Federal polling - May 1, 2011

176 posts / 0 new
Last post
asterix

Quote:
People have been seeing Dan Harris signs at least since 2004.

2000, actually. I lived in SSW in the 2000 election and voted for him.

ReeferMadness

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

That was a good list of who had no chance in 2008. 

Doesn't tell us much about THIS election though. 

I am old enough to have seen this kind of sea-change a few times.  NO ONE and I mean NO ONE can predict what is going to happen tomorrow.  Sure shots will go nowhere and no chancers will find themselves checking out the rental listings in Ottawa Tuesday trying to figure out what to do now that they are an MP-elect.  

This kind of volitility is unpredicatble.  

I'll take one from your list - Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound.  Who's the strategic vote there?  The Greens - probably not as they ended up not being a very strong campaign.  The Liberals- Kim Love is a great candidate, but the Liberals are going nowhere. The NDP- seemed like a no-hope at the begining, but they have made great strides.  In short you RM and everyone else could not possibly give me the right answer for this campaign.  Strategic voting, or vote swapping or whatever you want to call it is useless in the context of being on the eve of what will likely be a historic election tomorrow.  Give it up you really don't know what you are talking about.  When people vote change on a massive scale nothing is predictable.

You're missing the point, Life.  If you feel your candidate has no choice, vote trading allows you to try to have an effect somewhere else.  If you think your candidate has a shot, vote for her or him.  Not every riding can be won by non-Conservative but there are plenty of ridings where it's much more likely that a non-Conservative can win.

Good luck!

asterix

Quote:
I'm basing my picks solely on Democratic Space projections.  I'm picking ridings where the NDP is running third or is off the lead by 20 points or more (or both).

Again, Reefer: those are guesses, calculated by taking the results of the 2008 election and applying statistical calculations to estimate how the vote might move around this time. Especially in a wave election like this, assumptions based on how people voted in the past simply do not hold water. They are not real polling results, and -- just as there were last time, just as there always are -- there will be ridings where DS made a wrong call because the voters just don't behave the way DS' model guessed that they might.

I can't stress this enough: if you feel the need to vote strategically, then you need to base your decision on what you're actually seeing and hearing on the ground in your own riding. Not on what some blog halfway across the country guesstimates that the vote breakdown is going to be, because the blog will be wrong sometimes.

ReeferMadness

Steve_Shutt wrote:

RM the question is in how many of these will the NDP finish second. If the answer is greater than one, I would request a copy of the receipt of a $100 donation to Fair Vote Canada - who are committed to ending this nonsense once and for all. If the answer is zero (and no NDP wins either, of course) I will post the same. Game on?

Edited for iTouch-induced spelling error.

I'm not sure why it's relevant how many NDP finish second.  The last time I checked, only first place finishers go to Ottawa.  Second placers get to go back to their old jobs.

Speaking of FVC, here is a link to Fair Vote BC and some relevant articles on Strategic Voting.

Just to be clear, I've never voted strategically and wouldn't normally advocate for it.  In this case, I'm willing to think differently because vote trading allows you to move your vote somewhere else where it's more likely to count.

Life, the unive...

ReeferMadness wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

That was a good list of who had no chance in 2008. 

Doesn't tell us much about THIS election though. 

I am old enough to have seen this kind of sea-change a few times.  NO ONE and I mean NO ONE can predict what is going to happen tomorrow.  Sure shots will go nowhere and no chancers will find themselves checking out the rental listings in Ottawa Tuesday trying to figure out what to do now that they are an MP-elect.  

This kind of volitility is unpredicatble.  

I'll take one from your list - Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound.  Who's the strategic vote there?  The Greens - probably not as they ended up not being a very strong campaign.  The Liberals- Kim Love is a great candidate, but the Liberals are going nowhere. The NDP- seemed like a no-hope at the begining, but they have made great strides.  In short you RM and everyone else could not possibly give me the right answer for this campaign.  Strategic voting, or vote swapping or whatever you want to call it is useless in the context of being on the eve of what will likely be a historic election tomorrow.  Give it up you really don't know what you are talking about.  When people vote change on a massive scale nothing is predictable.

