Its not a question of cherry picking against results you don't "like" Sean.
The huge variance in the Green vote that shows across all polls is obviously not just 'recording' volatility. Its pretty obvious that there is a lot of artifice of polling method in there.
So when the GPC vote shows particularly high, you have to 'bracket' accordingly the preference shown for all the parties. [Most effect on NDP and Libs, etc.]
For example, two weeks ago we had a "real" poll as over 100,000 people v oted in four byelections - and the Greens got an average of 3%.
What is the point posting polls if we do not believe them?
It's not that I don't believe them. I just don't find them very helpful when they show a party like the Greens at 11.4% when everyone knows that they will never get that kind of support in the next election. EKOS loses credibility when they tell me the Greens have more than 5 percent support.
It's not that I don't believe them. I just don't find them very helpful when they show a party like the Greens at 11.4% when everyone knows that they will never get that kind of support in the next election. EKOS loses credibility when they tell me the Greens have more than 5 percent support.
All Ekos is asking is how people would vote, not if they will vote. They provide results for support by age groups, which is a pretty good indicator that Green support would fall to their traditional level in an actual election.
I know this is purely anecdotal, but back during the heady days before the internet, they used to do incessant telephone polling to gauge public opinion.
A very close family member of mine seemed to get called all the time for political polls - and not being one to ever say to anyone who they were voting for, he would just answer "I'm voting for the Natural Law Party."
Coincidentally, I was talking to someone who is politically aware, and usually leans Liberal, who always says "whenever anyone asks me, I just say I vote or voted Green."
I think the Green effect is down to the fact that it's good way for people to say, "please eff off" to the pollster without directly not participating.
I have a friend who says he is going to vote Conservative for the same reason -- also he enjoys pissing people off.
It's a more socially acceptable response, rather than saying "I'm not sure", or "I probably won't vote".
And Ekos can't replicate the Nanos-style question, since it's a press-1 for Iggy, press-2 for Lizzy kind of technology they use (IVR), if I understand it correctly. So they have to decide to either prompt with the Green Party or not; there's no third alternative available. If the Green number continues to overpredict their actual results in another general election, I can see the polling firms stop prompting with the Green Party, just so they don't look like fools.
There was also a fair bit of variation over the 13 days during which the Ekos poll was conducted if you look at the data tables; which is probably normal, but also points to the fact that variability IS normal, and shouldn't be obsessed over the way it is. But the Ekos higher daily NDP numbers over that period coincided with the shorter timeframe Ipsos was polling in, if I remember right. So, it's a bit of an apples and oranges comparison.
I agree with most if not all of what Sean said as well.
Seriously I don't think that the Green numbers really reflect all that many people who are not considering the party-- I think that when it comes to the polls and the party has no chance there just is not the commitment to vote for the party.
The NDP vote has a larger number of people who will still vote for the party in no-hope ridings- in part just to register the vote. I remember voting in Quebec when we would look for our poll to see our family's votes because we were it and now and again there would be an extra vote and we would wonder who that was. (That was back in the day when there was no internet, no computer at home and there was nothing on TV-- actually in those years we didn't even have a TV). Actually If I indulge my own drift for a moment I was talking to a person who downloads everything and he was pointing out how great it was to have the shows exactly when he wanted- would not miss anything. I told him we always had that technology-- needs no batteries, no net connection and you can even take it in the washroom without fear of electrocution. My grandmother used the same technology.
And I hope people realize that part of the purpose of my first post comparing astrology to polling was for comic relief-- I used to work for a pollster...
If the Green number continues to overpredict their actual results in another general election, I can see the polling firms stop prompting with the Green Party, just so they don't look like fools.
Prompting for the Greens is the real culprit here. I think EKOS would get a more accurate picture of voter intentions if they prompted for all registered political parties in Canada, or none.
It would have been fascinating if someone did a riding poll in NWC in the summer before the byelection was called and just read the party names including Green, then did a subsequent poll just before the byelection with candidates names included and after people had been exposed to a saturation campaign by the NDP and Tories and very weak to non-existent Liberal campaigns by the Liberals and Greens. I suspect that Green support could easily have gone from 15% to 4% that way - and ditto with the Liberals.
