Seat Predictions Ontario 2018 Election

80 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Seat Predictions Ontario 2018 Election

Time to belly up to the bar folks and place your bets against the pros:

Right now some of the pollsters' forecasts, including of course some of the right-wingers, are trying to spark the dying Liberal embers, to split the anti Doug Ford vote.

124 seats up for election

64 seats required for Majority Government

Too Close To Call

PCs 65 seats and Majority Government

NDP 53 seats

Libs 6 seats 

 

Eric Grenier (CBC) 

PCs 70 seats

NDP 51 seats

Libs 3 seats

Put your forecasts here and we will toast our winner here on election nite (Jun 7)

NorthReport

(Warning: Liberal supporter website)

PCs 36 seats

NDP 30 seats

Libs 8 seats

Too Close 50 seats

http://www.electionprediction.org/2018_on/index.php

NorthReport

Mainstreet I'm assuming

PCs 67 seats

NDP 47 seats

Libs 7 seats

Grns 1 seat

Ties 2 seats

https://twitter.com/quito_maggi/status/999803929784287233

WWWTT

NDP-70

pc-40

liberal-14

NorthReport

David Akin (Global News)

PCs 70 seats

NDP 49 seats

Libs 4 seats

Grns 1 seat

https://twitter.com/davidakin/status/1000172272504614912

 

NorthReport

Not really a prediction but.........................

FollowFollow @Tom_Parkin_

More

After the Doug Ford Party took over from the PC Party there were a couple polls showing them at 50%. Lots of that has now slipped to Horwath—now the DFP is 2 seats over a majority.

 

https://twitter.com/Tom_Parkin_/status/1000499769779814405

gadar

PC Majority govt.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It looks as though the predictions sites are all under heavy pressure(or perhaps some sort of direct orders)NOT to show the PC's falling short of a majority in the seat count.  

robbie_dee

OPC 61

NDP 60

LIB 2

GRN 1

NorthReport

What's the matter with Canadian people?

We prided ourselves on never being a society that would entertain for one second a Donald Trump the Second in a position of power in our country.

After the Rob Ford show one would think that was enough but no, Doug Ford is being given serious consideration to becoming Premier of Canada's most populous province.

Has Canada gone nuts or have we been like that from the get-go?

robbie_dee

Oh, we’ve mostly been nuts from the get go for sure, but new communications technology like social media that lets our different flavors of nuts connect with each other and magnify their collective voices, along with eroding social cohesion and increasing economic insecurity, have made the problem worse.

quizzical

why you lumping all Canadians into electing doug ford?

Ontario is doing it all themselves to themselves if they elect Ford nation.

my gma always used to say "Ontarians might as well be American" hope Ontarians prove her wrong.

 

NorthReport

This makes sense and that is why I think we need to shut down all these hate group websites before they end up controlling Canada.

robbie_dee wrote:

Oh, we’ve mostly been nuts from the get go for sure, but new communications technology like social media that lets our different flavors of nuts connect with each other and magnify their collective voices, along with eroding social cohesion and increasing economic insecurity, have made the problem worse.

Pondering

robbie_dee wrote:

Oh, we’ve mostly been nuts from the get go for sure, but new communications technology like social media that lets our different flavors of nuts connect with each other and magnify their collective voices, along with eroding social cohesion and increasing economic insecurity, have made the problem worse.

Yeah that.

Now I will go out on a limb and predict:

Many of the votes that were/are going to the PCs are "The Liberals have to go and the PCs have always been the most likely alternative". Now that the NDP are a serious contender more people will be giving them a serious look.

I predict a higher than predicted turn out from millenials in reaction to a possible Ford win and the rise of the NDP.

I don't know what the seat distribution will be but I predict Horwath will be the next premier of Ontario.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Oh don't sound so melodramatic about Canada, Saskatchewan voted in Grant Devine and BC elected Bill Vander Zalm.

anything can happen in Canada.

cco

Not to mention Preston Manning, the original "drain the swamp and refill it with Nazis" candidate. But then, as an immigrant, it's been my observation that many Canadians don't actually live in Canada. They inhabit more of a "Canada of the mind", devoid of the unpleasant facts of its actual history, with an idealized political culture which didn't really vote for Harper, or Ford, or Mulroney. It's why Trudeau could give his "Canada is back!" victory speech without many raised eyebrows. The things we don't like about Canada aren't really Canada, see. Racism's certainly not a part of our Canadian heritage.

Sean in Ottawa

I think there are going to be many close seats and that predicting is just a guess.

I would say that the next two weeks will be full-on attacks on the NDP and there is the possibility of peaking too early if that is where they are.

I think the Liberals may be unable to be sure to hold the balance of power as they will have few seats -- so a few lucky bounces would decide PC or NDP majority.