You're missing the point, Life.  If you feel your candidate has no choice, vote trading allows you to try to have an effect somewhere else.  If you think your candidate has a shot, vote for her or him.  Not every riding can be won by non-Conservative but there are plenty of ridings where it's much more likely that a non-Conservative can win.

Good luck!

No RM you seem to be missing the point.  In this kind of situation NO ONE can possible know what will happen in the majority of ridings.  Giants will be taken out at the knees.  No hopers will be shocked to learn they are now MP-elects.  The only solution is to vote what you want and believe in.

janfromthebruce

Well RM, do what you want and go make your choice. Good luck and now that you are all done, no need to post here anymore.

ReeferMadness

asterix wrote:

Quote:
I'm basing my picks solely on Democratic Space projections.  I'm picking ridings where the NDP is running third or is off the lead by 20 points or more (or both).

Again, Reefer: those are guesses, calculated by taking the results of the 2008 election and applying statistical calculations to estimate how the vote might move around this time. Especially in a wave election like this, assumptions based on how people voted in the past simply do not hold water. They are not real polling results, and -- just as there were last time, just as there always are -- there will be ridings where DS made a wrong call because the voters just don't behave the way DS' model guessed that they might.

I can't stress this enough: if you feel the need to vote strategically, then you need to base your decision on what you're actually seeing and hearing on the ground in your own riding. Not on what some blog halfway across the country guesstimates that the vote breakdown is going to be, because the blog will be wrong sometimes.

asterix, did you click on the link I provided and read the DS methodology?  I think you're selling them short.  They do look at historical voting patterns however they also look at regional polls, effects of particular candidates and local polls.  However, I do agree that the DS projections are just one source of information and that if you have information about what's happening on the ground, then by all means use it! 

The point I'm trying to make (and the reason I picked Ontario where I have zero knowledge of what's happening on the ground) is this:  Even in an election where voting patterns are volatile, there is still lots of information available to guide your choices.  Even if the NDP defy the odds and a few of the ridings I mentioned go orange, vote trading has merit. 

The odds of your vote counting in a swing riding is much better than the odds that these long shots will come through.

ReeferMadness

Uncle John wrote:

I lived in SSW for 8 years so I can say this...

I think if the NDP takes any in Scarborough, Scarborough Southwest will be the first to go.

It's funny you should say that because Democratic Space shows that SSW is the most competitive of the Scarborough ridings for the NDP.  Which is why it doesn't show up on my list.

Don't repeat that though because all of the other dippers are convinced that DS has nothing but random guesses.  Wink

ReeferMadness

Anonymouse wrote:

Reefer Madness, you are a blithering idiot. The NDP is going to win some of those seats you listed on May 2nd.

Namely, Bramalea Gore Malton, Scarborough Rogue River, Peterborough, London West and for most of the rest who knows who will finish 2nd or 1st for that matter!

So pack your bag and go home and quit defrauding people of their vote.

Nice ad hominem attack, Anonymouse.

finois finois's picture

ReeferMadness wrote:

Steve_Shutt wrote:

RM the question is in how many of these will the NDP finish second. If the answer is greater than one, I would request a copy of the receipt of a $100 donation to Fair Vote Canada - who are committed to ending this nonsense once and for all. If the answer is zero (and no NDP wins either, of course) I will post the same. Game on?

Edited for iTouch-induced spelling error.

I'm not sure why it's relevant how many NDP finish second.  The last time I checked, only first place finishers go to Ottawa.  Second placers get to go back to their old jobs.

Speaking of FVC, here is a link to Fair Vote BC and some relevant articles on Strategic Voting.

