a new government, they inherit that status because when Parliament dissolved, they still enjoyed the confidence of Parliament.

At that point, if they win some nominal plurality, or maybe even a healthy plurality, but are in a minority position, it's up to Parliament to decide whether they remain the government or not. Obviously, if they win a majority, this is all moot, but otherwise, they are the government until the PM or Parliament decides otherwise.

[cybercoma]

My apologies if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but if you're saying that Chretien won an election with fewer popular votes, he didn't.

I was mistaken. Must have been thinking about the timeframe (2000) and tied the incident to our politics, rather than where it actually occurred, in the United States. Gore won the popular vote, but loss the US presidential election to Bush due to the way the electoral college votes.

[Smeelious]

What on earth is wrong with these pollsters!! On the same day (October 1st) that Nanos and Innovative Research show Liberal leading by 2% then the same day Innovative Research is showing 8% lead for conservatives. And all claiming margins or errors between 1% to 3%!!!!!. Where do they get their data!!!! Where this 10% difference comes from?

Polls conducted via interactive voice response (automated telephone calls) are showing much stronger Conservative results, while most online polls and the only live-caller telephone tracking poll is showing the two-headed race between the Tories and the Liberals.

via. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-oct6-1.3258683

[CITIZEN_2015]

But that's rather the wrong way to look at it. The Conservatives remain the government until such time as the Prime Minister resigns or they are defeated on a confidence motion in the House. They aren't forming a new government, they inherit that status because when Parliament dissolved, they still enjoyed the confidence of Parliament.

At that point, if they win some nominal plurality, or maybe even a healthy plurality, but are in a minority position, it's up to Parliament to decide whether they remain the government or not. Obviously, if they win a majority, this is all moot, but otherwise, they are the government until the PM or Parliament decides otherwise.

Not to mention that the majority was also achieved with 25% of eligible voters (39% of total voted).

I wasn't referring to any particular party just a fact and figure and same scenario I describe could apply to Liberals or NDP forming the government.

Edited October 6, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Big Guy]

I was mistaken. Must have been thinking about the timeframe (2000) and tied the incident to our politics, rather than where it actually occurred, in the United States. Gore won the popular vote, but loss the US presidential election to Bush due to the way the electoral college votes.

When a poster admits when they have made a mistake that admission increases the credibility of all of their other posts. Congratulations, that is why I continue to read yours.

[cybercoma]

What on earth is wrong with these pollsters!! On the same day (October 1st) that Nanos and Innovative Research show Liberal leading by 2% then the same day Innovative Research is showing 8% lead for conservatives. And all claiming margins or errors between 1% to 3%!!!!!. Where do they get their data!!!! Where this 10% difference comes from?

It will be very interesting to see the post mortem on these pollsters to understand why such a huge variation in the numbers. A 10 point swing speaks to some sort of weighting error or respondent bias or something. That's just nuts.

[ToadBrother]

Not to mention that the majority was also achieved with 25% of eligible voters (39% of total voted).

I really hate this line, because it's very misleading. If you don't vote, you have decided not to be part of the electoral process. Using non-voters may be a useful rhetorical tool, but it's useless at determining the fairness of an election.

[cybercoma]

via. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-oct6-1.3258683

I would tend to trust those IVR responses then. I think people who vote conservative are acutely aware that 2/3 of Canadians are not happy with their choice. They would be more likely to answer honestly in an anonymized system like IVR than a face-to-face phone interview.

[cybercoma]

Trust me. I don't want to believe that the Tories are ahead, but I suspect that those IVR responses may be more truthful in this case. On the other hand, some people may just be frustrated with the robocalling and mash numbers to mess with the poll. Tough to say. Though I expect that it does correct for some desirability bias where a respondent may feel like they will be judged for voting Conservative.

[CITIZEN_2015]

via. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-oct6-1.3258683

Yes good article. But my guess is that ive-caller telephone tracking poll like Nanos is more accurate than automated telephone calls.

I really hate this line, because it's very misleading. If you don't vote, you have decided not to be part of the electoral process. Using non-voters may be a useful rhetorical tool, but it's useless at determining the fairness of an election.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and I respect that but it clearly differs with mine that all citizens count even those who don't agree with any of the parties and refuse to vote. What you suggesting is that they have to vote for someone they don't agree with and/or don't like his or her policies in order to be counted!!.

Edited October 6, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Hydraboss]

You are of course entitled to your opinion and I respect that but it clearly differs with mine that all citizens count even those who don't agree with any of the parties and refuse to vote.

No one is saying that certain citizens "don't count" - just that using them in poll calculations doesn't make sense. How do you know which party they didn't want to vote for? Why not calculate the percentage of voters for a particular party against the entire population of Canada then? That number would be just as meaningless.

[ToadBrother]

You are of course entitled to your opinion and I respect that but it clearly differs with mine that all citizens count even those who don't agree with any of the parties and refuse to vote. What you suggesting is that they have to vote for someone they don't agree with and/or don't like his or her policies in order to be counted!!.

What you're trying to do is read a non-voters mind, when in reality you can't really say why any significant number didn't vote, or who they would have voted for if they had shown up. It's literally treating non-voters as some sort of an extra set of numbers to attack the winner with. If you don't vote, you have silenced yourself, and at that point I think it's deeply unfair that someone comes along and uses them deliberately as a cipher to impose their presumptions upon.

[ToadBrother]

Trust me. I don't want to believe that the Tories are ahead, but I suspect that those IVR responses may be more truthful in this case. On the other hand, some people may just be frustrated with the robocalling and mash numbers to mess with the poll. Tough to say. Though I expect that it does correct for some desirability bias where a respondent may feel like they will be judged for voting Conservative.

There is also such a thing as an outlier, which may be a bell weather of a major change, or may just remain an anomaly.

Recent polls are really all over the place, and I think we are going to see a lot of movement between the Liberals and Tories now that it has become an effective two-way race.

[Bryan]

No one is saying that certain citizens "don't count" - just that using them in poll calculations doesn't make sense. How do you know which party they didn't want to vote for? Why not calculate the percentage of voters for a particular party against the entire population of Canada then? That number would be just as meaningless.

If anything, a person who doesn't vote is effectively choosing whomever actually wins. They're the political equivalent of the person who says "I'm fine with whatever you want" when going out to dinner. If someone wants to get cute and try to factor where their non-vote counts in the breakdown, they should be adding the non-votes to the winner, not the opposition.

[dialamah]

I would tend to trust those IVR responses then. I think people who vote conservative are acutely aware that 2/3 of Canadians are not happy with their choice. They would be more likely to answer honestly in an anonymized system like IVR than a face-to-face phone interview.

I can see that being true for some individuals, but not in sufficient numbers to explain the difference in the poll results. I think something else is going on, or maybe a couple of things. Maybe Conservative voters are more willing to answer the phone and stay on the line for the automated directions, precisely because they want the world to know they're voting Conservative. Undecided and "lefties" don't answer or hang up on the automation, where they wouldn't hang up on a voice.

Edited October 6, 2015 by dialamah