The good news is that Harper is slipping away from majority territory. He seemed headed towards a Murloneyesque 1984 style landslide just a few short weeks ago. The Afghan prisoner scandal certainly won't help his majority ambitions. I knew another scandal would pop up to halt Harper. It always seems to. Mulroney-Schreiber, Listeriosis, Quebec arts funding, etc.
Another thing that is to safe to say looking at the past few months of polling is that the public was INFURIATED and ENRAGED that Ignatieff would even dare to threaten to call an election. The horror of having to take 5 minutes out of your day to vote and do your civic duty:( They finally seem to be coming out of their manic rage and are realizing that given Harper a majority is not wise. The August Ontario Liberal caucus was a catastrophic disaster for the Ignatieff Liberals that they are only just now starting to barely halt the slide off the cliff from.
my first post comparing astrology to polling was for comic relief-- I used to work for a pollster...
Well then here's another poll (or astrology sign) from today for you to decipher: 
[b]Jack Layton-New Democrats-On a Political Rocket--Canadians move left (and against taxes)[/b]
Which political leader and party offered below do you most support at this time?
Stephen Harper and Conservative Party of Canada
32.5 %Michael Ignatieff and Liberal Party of Canada
25.0 %[b]Jack Layton and New Democratic Party of Canada
22.5 %[/b]Elizabeth May and Green Party of Canada
10.5 %Gilles Duceppe and Bloc Quebecois Party of Canada
8.5 %Undecided
13.0 %We admit to baiting the Bloc Quebecois a little... by referring to the Bloc as the "Bloc Party of Canada" provoking the much higher incidence to hang ups and aforementioned Undecided
Here's the latest EKOS poll. Totally unrealistic so far as the Green Party goes and one has to wonder what the numbers would look like without them being counted.
What's interesting about this latest poll is that it basically has the Conservatives and the Liberals back to the numbers they had on election night last year, with the NDP down a bit and the Green up.
But as others have said here, the Green numbers are unlikely to be that high.
Another thing that is to safe to say looking at the past few months of polling is that the public was INFURIATED and ENRAGED that Ignatieff would even dare to threaten to call an election. The horror of having to take 5 minutes out of your day to vote and do your civic duty:(
If it was just that I don't think it would be a problem. It's the weeks of advertising and phone calls that most would like to avoid.
And even a bit more ... it was the idea that the MPs couldn't accept the decision the voters had just made and work together, but wanted to go back and try to gain another edge or advantage during a time of serious economic crisis for a lot of people ... that's what I think was making most not-normally-very-political people so very very angry.
In other words, a disaster for the Ignatieff-led Liberals. So bad last time that the Liberals changed leaders. Oops, forgot to mention that, did we. 
What's interesting about this latest poll is that it basically has the Conservatives and the Liberals back to the numbers they had on election night last year
my first post comparing astrology to polling was for comic relief-- I used to work for a pollster...Well then here's another poll (or astrology sign) from today for you to decipher:
[b]Jack Layton-New Democrats-On a Political Rocket--Canadians move left (and against taxes)[/b]
Which political leader and party offered below do you most support at this time?
Stephen Harper and Conservative Party of Canada
32.5 %Michael Ignatieff and Liberal Party of Canada
25.0 %[b]Jack Layton and New Democratic Party of Canada
22.5 %[/b]Elizabeth May and Green Party of Canada
10.5 %Gilles Duceppe and Bloc Quebecois Party of Canada
8.5 %Undecided
13.0 %We admit to baiting the Bloc Quebecois a little... by referring to the Bloc as the "Bloc Party of Canada" provoking the much higher incidence to hang ups and aforementioned Undecided
http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_644.html[/quote]He said he baited one of the parties in the conducting of the poll. This is not a professional company.
The guy is a flake. The poll is a farce.
I hope there are no New Democrats desperate enough to derive satisfaction from the numbers that guy pulls out of his...