Just to be clear, I've never voted strategically and wouldn't normally advocate for it.  In this case, I'm willing to think differently because vote trading allows you to move your vote somewhere else where it's more likely to count.

 

So what if  a conservative wants to sabotage your vote.

He promises to vote ndp for you if you vote green for him in a riding that is a lib/con race.

He promptly goes to the poll and votes Tory and you have thrown away your vote.

Why risk it! Why even think of potentially losing your vote.

Usually when you buy a product you get to see the item.

 

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I wish we weren't talking about this.

No strategic voting. It can result in consequences unintended.

This is a very bad idea. No one should consider it under any set of circumstances.

DO NOT VOTE OUT OF FEAR; DO NOT TRADE A VOTE OUT OF FEAR. DON'T DO IT, PERIOD!

 

Anonymouse

Reefer Madness, you're right. I stepped over the line and I apologise.

MegB

Anonymouse wrote:

Reefer Madness, you are a blithering idiot. The NDP is going to win some of those seats you listed on May 2nd.

Namely, Bramalea Gore Malton, Scarborough Rogue River, Peterborough, London West and for most of the rest who knows who will finish 2nd or 1st for that matter!

So pack your bag and go home and quit defrauding people of their vote.

That's personally insulting, and a big no-no as far as babble policy goes.  If you can't find a way to refute an argument without a personal attack, knowing how bright you are, I have to say you're being intellectually lazy.  Arrêtez s'il vous plaît. Taking the easy way doesn't advance your position.

Anonymouse

Reefer Madness, you're mistaken. The NDP is going to win some of those seats you listed on May 2nd.

Namely, Bramalea Gore Malton, Scarborough Rogue River, Peterborough, London West and for most of the rest who knows who will finish 2nd or 1st for that matter!

melovesproles

A Harper majority would be a disaster but a Harper minority propped up by the Liberals like we've seen for the last five years would be extremely bad as well.  If the NDP surge is for real, the more votes they get the better.  They're the better strategic vote at this point.  The stronger position the NDP is vis a vis the Liberals, the better chance we actually see a progressive agenda gain some traction.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Thanks for the apology and retraction, Anonymouse!

ReeferMadness

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I wish we weren't talking about this.

No strategic voting. It can result in consequences unintended.

This is a very bad idea. No one should consider it under any set of circumstances.

DO NOT VOTE OUT OF FEAR; DO NOT TRADE A VOTE OUT OF FEAR. DON'T DO IT, PERIOD!

So we shouldn't vote out of fear because you fear it can have unintended consequences?

vermonster

On the strategic voting argument, I'd argue strongly that it is an individual decision. It is the organised sites and campaigns that purport to tell people what to do that I object to. They are often working from self-serving partisan bias, incomplete information, and without local input or direction. Several of the strategic voting sites this election have made egregious errors in judgement about the real state of local races -- based on their own political preferences -- and are offering counter-productive advice about who has the best chance of defeating the Conservative.

People are smart enough to figure out when a strategic vote is appropriate for them. If I had a very nasty far right wing Conservative MP in a riding where the NDP consistently polled single digits, maybe I would think that voting to get rid of the offensive MP would be worth it. If I lived in a riding like York Centre, where a right wing Conservative is mounting a hard challenge to a more progressive Liberal, maybe I would consider a vote for Ken Dryden - but I don't live there, so I can't say what the right thing to do is. But those kinds of places are clearly the exception, not the rule. I know that living in Quebec during the darkest years of the NDP here, I sometimes have been tempted to vote for the Bloc, but only did once when it seemed especially relevant to stop a local Liberal candidate I despised - I didn't feel good about it, but I also didn't necessarily feel that there was much to be gained by being one of the 3% of my riding casting a NDP vote.

-

I'd also like to add a few other reasons that I would consider in terms of arguments against strategic voting:

1. The per vote subsidy. Votes equal campaign money for the party...voting for another party gives them money to campaign against the NDP.