I still think the most likely result is a PC government but there is a path for the NDP as I said from the start. I think we need to see the next week and a half to get a sense of this. I may try to make a prediction later.

The only chance of a minority is if there are sustaned attacks on the NDP that result in  improved fortunes for the Liberals. I really see no sign of that.

The reaction to attacks on the NDP could range from a PC majority to an NDP majority if people see through the desperation.

I still think Trump is the elephant in the room and the main reason the PCs will have a harder time. More people are now aware of what this so-called right wing populism really is.

Ciabatta2

Agreed that seat numbers are really no more than guessing.

I'm fairly certain that Ford will win a majority.

I also think the Wynne will end up second due but I understand how crazy that sounds right now. But I think the NDP has risen too early, the Liberals have some very concentrated support, and the debate is the start of the come back narrative that the media has nicely left open for the leader that best suits their business.

Sean in Ottawa

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Agreed that seat numbers are really no more than guessing.

I'm fairly certain that Ford will win a majority.

I also think the Wynne will end up second due but I understand how crazy that sounds right now. But I think the NDP has risen too early, the Liberals have some very concentrated support, and the debate is the start of the come back narrative that the media has nicely left open for the leader that best suits their business.

This would require a reversal that so far has no foundation and sounds like wishful thinking on your part. The Liberals are not a little bit below any efficient support level and they have the least room to grow. This means any NDP collapse is more likely to help the conservatives and would still leave the Liberals third.

If you imagine an NDP reduction in support to the benefit of the Conservatives, the Liberals would lose seats that they might now get with a tighter NDP Conservative race. There is no scenario now that would see the Liberals be able to increase to the point of getting second place in seats other than something unpredictable and catastrophic. Your suggestion that this can be predicted now suggests your wishful thinking goes beyond the vast majority of dedicated Liberal party workers -- is that what you are?

Ciabatta2

Not at all. I'm just someone with a different analysis, who thinks that:

a) current NDP support levels are a result of vote-parking while people wait to see who will rise during the last third of the campaign

b) the NDP has peaked too early

c) the media has been setting up a St. Kathleen narrative to manufacture a rise for Wynne

d) the debate was not beneficial for Horwath beyond her base (and particularly not with voters open to Wynne)

e) the power of incumbancy and demopgrahics,

f) that the Liberal vote (given riding and vote patterns) is more efficient than the other two parties (a point I believe that you and I disagreed on previously.)

In another thread someone said Wynne's good debate could only get her "a piece of a piece of a piece" and I agree - I think that's all the Liberals need to come in second or a not super distant third.  Also, I'm basing the prediction on a rise in their polling (not current numbers). 

A lot can happen in 10 days.

 

 

NorthReport

This is a race betweeen the one percenters, represented by Doug Ford, and sure some others will vote for him vs the rest of Ontario society who actually realize the importance of schools, hospitals, public transportation, child care, pharmacare, dental care, and restoring Hydro, an essential service, to the public domain. Progressive voters know what they have to do to keep Ford out. If the election was held today Liberals would lose official party status.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

There's simply no case for any progressive to vote Liberal.  There's another, MORE progressive party well ahead of them in the polls, in a dead heat at worse with the PC's and more often than not in the lead.  And probably half of the voters who'd habitually backed the OLP in the last few elections were people who were closer to the NDP on the issues but who believed that only the OLP could beat the PC's or keep them out after they'd been beaten.  Since the tactical case for progressive votes for the OLP no longer exists, and since there's a better party this time which is more likely to win, what remaining case even exists for voting OLP at all?  There's certainly no conviction-based case, since the OLP HAS no unchangeable convictions on anything.  If you vote ONDP, you vote for what you care about AND you vote for the progressive party with the best chance of winning.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

At this point in a campaign voters have a general idea of how they rank the parties/candidates/leaders.  Any changes going forward will either be around fence sitters or strategic ("I really wanted to vote Green, but I don't think they are going to win").  This strategic step was fatal to the NDP last federal election. 

In this election I would see two contradictory strategic decisions occurring on the left/center.  People will be looking to the NDP as the vehicle to stop Ford and others will be looking at giving Liberals votes to ensure they have credible presence and/or keep the NDP from 'going too far'.  I would bet on more people going to the NDP to stop Ford.

Sean in Ottawa

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Not at all. I'm just someone with a different analysis, who thinks that:

a) current NDP support levels are a result of vote-parking while people wait to see who will rise during the last third of the campaign

b) the NDP has peaked too early

c) the media has been setting up a St. Kathleen narrative to manufacture a rise for Wynne

d) the debate was not beneficial for Horwath beyond her base (and particularly not with voters open to Wynne)

e) the power of incumbancy and demopgrahics,

f) that the Liberal vote (given riding and vote patterns) is more efficient than the other two parties (a point I believe that you and I disagreed on previously.)

