Federal Election Polls

[On Guard for Thee]

What is interesting to note is the voting intentions based on education. NDP has the highest support among the university and college educated people whereas the Cons enjoy the most votes among those with high school degrees or less!!! Very interesting and speaks a volume!!.

I suspect when the economic numbers come out in Sept. and then actual costs of this lengthy election begin to sink in, and then all the white noise starts spewing from Ottawa, Harper may rue the day. Even with high school math you can get the idea how wasteful it all is.

[poochy]

So the three changes you asked me list are briefly:

1- End to political opportunism and vote buying and manipulation. The surplus/deficit policy change. It won't be the end of the world if we end up having a few billion deficit in comparison to the size of economy we have (a GDP of 1600 billion) and the economists have repeatedly told them of the fact. The Cons are obsessed with a balanced budget as per promised made and they intend to balance it at any cost not to lose credibility and hence they pushed us into recession. It is time to spend a bit on say infrastructure project (not too lot) at the time when citizens are losing their jobs rather than vote buying and bribery in which they gave away in excess of 3 million dollars as recent as last week to buy votes (at the expense of the created deficit and future job losses as economy sours). This is manipulation and political opportunism commonly practiced by Tories.

2-Restoration of democracy. The manner they pushed undemocratic bill in spite of objections fro many human rights and interest groups must end by a NEW party elected as the government (not by re-electing the Cons).

3-End to scandals and there are plenty of them to list over the past 4 years alone and I am sure you are aware of them.

Oh no! THE WOODWORK!

[poochy]

There are many room temperature IQ's among Conservative supporters - witness this forum.

Of course dear, there there.

[blueblood]

There are many room temperature IQ's among Conservative supporters - witness this forum.

Why because we like keeping more of the money we earn?

[Keepitsimple]

Oh, so you too don't believe the longest election campaign since candidates travelled by stagecoach will impact taxpayers with colossal additional charges.

I thought you guys prided yourselves on fiscal responsibility.

Take a deep breath because you are not going to like this.......

Your (and the Star's) analysis that the long election cycle will cost an extra $100 million of more is misguided - but of course that's completely unintentional . That figure comes from using a 37 day cycle - which is only one day more than the minimum allowed. Jean Chretien used 37 days three times because he knew he had the opposition in disarray and at his mercy (those dastardly Liberals) - but prior to that, it was more like 55 or 60 day cycles on a regular basis.....and when you compare that to the 78 day cycle we are now faced with now, the difference is relatively small. Funny how some people seem to put a price on democracy....

The 1997, 2000 and 2004 elections were all of the minimum 36 days in length which has led to a common misconception that elections must be 36 days long. However, prior to 1997, elections averaged much longer: aside from the 47 day campaign for the 1993 election, the shortest election period after World War II was 57 days and many were over 60 days in length.

Much speculation had surrounded how long the campaign for the 39th federal election would be in 2006, especially as it became certain the election would be called in the weeks preceding Christmas 2005. The government of Joe Clark, which fell on December 12, 1979, recommended a campaign of 66 days for the resulting election, and nothing legal barred a similarly lengthened campaign. In the end, the 2006 election was called on November 29, 2005, for January 23, 2006 — making a 55-day-long campaign.[10]

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Canada

[Smallc]

These sobering numbers should counter the thread drift of late. Hell, with the campaign formally underway, perhaps Harper supporters will see new relevance in polling results.

EKOS: July 31st.

NDP - 33.8

Cons- 30.1

Libs - 23.4

Grn - 6.1

Blc - 4.7

"(Conservatives) now have an economy that 76% believe is in recession and have an even gloomier outlook for the longer term future".

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/nanos-survey-tight-race-begins-for-top-three-parties-1.2498970

[Derek 2.0]

The latest Nanos poll has the Tories up and the now leading the NDP, who have dropped one point, and the Liberal's are up several points........

[Vancouver King]

Take a deep breath because you are not going to like this.......

Your (and the Star's) analysis that the long election cycle will cost an extra $100 million of more is misguided - but of course that's completely unintentional .

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Canada

My estimate comes from the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation. Elections Canada will double salaries, double rents and other expenses. A 37 day campaign would cost $375 million, CTF says this will expand to $500 million.

Taxpayer rebates to parties amounted to $60 million in 2011 and will be much larger this time and added to the $500 million.

Whatever the final total, it's an affront to add unnecessary costs to Canada's current budget deficit.

[Keepitsimple]

My estimate comes from the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation. Elections Canada will double salaries, double rents and other expenses. A 37 day campaign would cost $375 million, CTF says this will expand to $500 million.

Taxpayer rebates to parties amounted to $60 million in 2011 and will be much larger this time and added to the $500 million.

Whatever the final total, it's an affront to add unnecessary costs to Canada's current budget deficit.