2. The optics of the national popular vote totals. When this election is over, a lot of analysis is going to be done on the entrails of the results. It is in the interests of all of us that the NDP has the highest total popular vote - so the pundits, the campaign planners, and the parties all understand how strong the progressive base in Canada is.

3. Future campaigns. A higher vote total in a riding makes it easier to recruit stronger candidates in the future, to build a riding association, to attract volunteers, and to convince the media to consider a candidate and a riding more seriously.

and, most importantly Wink

4. Future strategic voting considerations. Let's face it, every strategic voting advocate bases their calls on the previous election results. If a party's total is suppressed by strategic voting, then next time around, it will look like there is no support in that riding, so the strategic voting mavens will continue to opine that the NDP is not viable there. The higher the vote totals this time, the better base is laid for future campaigns -- and for combatting future arguments about strategic voting.

--

In the end, I'd argue that every vote is a strategic vote. Very few of us are likely to be 100% permanent agreement with even our preferred candidate. But we make a strategic decision that voting for that candidate is a better way to advance our political and policy goals, to build a better society, and express ourselves. Everyone decides for themselves what strategy they want to use to pick their preferred candidate and party. My hope is always that people will choose the most progressive realistic option on the ballot - which is the NDP in my view. But everyone has the right and obligation to use their own judgement to make the best decision they can for themselves. The whoie discussion strikes me as a major distraction - let's trust Canadians to understand what is at stake and make a decision that they can live with and feel good about for what works for them.

 

 

adma

I know somebody in Parkdale-High Park who was ready to vote Tory but strategically opted for Peggy Nash in order to stop smarmy Gerrard Kennedy.  Just saying.

Aristotleded24

ReeferMadness, strategic voting does not work. Period. Others have already pointed out how vote patterns change in one riding from one election to another, providing the Oshawa example. The methodology you listed on the DemocraticSpace website, as has been mentioned, relies on extrapolating from what happened last time, and in times of volatility, history is not a reliable guide.

It also doesn't help to scare people into voting for something. The Liberals have been screaming at Canadians to vote strategically from 2004 onwards and lost seats to the Conservatives in each election. And if the Liberals lose seats to the Conservatives this time around, it's because the Liberals couldn't hold those seats anyways, and nothing is going to save them. Remember what happened in Toronto, when segments of the population tried to scare people away from voting for Ford? Ford beat Smitherman quite handily. Ever since the NDP surge, the Conservative numbers began to fall. That's because instead of scaring people away from the Conservatives, they saw a positive alternative to them in Layton, and flocked towards him. Some of the people voting for Layton this time around voted Conservative in 2008.

I'll be so glad when the NDP beats the Liberals so that we can put this "strategic voting" BS to bed once and for all.

ReeferMadness

You're absolutely right, Aristotle.  What a great day for Canada.  Good thing we were saved from the ravages of strategic voting. 

Let's all sit back and enjoy watching Stephen Harper have his way with this country until 2015. 

No whining, now.  You got your way.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Strategic voting couldn't have worked. And there much of any individual Liberals worth voting for.

Aristotleded24

ReeferMadness wrote:
You're absolutely right, Aristotle.  What a great day for Canada.  Good thing we were saved from the ravages of strategic voting. 

Let's all sit back and enjoy watching Stephen Harper have his way with this country until 2015. 

No whining, now.  You got your way.

Sorry, try again, I voted against the Conservative candidate in my riding. The bulk of the Conservative seats came at Liberal expense, and obviously the Liberals lost support and could not stem their downward spiral.

If strategic voting works so well, tell us how Ford beat Smitherman handily, despite screeching loud calls for strategic voting.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

What the hell was the NDP supposed to do, Reefer? Promise NOT to pass the Liberals?  It's not like any other party anywhere on the planet ever told people to vote for a different party.

MegB

Closed for length.

Pages

Topic locked