In another thread someone said Wynne's good debate could only get her "a piece of a piece of a piece" and I agree - I think that's all the Liberals need to come in second or a not super distant third.  Also, I'm basing the prediction on a rise in their polling (not current numbers). 

A lot can happen in 10 days.

 

 

Ok -- I disagree with the concept of vote parking at this point. Not sure what evidence you have beyond wishful thinking that this is not a decision based on all the choices people have. There is no reason to take a vote from the NDP and give it to someone else when they are leading in the last ten days.

I agree (b) might be true although we have not yet seen the NDP momentum falter. If it is going to then this will be evident this week. But you are saying this based on absolutely no evidence (my reason for suggesting you were being hopeful).

I think that (c) is not new at this point and if anything more and more of the media are giving up on the idea that the Liberals are still in it right now.

I think on (d) you have half a point but that most are not open to Wynne and the the thing Horwath had to do was prevent Ford from winning.

I think (e) is marginal. Incumbancy is not a big thing when the government is as hated as this one is. I agree the level of hatred is irrational but it is there. Demographics might not be as big a factor as it has in the past if the younger generations decide they don't want a Trump-like premier for Ontario. (Yes I know Ford is not Trump but there are reminders.)

Your point in (f) is based on a complete misunderstanding of what effiecient means -- efficient is about distribution of votes in winable seats without losing too many in losing ones. It is totally collected to support level. A party that is efficient at 40% is extremely unlikely to be efficient at 25% or lower. If you run the math you will see how illogical it is to suggest that a party can be effieicnt at all support levels. The Liberals are very evenly spread in the province and this is why they are very efficient when they lead in the popular vote but it makes them very vulnerable when they trail. The reason is this support level is reproduced across the province more evenly. A pile of second place finishes would be considered inefficient - right? Well add five points acorss the board and then they are a pile of first place wins. A winning party that is efficient means they win by a little everywhere -- lost 15 points across the board then they lose everywhere. A party concentrated in strongholds will find it difficult to break out of them (this may be the NDP's difficulty here) but that also means when they are down to 20% they can still take seats. A party inefficient at 35% is liable to hold seats due to strongholds when down to 20%. a party efficient at 35% is liable to lose almost everywhere . That benefit of having no extra padding in lost votes at 35% is a huge risk when you lose one third or more of your vote. Really you should consider this. Votes are equal. Efficiency in a party is based on where it normally tracks and what votes are wasted. A big change in popular vote means a big difference in efficiency.

I agree that a lot can happen in ten days but your logic here seems very faulty -- especially considering your complete misunderstanding of what it means for a party to be efficient. -- it is distribution and level not a characteristic of the party.

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

This is a race betweeen the one percenters, represented by Doug Ford, and sure some others will vote for him vs the rest of Ontario society who actually realize the importance of schools, hospitals, public transportation, child care, pharmacare, dental care, and restoring Hydro, an essential service, to the public domain. Progressive voters know what they have to do to keep Ford out. If the election was held today Liberals would lose official party status.

This is something that you and I wish is true but it really is not. Far too many poeple have the concept of good and bad government as opposed to good for whom. Too many have the concept that good for the economy helps everyone. Far too many think that helping the rich get richer means they will provide more jobs and income for others.

Without this fantasy, right wing parties would never win.

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

There's simply no case for any progressive to vote Liberal.  There's another, MORE progressive party well ahead of them in the polls, in a dead heat at worse with the PC's and more often than not in the lead.  And probably half of the voters who'd habitually backed the OLP in the last few elections were people who were closer to the NDP on the issues but who believed that only the OLP could beat the PC's or keep them out after they'd been beaten.  Since the tactical case for progressive votes for the OLP no longer exists, and since there's a better party this time which is more likely to win, what remaining case even exists for voting OLP at all?  There's certainly no conviction-based case, since the OLP HAS no unchangeable convictions on anything.  If you vote ONDP, you vote for what you care about AND you vote for the progressive party with the best chance of winning.

 

I think this is another thing that we might agree we would like but may not be true.

I dislike strategic voting but there are still seats where the Liberal may be positionned better than the NDP. I won't vote strategically but can you call a person who does not a progressive if they are trying to stop Ford? Even if they are mistaken?

We could always say what you say here that it is wrong to be a progressive and vote this way -- but don't we always consider those voting against us as wrong? You would hope you are voting the right way and that the others are wrong? I disagree with the Liberals and totally disagree with every position of the Conservatives but who am I to say someone's choices are objectively wrong? Even if I object to them in every way... The fact is we each have a vision of government and priorities and we do not share the same ones.