In other words, a disaster for the Ignatieff-led Liberals. So bad last time that the Liberals changed leaders. Oops, forgot to mention that, did we.
What's interesting about this latest poll is that it basically has the Conservatives and the Liberals back to the numbers they had on election night last year
They're certainly not great numbers for Ignatieff, but the main point about this poll is that it is more likely reflects the true state of where the parties are right now.
I notice you forgot to mention that in this poll the NDP is 12 points behind the Liberals.
It's not that I don't believe them. I just don't find them very helpful when they show a party like the Greens at 11.4% when everyone knows that they will never get that kind of support in the next election. EKOS loses credibility when they tell me the Greens have more than 5 percent support.
Green support is soft, but it is there.
I think the confusion arises because pollsters are asking "who would you vote for... (implied "if you voted")". A lot of Green supporters don't vote. They support the party, but don't vote. The reason should be obvious. Green candidates can't win because as yet their support is not locally concentrated, so Green supporters either park their vote for another party that is in contention, or just don't show up. As an example I live in Edmonton Strathcona, which was won by the NDP over the Cons by only 500 votes. I would be STRONGLY tempted to vote NDP to stop a Con, but if I were asked in a poll I would plump for the Greens, in order to register my support.
Green Party support is volatile and intersects with the non-voting population. Second choice polls in BC indicate that if there are no Green candidate running the green vote would break 45 to 70 percent to the NPP, 20-25 percent to the BC Liberals, and the remainder may not vote at all.
Core green support is very youthful, a sector of the population that has very low voter turnout.
Greens supported by 23.4% of voters aged 18-25
Elizabeth May would be Prime Minister today - or at least right there in the thick of it with the big political leaders - if only young Canadians were allowed to vote, according to a new EKOS poll.
The Green Party leader doesn't have one seat in the House of Commons right now and prospects for one soon are dismal. But pass a law to disallow anyone older than 25 to vote and Ms. May's fortunes zoom.
The poll by EKOS's Frank Graves of 5,759 (a huge sample) Canadians shows that the Green Party enjoys the support of 23.4 per cent of voters between 18 and 25 years old compared to 21 per cent for Stephen Harper's Tories, 24.7 per cent for the Michael Ignatieff's Liberals and only 18.8 per cent for Jack Layton's NDP.
"The Green Party is actually within the margin of error for the leader, which is kind of a shocking result when you think about it," Mr. Graves says. "But we know in reality they are going to get no seats and that may well explain why under 25s do not bother to vote because they know that one of their top choices actually get no seats so what is the point?"
Indeed, his numbers for the national horse race show that only 11.4 per cent of Canadians support Ms. May's Green Party compared to 36.9 per cent for the Conservatives, 27.1 per cent for the Liberals and 15.3 per for the New Democrats.
So to sum up. Green Party support is at least what the pollsters report, but only about half that support converts into votes for the Green Party. Nevertheless the support is there.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
The Green Party leader doesn't have one seat in the House of Commons right now and prospects for one soon are dismal. But pass a law to disallow anyone older than 25 to vote and Ms. May's fortunes zoom.
OMG can't stop laughing, the twists and turns that some will go through to suggest EMay is more than she is is incredible....
One would think that after 23 years of people being less than 25, and the Green Party being around, that there would be a Green Party seat, eh.....
So to sum up. Green Party support is at least what the pollsters report, but only about half that support converts into votes for the Green Party. Nevertheless the support is there.
So what's the practical advantage of having support that doesn't vote? I'm not being sarcatic here. You're suggesting that having support that doesn't get out to vote is qualitatively different than not having support. I'm just wondering why you went to the trouble of pointing out the difference.
OMG can't stop laughing, the twists and turns that some will go through to suggest EMay is more than she is is incredible....
One would think that after 23 years of people being less than 25, and the Green Party being around, that there would be a Green Party seat, eh.....
I suspect that if only stoners (speaking as one) were allowed to vote, The Marijuana party would be doing much better too.
So to sum up. Green Party support is at least what the pollsters report, but only about half that support converts into votes for the Green Party. Nevertheless the support is there.