That's the point......where is the rule that says an election cycle must be the minimum? Democracy shouldn't be for cheapskates and as I've shown - 37 day cycles are not the norm anymore because of the fixed election date. Times have changed with the fixed election date. The days of calling a snap election when everything favours the government are over. Is that what you'd like to go back to? The opposition now has 78 days to make it's case for why it should replace the Harper government. That seems more than fair. Give it some thought......

Edited August 2, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Bryan]

My estimate comes from the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation. Elections Canada will double salaries, double rents and other expenses. A 37 day campaign would cost $375 million, CTF says this will expand to $500 million.

Taxpayer rebates to parties amounted to $60 million in 2011 and will be much larger this time and added to the $500 million.

Whatever the final total, it's an affront to add unnecessary costs to Canada's current budget deficit.

Rebates for the election expenses I get, but why would any other expense be higher? The same polls will be open the same number of times, the same enumeration gets done, so the rents and the staffing costs will be identical. Where do the other costs come in?

[Vancouver King]

Rebates for the election expenses I get, but why would any other expense be higher? The same polls will be open the same number of times, the same enumeration gets done, so the rents and the staffing costs will be identical. Where do the other costs come in?

From Wendy Gillis of the Star:

"First, Elections Canada will have to ramp up it's operation. ... that ($375 million) bill will now increase, thanks to added salaries for employees preparing for the election, rent for electoral office across the country and more. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has estimated the tally could approach $500 million."

"We're talking tens of millions extra for the chief electoral officer, said Jean-Pierre Kingsley, former chief electoral officer with Elections Canada. He's got to run a machine here. If you were thinking you were hiring people for 40 days, and you have to hire them for 80 days.....all of those salaries are being doubled."

If anybody should be an expert in election procedure issues, it's Kingsley.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Vancouver King

[Vancouver King]

That's the point......where is the rule that says an election cycle must be the minimum? Democracy shouldn't be for cheapskates and as I've shown - 37 day cycles are not the norm anymore because of the fixed election date. Times have changed with the fixed election date. The days of calling a snap election when everything favours the government are over. Is that what you'd like to go back to? The opposition now has 78 days to make it's case for why it should replace the Harper government. That seems more than fair. Give it some thought......

No, this is the point: Harper's 78 day campaign call was made to gain advantage over his political rivals by beggaring them financially - however, his call will incur substantial extra costs and taxpayers will pay the lions share of these extra costs.

Like the $75 million spent on gov't ads that glorify Conservatives as much as inform the public of programs, the federal treasury is again being high-jacked to promote Harper's re-election chances.

Your loyalty to your party is commendable, but on this issue you are simply wrong.

[The_Squid]

That's the point......where is the rule that says an election cycle must be the minimum? Democracy shouldn't be for cheapskates and as I've shown - 37 day cycles are not the norm anymore because of the fixed election date. Times have changed with the fixed election date. The days of calling a snap election when everything favours the government are over. Is that what you'd like to go back to? The opposition now has 78 days to make it's case for why it should replace the Harper government. That seems more than fair. Give it some thought......

This is a bunch of hypocritical nonsense. A true conservative would not be for this type of thing. To be in favour of spending more tax payers money just because it is your party doing so sounds like political hackery.

Edited August 4, 2015 by The_Squid

[Bryan]

From Wendy Gillis of the Star:

"First, Elections Canada will have to ramp up it's operation. ... that ($375 million) bill will now increase, thanks to added salaries for employees preparing for the election, rent for electoral office across the country and more. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has estimated the tally could approach $500 million."

"We're talking tens of millions extra for the chief electoral officer, said Jean-Pierre Kingsley, former chief electoral officer with Elections Canada. He's got to run a machine here. If you were thinking you were hiring people for 40 days, and you have to hire them for 80 days.....all of those salaries are being doubled."

If anybody should be an expert in election procedure issues, it's Kingsley.

He should know, but he still hasn't explained where the substantial extra costs are incurred. What specifically needs to cost $100 million + more? The same number of houses need to be enumerated, the same number of polling stations need to be rented for the same number of voting opportunities. Who is needed for 80 days, and what will they be doing? The enumerators do not need extra time, the returning officers don't need extra time.

[Keepitsimple]

It's foolish to compare a 78 day election cycle with the minimum 37 day cycle. It's more appropriate to compare it to what used to be the more usual 55 to 65 day cycle and by doing that, it takes a lot of steam out of this faux-outrage story. It was really only Jean Chretien who made use of the short cycle - because he could arbitrarily pick the date where he had the most advantage.....and boy, did he ever.

As for the Conservatives having more money - get over it. The other parties have had 10 years to get with it....but the truth is, either the parties are incompetent at raising funds - or they can't get people to believe in their policies enough to contribute......and neither case bodes well for them being the government.

[cybercoma]

The latest Nanos poll has the Tories up and the now leading the NDP, who have dropped one point, and the Liberal's are up several points........

Oh?

Poll conducted by Forum Research between 10am and 4pm yesterday.

About four in 10 Canadians surveyed (39 per cent) said they would cast their ballot for the NDP if an election were held today.