The only incorrect vote is one against the person's intention even if we disagree.

NorthReport

wrong thread

Sean in Ottawa

Pogo wrote:

At this point in a campaign voters have a general idea of how they rank the parties/candidates/leaders.  Any changes going forward will either be around fence sitters or strategic ("I really wanted to vote Green, but I don't think they are going to win").  This strategic step was fatal to the NDP last federal election. 

In this election I would see two contradictory strategic decisions occurring on the left/center.  People will be looking to the NDP as the vehicle to stop Ford and others will be looking at giving Liberals votes to ensure they have credible presence and/or keep the NDP from 'going too far'.  I would bet on more people going to the NDP to stop Ford.

I have to quibble with this. Even though I did vote NDP in the last federal election, I disagree that the momentum to the Liberals was strategic. I think people bought what the Liberals were selling and not what the NDP was. The momentum to the Liberals shifted their way before it made any strategic sense. I think the anger at Mulcair and that campaign is evidence that the party understood this.

NorthReport

It boggles the mind that someone like Doug Ford is even a contender for the second most important political position in Canada. And of course the usual BS from the business community dutifully reported in the Globe and Mail. 

Every time a school is built, a bridge or a road is built, funds provided to universities and apprentice programs, a government assisted day care opened, etc., progressives need to begin getting an ego and takes lots and lots of public credit for these achievements. Progressives need to go on a 10 year massive re-education program to set the record straight. 

And somehow we need to find a way to shut down all these hate websites.

Pogo Pogo's picture

 Sean, I agree and disagree (not as cool as sorry/not sorry).  I have lots of anecdotal evidence of friends/co-workers making strategic decisions to pick the party best suited to get rid of Harper.  However to your point the Liberals only became this choice because they overcame a big NDP lead.  The NDP lost the election outside of any strategic voting but the magnitude of the loss was amplified by Liberals becoming the voter's choice to take on Harper.

Sean in Ottawa

Pogo wrote:

 Sean, I agree and disagree (not as cool as sorry/not sorry).  I have lots of anecdotal evidence of friends/co-workers making strategic decisions to pick the party best suited to get rid of Harper.  However to your point the Liberals only became this choice because they overcame a big NDP lead.  The NDP lost the election outside of any strategic voting but the magnitude of the loss was amplified by Liberals becoming the voter's choice to take on Harper.

That is the thing about anecdotal evidence it is not universal. But logically, I knew quite a few people who were with the NDP and became uncomfortable with Mulcair while the NDP were in first place. Clearly that is not about strategy. The NDP had the strategic advantage and blew it. People decided to leave the first/second place party to go for the third for reasons we did not share but cannot be dismissed as strategy.

Some of it was like a Trudeau mania. Some of it was the positiveness sounding campaign which sounded more optimistic than the NDP campaign. Some of it was promises the Liberals were making (in some cases false ones). Some of it was failures in the NDP campaign.

I do not want the NDP to wish this stuff away and pretend it was about strategy becuase if they do they will lose again like that. You have to own your mistakes and the NDP campaign was beaten and a lot of fault rested with the NDP for that.

I am an example of that -- long time NDP voter. I voted for them so surely this was not strategy but I was much less enthusiastic about it. I did not like Trudeau or the Liberals and did not believe their promises but I saw the NDP campaign blow it. I saw the mistakes.

If you want the NDP to win then you need to remember them.

This Ontario election, I have absolutely no reservations about Horwath or the NDP platform being the best and deserving my vote. The NDP got my vote in 2015 but I did not feel this way about Mulcair's campaign. So you cannot call my feeling strategy or even buying into Liberal propaganda since neither applied. You cannot even call it a rejection of the NDP platform since I did support that. I think there were many like me who made the decision not to support the NDP even as I did. And that might be my own political history as a factor.

robbie_dee

Wynne's biggest problem now is how revolting Ford is to many of her erstwhile supporters. Lib/NDP swing voters who liked her debate performance and might be inclined to switch back still have to confront the knowledge that doing so could get Ford elected.

The NDP lost the last federal election because, at a critical moment, its Quebec base started to melt away. This in turn undermined its position as the default anti-Harper option and allowed Liberal voters to return home. It didn't help that Mulcair seemed stiff and dour trying to run a classic frontrunner campaign against the more dynamic Trudeau. Moreover Harper, while unpopular among a lot of people in the Liberal/NDP universe, was also probably still a less frightening boogey man than Ford because at least Harper appeared competent. But all that being said, I think the niqab issue is really what did it.