While that may be true, and I'm not going to categorically disagree, there are two different things being talked about. One is as you mentioned the volatility of the Green vote and the predictability it will not show at polling levels on eday.
The second that has been more what has been talked about in this thread- is that the levels of Green support being reported- leaving aside that it won't translate at the polling both- is not only volatile, but unusually subject to the artifices of how various polling companies ask their questions, and even moving substantially in one companies polls, without any visible reason that would account for such a large jump.
The other thing is that campaigns and organization make a difference. During the next federal election campiagn, its likely that the Tories, Liberals and NDP will spend the maximum at the national level and will run lots of TV ads etc.,.. and in Quebec the BQ will do the same. Also, the Tories, liberals, NDP and BQ will have about 300 MPs running for re-election and will each running seriously funded and staffed riding campaigns in anywhere from 70-80 seats in the case of the NDP to 150-200 seats in the case of the Liberals and Tories. In contrast, there will probably be ZERO national advertising by the Greens and in about 305 out of 308 ridings, there will be just paper candidates and no local campaign to speak of. This makes a difference.
... the levels of Green support being reported- leaving aside that it won't translate at the polling both- is not only volatile, but unusually subject to the artifices of how various polling companies ask their questions, and even moving substantially in one companies polls
I think that this is also a function of the volatility of green support. Since Green votes can't elect anyone, in a sense all votes by Green Party supporters are strategic. You either vote strategically for a second choice party that can win in close riding, register your support for the Green Party itself in no contest ridings, or not vote at all. What an individual voter does depend a lot on what kind of riding they are in. Looking at BC Southern Interior, a fairly safe NDP seat, the Green vote is close to 10%, pretty much what they poll, because green supporters are free to vote their conscience. In Edmonton Strathcona, a close seat where the Green's most popular "second choice", the NDP is in contention, the Green vote falls to the 6% range.
As you say the choice of wording in a poll has greater impact with Green supporters because the results likely vary according the where you are. "Which party do you support?" may give very different results than "Which party will you vote for?" and will also depend on how closely contended the riding is.
__________________________________
One struggle, many fronts.
Elizabeth May would be Prime Minister today - or at least right there in the thick of it with the big political leaders - if only young Canadians were allowed to vote, according to a new EKOS poll.
The Green Party leader doesn't have one seat in the House of Commons right now and prospects for one soon are dismal. But pass a law to disallow anyone older than 25 to vote and Ms. May's fortunes zoom.
What is the point of looking at hypothetical situations for the Green Party that will never arise? Unless we end up living in some sort of society out of science fiction where only young people are left, there is never going to be an election in which only youth vote.
Why are pollsters bothering to create these elaborate scenarios concerning the Green Party?
That was Jane Taber's spin on the age breakouts of the Ekos poll. But the bigger news in the age breakouts over the past six months, if you ask me, has been the complete drop-off of Liberal support amongst the same age bracket. The Greens and NDP are fairly competitive there, and the Conservatives are nowhere. And, as Stockholm says, the Greens don't have much infrastructure to translate that support (if that's what it really is) into votes in the ballot box.
BC Southern Interior is an interesting case though. Of course there has been a longstanding base of Green Party support in the Slocan Valley and the Nelson area, which is probably not too receptive to strategic pitches by the NDP or anyone else. However, the Conservative candidate in that riding ran into legal difficulties in 2006, which really skewed the results in Alex Atamanenko's favour, notwithstanding that Atamanenko came quite close in 2004 (within 600 votes or so). But it wasn't always a "safe" NDP seat as Scott claims: it was one of the ones that has switched back and forth over the long years between the NDP and populist conservatives, and was held by a Reformer from 1993 to 2006. So, when you assess a riding and call it "safe", just how far back are you looking exactly, Scott? Do you even know the terrain?
Anyways, it's also a case where the Liberal vote dropped ... and so precipitously ... in 2008, that they fell even below the Greens (whose vote also fell) and into 4th place. With virtually all of the Liberal vote going to the Conservatives, while Atamanenko held his vote, it means that Greens in that riding will have some much more consequential decisions to make there next time around.