The Conservatives fell from neck-and-neck status with the NDP last week to 28 per cent of voter support Sunday, while the Liberals were steady at 25 per cent.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/03/ndp-surges-past-conservatives-liberals-in-latest-poll.html

Edited August 3, 2015 by cybercoma

[CITIZEN_2015]

There are so many polls differing in results that we don't know which one to believe. We can blame margin of errors I suppose but the real poll is on October 19 and when the nation goes to the polls they would remember all the wrongdoings this conservative government has done past 4 years and will vote for a change.

[Vancouver King]

There are so many polls differing in results that we don't know which one to believe. We can blame margin of errors I suppose but the real poll is on October 19 and when the nation goes to the polls they would remember all the wrongdoings this conservative government has done past 4 years and will vote for a change.

Yes, but there is a special satisfaction in reading immediate consequences (via polling) for politicians who lie to the electorate as Harper did Sunday morning when he claimed his marathon campaign would not cost taxpayers extra expenses over a standard 37 day campaign.

Forum polled within hours of Harper's deceit and found this result:

NDP - 39

Cons- 28

Libs - 25

Bloc - 5

Grn - 3

This puts Mulcair within a hair of majority territory and more important, passes public judgement on yet another blatant Harper lie.

Could it be the country is reaching an early consensus?

[CITIZEN_2015]

Yes I agree it is very nice to read those polls that put the Cons where they belong, at low numbers. I hope that the numbers hold up for another 76 days and the nation sees an end to this corrupt manipulative scandalist undemocratic conservative government. I have been counting days for the past 4 years for October 2015 day to arrive and it is now just around the corner.

[Derek 2.0]

Oh?

Poll conducted by Forum Research between 10am and 4pm yesterday.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/03/ndp-surges-past-conservatives-liberals-in-latest-poll.html

The previous Forum poll, released on July 31st, was conducted over four days.........this poll was conducted over 6 hours on a Sunday morning, of a long weekend, during the hours many small-c conservatives are at their places of worship......seems legit.

Forgive me if I don't scurry for the rooftops yet.........

[cybercoma]

People are in church from 10am to 4pm? That's the longest service I've ever heard of. Not to mention that the long weekend is irrelevant unless you're arguing that conservatives disproportionately go away on long weekends.

Edited August 4, 2015 by cybercoma

[Keepitsimple]

The previous Forum poll, released on July 31st, was conducted over four days.........this poll was conducted over 6 hours on a Sunday morning, of a long weekend, during the hours many small-c conservatives are at their places of worship......seems legit.

Forgive me if I don't scurry for the rooftops yet.........

You always have to dig into the actual poll questions - because they can disclose inherent bias. Let's not forget that this poll was paid for by the Toronto Star. Phrase a question a certain way - and it leads to a certain answer. From the current Forum poll, here's what I mean:

One half of voters say they are not better off now than they were in 2011 (51%), while just one third agree they are better off (34%). One sixth don’t venture an opinion (15%).

What happened to all those who are neither better or worse off? Well surprise, surprise - they are included in the 51% - and you can bet the number is pretty substantial. Either the poll creator is incompetent or this is a perfect example of a biased "leading question". Makes one wonder about the rest of the poll.

[cybercoma]

One half of voters say they are not better off now than they were in 2011 (51%), while just one third agree they are better off (34%). One sixth don’t venture an opinion (15%).

What happened to all those who are neither better or worse off? Well surprise, surprise - they are included in the 51% - and you can bet the number is pretty substantial. Either the poll creator is incompetent or this is a perfect example of a biased "leading question". Makes one wonder about the rest of the poll.

The question is in the news release.

"Are you better off now than you were in 2011?"

The possible answers were "Yes," "No," or "Don't Know." It's pretty clear. If you're no better off than you were in 2011, then the answer is no. Even if you're not worse off, you're still no better. Things have not improved in 4 years. You're still in the same place. The poll doesn't suggest that "no" means they're worse off and the results doesn't say this either. The results say that 51% of respondents said they're not better than they were in 2011 and if you're in the same place, that statement is true. If people are no better nor worse off than they were in 2011, then the CPC has failed to do anything for people. They're stuck in the same place.

Edited August 4, 2015 by cybercoma

[Topaz]

How can any Canadian be better off when the country is about to enter into recession and Harper has our military in another war and the vets are no better off than the ones fighting. Right now, the polls probably show more votes against Harper and the undecided between the NDP and the Libs. We all know there are voters who will not change their vote, no matter who was the leader.

[hitops]

How can any Canadian be better off when the country is about to enter into recession and Harper has our military in another war and the vets are no better off than the ones fighting. Right now, the polls probably show more votes against Harper and the undecided between the NDP and the Libs. We all know there are voters who will not change their vote, no matter who was the leader.

The recession has more to do with our deflating housing bubble than anything else. Housing construction is fading fast, and home building is a larger industry than energy and manufacturing combined. The ultimately root cause is the existence of the CMHC.