The niqab issue was really a sui generis event that ended up costing the NDP Quebec because the Party was out of step with a large number of its voting base over the issue of accomodating religious minorities in the public sphere and the supreme court dropped a critical, publicized decision on the exact issue in the middle of the campaign. I happen to think the NDP took the morally correct position on the issue, and ironically the end result was that the Liberals who agreed with the NDP's position reaped the majority of seats in Quebec, but the Liberals and NDP weren't really competing for the same voters in this regard and while the Liberals held their natural voting base the NDP took the loss on its exposed flank to the Bloc.

I just don't see an analogy to this in the provincial campaign. Maybe it could be the York University strike and the NDP's refusal to condone back to work legislation? That's obviously the one the Liberals are trying and it could work well among York University students and their parents but I think that's just too small of a group and it's hard to see the issue getting much broader legs. Besides where are the voters who are considering the NDP but disagree with them on this issue going to go? Back to the Liberals who were in government and allowed the issue to fester? Or to the Conservatives? I don't think so.

I think the parties' positions are pretty well settled with the voters now, much moreso than they were federally in September of 2015. I don't think the NDP will get the 47% that they polled with Forum and we might even see a slight pullback in the next poll from that organization. But things really do seem to be congealing at something in the mid to high 30s for the NDP, mid to low 30s for the PCs and low 20s for the Liberals and that is where I anticipate the final vote results will be. Then it will depend on riding-by-riding vote splits who ends up on top.

ctrl190

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Not at all. I'm just someone with a different analysis, who thinks that:

a) current NDP support levels are a result of vote-parking while people wait to see who will rise during the last third of the campaign

b) the NDP has peaked too early

c) the media has been setting up a St. Kathleen narrative to manufacture a rise for Wynne

d) the debate was not beneficial for Horwath beyond her base (and particularly not with voters open to Wynne)

e) the power of incumbancy and demopgrahics,

f) that the Liberal vote (given riding and vote patterns) is more efficient than the other two parties (a point I believe that you and I disagreed on previously.)

In another thread someone said Wynne's good debate could only get her "a piece of a piece of a piece" and I agree - I think that's all the Liberals need to come in second or a not super distant third.  Also, I'm basing the prediction on a rise in their polling (not current numbers). 

A lot can happen in 10 days.

 

Ciabatta, I think the Liberals are toast. They might be able to eek out a dozen or seats with a decent GOTV effort from the vestiges of the Trudeau 2015 campaign. 

However, it would take the Canadian political comeback of the last half century for the Liberals to get out of their hole and overtake the NDP as the anti-PC vote. It is clearly an NDP vs. PC race at this point. I think the PCs definitely have the edge - the math to 63 seats is much harder for the NDP - but there is no doubt that the Wynne Liberals are done. 

NorthReport

Election forecast: seat numbers

NDP 62 seats

PCs  60 seats

Libs 2 seats

Total 124 seats

Ciabatta2

Thanks for the thoughtful and analytical replies Sean, ctrl190 and others.  Re: ctrl190 they very well may be toast, but I've learned to never pronounce the Liberals dead so I will hold off for now.

Re: sean, so of my six points, b,d,e have some validity, a,c we disagree on, and f is possibly a misunderstanding.  So the analysis ain't all that bad, is it? ;)  Teasing aside, your points are well thought out - appreiated! - with maybe the exception of c) which I think you have dismissed unfairly. I've never seen such fawning over a failed leader in my life in politics.

Re: f and efficiency, I'm out of step with the right lingo, but when I was involved in campaigns we assessed polls/ridings by the number of votes we judged necessary to win (well, it was always a range.)   We judged polls/ridings to be vote-efficient when we needed the fewest votes to win (e.g. winning low pluralities in 3-way races were efficient, needing 48 percent was inefficient.)

I've been out of the game a long time, so I'm happy to defer to what ever terms you feel fit best.  But terminology accurate or not, we would have judged the Liberals in 2014 as exceptionally efficient - a majority of seats with only with 38 percent of the vote.  (Whereas, I'm seeing some politicos saying the NDP needs in the mid to high 40s to win a majority.  To us, not efficient.)

Of course, I don't have a crystal ball.  So I can't know how the votes will distribute.  But given their past performance and the regional polling and Ontario's socioeconomics and my general interactions with people, I'd project the Liberals aren't going to sprinkle their votes around the province coming in second.  They're going to win some and lose by a lot everywhereelse.  They will have support in two key regions - 416 and Ottawa, which have 30 seats between them at minimum - so a result in the low 20s could conceivably result in 10-20 seats.  (Not counting outliers, like Gravelle and Mauro that could hang on.)  That's bad, but not an epic blowout.  If the Liberal vote recovers, even only a bit, that could really change it all.  A popular vote of PC36/NDP32/Lib27 could conceivably see the Liberals win more seats than the NDP.

