Federal Election Polls

[Smallc]

Sounds like liberal support dropped to the low 20s with harper around 42-43. That would put the NDP around 18-20%.

I believe it...and I hope it's true. After seeing Ignatieff last night, I REALLY think that the Liberal party needs time to rebuild.

[Wild Bill]

We've had federal and provincial coalitions. We've had minorities without coalitions too. All are a part of our system, no matter how many seats the primary governing party has (there are no losers in our form of government except for those who don't get elected).

All I meant was, to the "ordinary Joe", a minority government where another party props up one who failed to make a majority but still got the most seats is familiar and comfortable.

A "coalition of losers" is what I define as parties with the LEAST number of seats gang up to oust the one who took the most, again with not enough for a majority. That can feel like a trick or a ruse, like a sneaky lawyer getting an obvious felon off the hook. It has been relatively unknown to happen.

The technicalities of constitutional law are for us MLW nitpickers to fight over. The average person doesn't know and doesn't care! However, he still votes, at least a good portion of the electorate does. He will be influenced by his opinions and as I keep saying, waving a constitutional rulebook in front of his face will have little or no effect at all.

I suspect that if a "loser coalition" were to be formed all the Tory voters would be upset and also SOME of each of the other parties involved! This means that the number supporting the opposition parties would have to be somewhat less than the total of all those who supported them. The question will be, how much less?

So there is a very real chance of a negative reaction. Perhaps Canadians have become so jaded that no one cares anymore. Or not! I really am not sure anymore but as I said, it's not me who will suffer for trying it and finding it to be a mistake.

It could be great entertainment!

Edited April 13, 2011 by Wild Bill

[eyeball]

A "coalition of losers" is what I define as parties with the LEAST number of seats gang up to oust the one who took the most, again with not enough for a majority. That can feel like a trick or a ruse, like a sneaky lawyer getting an obvious felon off the hook. It has been relatively unknown to happen.

So, considering the guy I don't vote for wins and he's touted as being someone I should still count on to represent me, how much stock should I really put into his commitment when it comes to representing us losers?

It's not just candidates this loser tag is being levelled at. I could be just as rude and say fuck you too but I'd much rather laugh my ass off watching you blow a gasket if and when your nightmare comes true.

By the way, exactly what are you gonna do about it if there is a coalition, shit, go blind or lose graciously?

[ToadBrother]

The technicalities of constitutional law are for us MLW nitpickers to fight over. The average person doesn't know and doesn't care! However, he still votes, at least a good portion of the electorate does. He will be influenced by his opinions and as I keep saying, waving a constitutional rulebook in front of his face will have little or no effect at all.

This is the nature of our governing system. If Canadians are not aware of that, then they should become acquainted really quick, because it seems likely that if the current numbers hold through May 2, the Tories are going to have cut a deal of some substantial nature with someone else in Parliament to still be the government.

You're argument is like someone telling the cops "I didn't know the TV was hot, the guy at the street corner that sold it to me said it was legit."

If there is a formal coalition, or some other agreement, then Canadians will have their chance at some point to reward or punish the parties involved in it at the next election. That is the nature of our democracy, and I tire of people throwing around words like "coalition of losers", because it creates a false picture of our system of government from the very people who form our governemnt.

Harper's constant talk about "how we do it in Canada" in the leadership debate underscores my point. Not to put to a fine a point on it, but Harper was lying.

Frankly, I think before MPs sit they should take a week long course in our constitution and then a written test with the first question being "Name three ways in which a government can be formed." so that when they say patently false things, it can be held up to show that they understood from the very outset how our constitution works.

[TimG]

This is the nature of our governing system.

Our governing system is a combination of written rules and unwritten conventions. In many cases the convention is more important than the written rules (e.g. the GG's powers). What Harper is arguing is that the conventions have changed in the mind of the public and it really does not make a difference what the written rules say. Of course, that is his POV that is disputed but you are wrong to dismiss it as an attempt to deceive the public about the rules. Edited April 13, 2011 by TimG

[Smallc]

What Harper is arguing is that the conventions have changed in the mind of the public and it really does not make a difference what the written rules say. Of course, that is his POV that is disputed but you are wrong to dismiss it as an attempt to deceive the public about the rules.

And nothing supports his view in this case. There is nothing in any Commonwealth or other parliamentary country that supports him.

[Dave_ON]

Has anyone had a look at the Nanos regionals?