I do think that if the polls at this time next week are similar to what they are now, then yes Wynne will not come in second.  My prediction of Wynne coming in second is not based on polls in the low 20s.  I come from the view that projections (seats, sports, otherwise) are made before the game or at worst in the early stages so I'm projecting changes in the current dynamic.  With each passing day, the chances that dynamic shifts decrease of course.

Not a comment on any single post here, but I find the eleciton prediction websites where posters repost and change their predictions really funny.  I mean, it's not hard to predict the outcome of a 3-1 game with 3 minutes to play in the third period.  Changing your prediction six times isn't predicting, it's just following the game!

NorthReport

The most recent polling shows the Liberals support at 16 per cent. Will they even win a seat with those numbers?

Ciabatta2

At 16%, I doubt they'll be there but if they are I'd guess five seats.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Knowing what the polling is looking like right now, why would any actual progressive in Toronto STILL vote OLP?  There's no "strategic" case for it.

robbie_dee

At too close to call, plugging in the latest Mainstreet numbers yields 68 PCs, 56 NDP and 0 Lib or Green. I can't see a Liberal shutout happening but I could see them limited to St. Paul's and Ottawa Vanier. Who becomes leader in that scenario? I'm still sticking with my (albeit unlikely) minority government call:

OPC 61

NDP 60

LIB 2

GRN 1

I'm going to push my prognostication further to predict that the NDP wins Etobicoke North giving the OPCs a clean opportunity to dump Doug Ford immediately after the election. Vic Fedeli will resume the position of interim leader and starts bidding against Horwarth for the support of Schreiner and the Liberal rump. Likely to happen? No. But it would be an interesting one.

NorthReport

Taking the Speaker's role into consideration, you need 64 seats for a majority - is that correct?

 

With 8 days to go, the Tories still have a small edge over the NDP

 

http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2018/05/with-8-days-to-go-tories-still-have...

robbie_dee

There will be 124 seats in the OLA so you need 63 for a bare working majority. Assuming you offer a speaker from your own party, you would be left with 62 voting members on the Government side and 61 in Opposition.

In trying to think of fun but crazy scenarios I came up with the one I posted above, but an even crazier one would be an exact 62-62 split between the OPCs and the NDP. Each side would be desperately trying to pick off a traitor from the other. I'd bet on the NDP offering Christine Elliott the speaker's chair. More likely, though, there would just be another election immediately.

Sean in Ottawa

This whole issue of some parties being more efficient in seats in generally false. It is about, as I have said before distribution, concentration and levels. But why do we have this concept despite the fact that an analysis of logic would show that this cannot be true? I want to explore that as a way to give a bit more of an indication of where things may go.

General comment on efficiency -- all parties will necessarily have various bands of support that are efficient depending on their level of concentration. So a party that is highly concentrated in strongholds would be remarkably efficient at a low level. One that is spread out would be inefficient at a low level but suddenly become efficient when this spread out support reaches critical mass in riding after riding. Then if the vote increases beyond that they will become inefficient again perhaps until support is high enough to get the next batch of seats. Example -- NDP in the 80s-90s. They were quite efficient at a low level but needed a significant boost to find a higher efficient level. They got that in 1990. If they had a little more they likely would not have gained much more as they did not have many near misses then -- they were mostly near wins. Had they obtained only 33% instead of 38% they would have been inefficient -- we know this becuase they barely won many seats and a reduction in support would have seen a pile of close seconds instead of firsts.

This is why in my discussion above I said that there is nothing about the Liberal party that is different -- they are no more efficient than other parties at all levels -- that is mathematically impossible. A pile of close wins means that a reduction in support would create a pile of close losses.

So where does the myth come form and why do scientific sites screw this up?

Most parties track for considerable time around a particular level of support. This is what creates the myth that they are somehow more efficient in all ranges rather than the ones we have seen them in. Scientific sites want to use data but the reality is that this does not exist at every support level in a meaningful way. So what they do is make presumptions that gains and losses are proportionate. they assume the concentration and distribution of support does not change as that support rises and falls. Of course this is illogical for a number of reasons. Let's look at one:

Assume for a moment that in riding A a party has 60% accessible voters and in riding B they have also 60% of accessible voters and in riding C they have only 30% of accessible voters and finally riding D where they also have 30% of accessible voters. These are the poeple that would consider them.

In riding A with a great local campaign, good workers, and a perfect platform for that riding they get 2/3 of the possible voters and win the seat.

Now with riding B a poor candidate and poor local campaign they can only get 20% of the vote.

Now riding C they have a great candidate and get more than 2/3 and 25% of the vote.

Now riding D with a poor candidate they only get 1/3 of the acccessible vote and 10% of the vote.

So now we suddenly get a better overall campaign. what will happen? The models will take the increasesed 15% provincially and apply it evenly. Riding A is still a win, Riding B is still a loss but they predict riding D as a win with this across the board boost.

However, instead Riding D was already clost to maximising its potential and still comes up as a loss but Riding B a longer shot wins. The science makes the mistake that the data we have about concentration and levels is a single bar that goes up and down and does not change with the action of an increase or decrease.

So let's look at this campaign and you see how the math plays out for each party:

The Conservatives are not that far from a predictable level but they were at a fairly efficient level and the vote was going up. The same assumption of efficiency is maintained and they are presumed to have this magical portable efficiency and so the predictors all say they will get more seats than their support suggests. Where do they come from?

Next up is the NDP. Presumptions are made about previous low and flatter levels of NDP support and that this distribution would remain identical at a higher level. So some NDP seats are tagged Conservative.

Then you have the Liberals. This one is really the head scratcher becuase there are two extremes here. On one side people presume that the distribution of Liberal support would be constant even with a huge decline and show the Liberals getting one or two seats. More likely, that decline would be towards seats that are stronger for them with better candidates and so the Liberals ought to be able to get more but the so-called science says only two seats. The reality may be that in decline the Liberals actuall could hold 6-8 seats but the across the board stuff does not see that. On the other extreme Liberals have the illusion that it is not the distribution but the magical efficiency that is portable and imagine that the Liberals in this low range would somehow retain 20 seats. Both extremes are wrong becuase they are both based on characteristics of level, distribution and efficiency that are deemed independently portable for a party rather than functions of each other without much to do with the party.

The one characteristic that is related to a party is the core support -- the people who would vote for them even in bad situations. Are their concentrations of this? It might make a party more efficient at a lower rather than higher level.

Just when you though this was easy there is another variable. That is who the competition is. The seats the Liberals would find safe in an NDP surge are nbot the same seats they woudl find safe in a Conservative surge. This means that depending on the concentrations a party could be wiped out or find some efficiency people did not expect based on which other party these concentrations were up against. The example I gave was Ottawa Vanier. This is a very, very safe Liberal seat from a Conservative surge. But if the surge is NDP, it might be a lot less safe. Ottawa South might seem safe for the Liberals, in a NDP surge but not in a Conservative one. You have to consider this dynamic as well.

For all these reasons these predictors are only valuable based on an assumed cross-the-board movement that almost never happens.

So let me predict this:

1) The Liberals will hang on to more seats than the 1-2 predicted since their support when very low will likely be more concentrated in pockets. This is only in part becuase in those pockets there will also not be as much strategic vote against them.

2) The difference in NDP vs conservative efficiency is BS. It could go either way in the election depending on changes in support level that we cannot see right now.

3) The likely voter thing about the NDP is exaggerated but it is a real thing. It means if the turnout is high then that is good news for the NDP and if it is low good news for the Conservatives.

4) Most parties generally have some support level at the low end where their core bases are retained. (The famous 1993 federal washout was due to the Reform Party which was a split in the PC party taking the fortresses away.) This means that washouts are possible but less likely.

5) Most parties are not very efficient in the low 30s with a party with more than 5 points above them. So if there are three majors in the low 30s anything can happen but if one is in the low 30s and one 5 points up in the higher 30s with a third way below -- that low 30s is going to lose disproportionately. Many political scientists have said that predictions of a majority come from the gap from 1st to 2nd more than the vote share.

6) While almost all are calling for a majority -- this could be incorrect if they are lowballing Liberal seats and the Liberals get 5-7 seats instead of the 1-2 -- and if the NDP and Conservatives are within a couple points of each other. The deciding point here will be whether the surviving Liberals are in Lib-PC fights or Lib-NDP fights. In other words which party the Liberals are holding off to keep their handful.

7) The NDP does not need to be in the mid 40s to have a majority. They need to have 6-8 points more than the Conservatives. So if the Conservatives get 33% then the NDP only need 39-41%. If the Conservatives manage 35% then the NDP will need the 41-43% for a majority. If the Conservatives get 37% the NDP would need 43-45%. As you can see this leaves less and less room for the Liberals and Greens and smaller parties. This means effectively that the NDP likely needs 40% AND for the Conservatives to be held below 34%.

8) For the Conservatives the math is not much better. They also would need near 40% AND to keep the NDP from crossing 34%.

9) If the parties are very close -- within 4 points -- either one could lead but are unlikely to get a majority.

10) Without seeing the Conservatives -- if the NDP and the Liberals are both doing well in seat-count -- for their level of support (efficiency) then the Conservatives need a higher raw vote to win. So this means that the early returns not in all parties' best seats can still tell you soemthing.

So when you are watching -- don't just look for the totals of one party or make presumptions about efficiency. Look for the gaps. Hope this helps.