Ontario

C - 40.9%, Down 2.7%

L - 38.9%, Up 2.3%

N - 15.2%, Up 2.1%

It's as I've been saying all along. The CPC will not win a majority with low 40's support, they're support isn't as efficient as the LPC, which is concentrated in geographically smaller, but more population dense areas. It's also more evenly distributed across the regions. Having 70% support in Alberta really skews their national numbers.

I think it's safe to say at this point that the CPC will be very very lucky to hold onto the seat count they have, and it's very likely that the LPC will go up at the expense of the NDP. All in all it doesn't bode well for the CPC in the least.

[eyeball]

Having 70% support in Alberta really skews their national numbers.

Like Duceppe's, how ironic.

I think it's safe to say at this point that the CPC will be very very lucky to hold onto the seat count they have, and it's very likely that the LPC will go up at the expense of the NDP. All in all it doesn't bode well for the CPC in the least.

Just so long as the Liberals don't get a majority. That would be little different and no better.

[TimG]

And nothing supports his view in this case. There is nothing in any Commonwealth or other parliamentary country that supports him.

So? He is arguing that the expectations of the public have changed so what was acceptable is no longer acceptable. Like I said, people do disagree but he is not wrong to advocate this POV.

[ToadBrother]

So? He is arguing that the expectations of the public have changed so what was acceptable is no longer acceptable. Like I said, people do disagree but he is not wrong to advocate this POV.

It's not like coalitions have been a common feature of Canada since Confederation, so even that complaint seems a little daft. We know what he's playing at, but the fact is that it is a constitutional arrangement. The people pick the Parliament and Parliament picks the Government.

Besides, Harper may find himself warming to coalitions awfully fast after May 2nd.

[Dave_ON]

It's not like coalitions have been a common feature of Canada since Confederation, so even that complaint seems a little daft. We know what he's playing at, but the fact is that it is a constitutional arrangement. The people pick the Parliament and Parliament picks the Government.

Besides, Harper may find himself warming to coalitions awfully fast after May 2nd.

I would tend to agree with you TB, but do you think that will really happen? Honestly given Mr. Harper's past actions in parliament do you think he'll suddenly turn over a new leaf even when faced with little to no other options? Also, given his rather overt damnation of this 'anathema' can he really do so at this point without looking incredibly hypocritical? I suppose, if Mr. Harper has demonstrated one thing rather consistently that's his desire to remain in power, and his willingness to do pretty much anything to keep it that way.

[Harry]

It's not like coalitions have been a common feature of Canada since Confederation, so even that complaint seems a little daft. We know what he's playing at, but the fact is that it is a constitutional arrangement. The people pick the Parliament and Parliament picks the Government.

Besides, Harper may find himself warming to coalitions awfully fast after May 2nd.

Interesting comment TB. People have been saying they want to hear from EKOS. Some folks need to be careful what they ask for.

EKOS

C - 33.8%

L - 28.8%

N - 19.1%

Race tightened in the hours

prior to English debate: EKOS

Voters appear to be pulling back from giving the Harper government a Conservative majority and are now looking more carefully at other options, an EKOS-iPolitics poll conducted prior to the English-language debate suggests. In what is the tightest period of the race so far, the 11-point cushion that Conservatives had in the opening days of the campaign has been replaced with a scant 5.6-point lead.

Their comfortable and seat-efficient Ontario margin of 10 points has basically vanished and, at these numbers, the Conservatives would be looking at a significantly diminished minority

http://ipolitics.ca/2011/04/13/race-tightened-in-the-hoursprior-to-english-debate-ekos/

Edited April 13, 2011 by Harry

[ToadBrother]

I would tend to agree with you TB, but do you think that will really happen? Honestly given Mr. Harper's past actions in parliament do you think he'll suddenly turn over a new leaf even when faced with little to no other options? Also, given his rather overt damnation of this 'anathema' can he really do so at this point without looking incredibly hypocritical? I suppose, if Mr. Harper has demonstrated one thing rather consistently that's his desire to remain in power, and his willingness to do pretty much anything to keep it that way.

What choice does he have? If the Opposition does decide to turf him over the Throne Speech (and I'd say the odds are better than even unless he wins a majority or utterly capitulates on the budget, and maybe not even then), he needs to gain the support of one party in the House, or he might as well not even bother showing up when Parliament reconvenes.

He's left himself an out, his constant line of the "coalition of the losers", which would appear to have the flip point that there can be a "coalition of the winners". He can't, obviously, ask the Bloc to join him, precisely because one of the attacks on the 2008 coalition was that it required Separatists to support it. I find it unlikely that the Liberals, who would want to replace the Tories, not work with them, would make a good partner. That leaves the NDP, who would strike me as being very willing. I think if one were to wink at Layton, he'd be there like a starstruck lover. He dreams of the heady days of the early 60s when the NDP held the balance of power and pushed through Medicare. If he's willing to dance with the Liberals, he would dance with the Tories.

[normanchateau]

Interesting comment TB. People have been saying they want to hear from EKOS. Some folks need to be careful what they ask for.

EKOS

C - 33.8%

L - 28.8%

N - 19.1%

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_april_13_2011.pdf

The EKOS poll is flawed. If you do the calculations, you will see that 43% of the respondents have "university or higher" education. According to Canadian census data, that is almost double the percentage of Canadians with university education. Therefore, the poll artifically increases the % Liberal voters and artifically lowers the % Conservative supporters, since fewer of the university-educated support the Conservatives.

[Dave_ON]

Interesting comment TB. People have been saying they want to hear from EKOS. Some folks need to be careful what they ask for.

EKOS

C - 33.8%

L - 28.8%

N - 19.1%

Ouch the news is just getting worse and worse for the CPC. This and the leaked auditor general report hasn't even had a chance to fully sink in yet for voters. It's not looking good for the CPC and they have a lot of ground to recover at midpoint. Ontario just continues to head south for them and it's not showing any sign of stopping.

What I also find interesting is the BLOC's performance is somewhat unspectacular. They usually campaign very strongly, not sure what's going on in PQ this time around. I also find it interesting how close the race in BC has become,

I think all in all this has turned out to be a very interesting election after all.

[Harry]

http://www.ekospolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/full_report_april_13_2011.pdf

The EKOS poll is flawed. If you do the calculations, you will see that 43% of the respondents have "university or higher" education. According to Canadian census data, that is almost double the percentage of Canadians with university education. Therefore, the poll artifically increases the % Liberal voters and artifically lowers the % Conservative supporters, since fewer of the university-educated support the Conservatives.

Let's shoot the messenger but only when they bring us bad news.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Harry

[Harry]

EKOS

C - 33.8%, Down 1.5%

L - 28.8%, Up 0.7%

N - 19.1%, Up 4.9%

[normanchateau]

Let's shoot the messenger but only when they bring us bad news.

Do you not agree that a poll with 43% university respondents is flawed?

[Bryan]

Compas has released the numbers for that poll I linked to this morning:

Large Conservative Majority

CPC - 45

LPC - 24

NDP - 16

GRN - 7

BQ - 8

Regional:

The Conservatives lead by at least 25 percentage points in every province west of Ontario and by 17 points in Ontario.

Ontario:

Except in Toronto, the Conservatives appear to be leading by 15 points or more in every region including the seat rich, multi-ethnic swash known as the Metro-belt around Toronto.

CPC - 49

LPC - 32

NDP - 13

GRN - 6

Quebec:

In Quebec, the Conservatives trail the Bloc by 12 points but are ahead of the Liberals, who appear to be in fourth place behind the NDP

BQ - 37

CPC - 25

NDP - 19

LPC - 13

GRN - 5

http://www.compas.ca/data/110413-NationalElectionPoll_Prt1-VoteIntentions-EPCB.pdf

[Evening Star]

That poll is striking but still seems like an outlier.

[M.Dancer]

http://www.compas.ca/data/110413-NationalElectionPoll_Prt1-VoteIntentions-EPCB.pdf

Beware of polls that diverge dramatically from the pack...

I would prefer a 3 seat majority....5 tops

[TimG]

Beware of polls that diverge dramatically from the pack...

Here is the fine print:

Overwhelming Conservative Strength Nationally (after 35% Undecided Removed from Calculations)

[Harry]

Read 308.com's comments on Compas.

[Harry]

Do you not agree that a poll with 43% university respondents is flawed?

You could well be correct Norman.

Is it an online poll?

Maybe it's like that for all online polls.

[normanchateau]

You could well be correct Norman.

Is it an online poll?

Maybe it's like that for all online polls.

Here's what EKOS says about their methodology:

"EKOS’ weekly tracking polls are conducted using Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology, which allows respondents to enter their preferences by punching the keypad on their phone, rather than telling them to an operator."

So it's not an online poll.

Let's hope that Compas only polls those with less than high school education who are 65 and over.