Sorry but I still cannot see what the basic gaps are to be able to predict. I will try before the polls close.

I do not see last minute guesses as cheating. I see earlier guesses without data as baloney.

Mighty Middle

Could there be a possibility that we could wind up with only two parties represented in the legislature with official status? Even if the Libreals win maybe 2 or 3 seats, could they possibly join the NDP and then it would be like BC? That it could look like this

NDP - 81

Conservatives - 42

Green - 1

How would it change things if it was just a two party system in the Ontario Legislature (notwithstanding the lone Green Party MPP)

Sean in Ottawa

The too-close-to-call predicter is very screwed up with the bias built into it.

Let the idea of a Conservative majority coming from this sink in:

L 21% C 34% N 37% G 5%

Seats L 6 C 65 N 55 G 0

A party will not LIKELY get a majority losing by 3% in the popular vote AND at only 34%.

Think what a shocker the Bob Rae majority was at 38% leading by 6%.

This is not to say this is impossible -- but a predictor is supposed to be what is likely not what would be the greatest seat count ever recorded in Canada for a party with the lowest percentage and losing the popular vote by 3%. that takes some pretty shady math principles.

This is bad science making presumptions about distribution/concentration remaining unchanged as a party support rises and presumptions about portable efficiency for a party no matter what support level they are at.

Any decent understanding of math will tell you that if you are more efficient at one level of support wou will be less efficient at another.

Then consider which party is more likely to build up regions of wasted votes -- the Conservatives or the NDP? Given that there are parts of the province where you could run a bunny rabbit as a Conservative and win -- I think you can see what I am getting at.

But if you need more data to see how cracked this is consider this:

Enter the results of the 2014 election. the predictor shows:

L-PC-N

61-42-21=124

seats % 49-34-17

Actual results

58-28-21 = 106

Seats % 55-26-20

So you see an apparent bias away from the NDP -- even when the numbers put in are identical.

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

robbie_dee wrote:

There will be 124 seats in the OLA so you need 63 for a bare working majority. Assuming you offer a speaker from your own party, you would be left with 62 voting members on the Government side and 61 in Opposition.

In trying to think of fun but crazy scenarios I came up with the one I posted above, but an even crazier one would be an exact 62-62 split between the OPCs and the NDP. Each side would be desperately trying to pick off a traitor from the other. I'd bet on the NDP offering Christine Elliott the speaker's chair. More likely, though, there would just be another election immediately.

If the NDP were in this position, I think they would offer a Liberal the Speaker's role. This would be good for the Liberals becuase they would not have to directly support the NDP but could still prevent an election or be seen to support the Conservatives.

The NDP would not want to give this to the Conservatives and the Conservatives would not want to lose a member to that chair in a close assembly.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Could there be a possibility that we could wind up with only two parties represented in the legislature with official status? Even if the Libreals win maybe 2 or 3 seats, could they possibly join the NDP and then it would be like BC? That it could look like this

NDP - 81

Conservatives - 42

Green - 1

How would it change things if it was just a two party system in the Ontario Legislature (notwithstanding the lone Green Party MPP)

That is a fantasy. For the Greens to win a seat, the Liberals cannot be so low in Guelph. The Greens need the Liberals to hang on to some support as if their support goes NDP or Conservative at that rate one of the two would win. If the Liberals hold enough to allow the Greens to come up the middle then they have more than enough support to hold seats elsewhere.

But it is likely that the Liberals are in danger of losing party status -- even if they get 5-6 seats which is more likely than the predictions of 0-2.

The Liberals might be able to retain 3 in the GTA and 2 in Eastern Ontario even if the numbers are bad.

NorthReport

What will right-winger Barry Kay will have to say tonite? Probably stoney silence.

NorthReport

I also question Too Close To Call - has he ever even come close to a correct forecast?

Very Far Away

Sean in Ottawa,

A few years ago, I said almost the same thing: You are the main reason I come to this forum. (Because of the poor design of the site and some endless fights among members, I haven't been visiting it regularly for a long time).

Your analyses and the way you explain them are great. Thank you very much.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Very Far Away wrote:

Sean in Ottawa,

A few years ago, I said almost the same thing: You are the main reason I come to this forum. (Because of the poor design of the site and some endless fights among members, I haven't been visiting it regularly for a long time).

Your analyses and the way you explain them are great. Thank you very much.

 

 

Thank you for your kind words. I am glad that the effort of trying to work through these things sometimes creates a value .

Pogo Pogo's picture

Sean, I agree you laid it very clearly.  I would just like add that each party probably has a base of seats that are very solid.  Whether it be strong voting culture, on the ground organization or well liked candidates there will be some ridings that hold their vote when the general party vote collapses.  You can save the furniture.

Pages