That was Jane Taber's spin on the age breakouts of the Ekos poll. But the bigger news in the age breakouts over the past six months, if you ask me, has been the complete drop-off of Liberal support amongst the same age bracket. The Greens and NDP are fairly competitive there, and the Conservatives are nowhere. And, as Stockholm says, the Greens don't have much infrastructure to translate that support (if that's what it really is) into votes in the ballot box.
It's probably because Ignatieff does not have a lot of appeal to the younger generation. He is not resonating with them and their issues, and lacks the charisma of Pierre Trudeau or even the down to earth style of Jean Chretien.
The Liberals would probably be better off with a leader from a younger generation like Dominic LeBlanc or Justin Trudeau.
In most cases, drop-offs like that are not only a short term phenomena. They are the culmination of a building process [as the case with the erosion of the Liberal lock on immigrant community votes].
And as such, they don't move the other way over small effects. So having a Justin Trudeau as leader would only give the chance to arrest the fall- which the new leader would have to effectively capitalize on.
And a leadership race in the LPC is unlikely for about 2 years or more. In the meantime, it will be a surprise if there is any turnaround in that trend... and the longer it is established, the more difficult it is to move.
Remember that the Liberals and Conservatives were tied in the polls as of only a few months ago. That could happen again at some point next year.
Or the Cons could double their 10% lead over the Liberals to a 20% lead. As you say anything can happen.
Remember that the Liberals and Conservatives were tied in the polls as of only a few months ago. That could happen again at some point next year.
The other thing is that campaigns and organization make a difference. During the next federal election campiagn, its likely that the Tories, Liberals and NDP will spend the maximum at the national level and will run lots of TV ads etc.,.. and in Quebec the BQ will do the same. Also, the Tories, liberals, NDP and BQ will have about 300 MPs running for re-election and will each running seriously funded and staffed riding campaigns in anywhere from 70-80 seats in the case of the NDP to 150-200 seats in the case of the Liberals and Tories. In contrast, there will probably be ZERO national advertising by the Greens and in about 305 out of 308 ridings, there will be just paper candidates and no local campaign to speak of. This makes a difference.
For anyone to make judgements about poll results when not even 50% of the candidates for the next election have been nominated is pointless, isn't it?
People make up their minds once they have a chance to see who their potential M.P.'s are.
In each of the past 3 elections, the NDP has gained support from the start of the election through to voting day.
Why?
Because once people see the quality of NDP candidates compared to the other parties, their support increased.
Should Jack Layton get a full slate of candidates in place before the next election is called, I believe that the level of NDP support would rise to the point where it would be possible to surpass the B.Q., and depending on how bad Iggy's Liberals sink, seriously challege the Liberals for Opposition status.
That a very high proportion of the NDP/Green shifting is situated in ridings where the NDP has remote prospects of contending. While the Liberal/Green shifting is more spread across the board.
It seems to be occurring in Toronto (Trinity-Spadina, Beaches-East York) and to a lesser extent, Vancouver (Michael Byers came in third just ahead of Adrienne Carr, and this was a riding where they came very close in 2004).
we'll see if that happens in the next election, the dismal 5% the Green candidate got in the recent St. Paul byelection leads me to believe that the Green fad in downtown Toronto (such that it existed) has gone the way of bell bottoms and eight track tapes.
That a very high proportion of the NDP/Green shifting is situated in ridings where the NDP has remote prospects of contending. While the Liberal/Green shifting is more spread across the board.
It seems to be occurring in Toronto (Trinity-Spadina, Beaches-East York) and to a lesser extent, Vancouver (Michael Byers came in third just ahead of Adrienne Carr, and this was a riding where they came very close in 2004).
That exception was noted by myself and someone else. And intuitively it makes sense that in ridings like that there will be more core Green voters who don't shift. The exceptions don't bely whether there is a general trend.
My own hunch is that across the board the GPC is going to drop something between a bit and substantially everywhere in the next election. May is no longer new and novel. And she's out of sight. And the GPC- always VERY thinly spread on the ground- has turned almost exclusively to trying to win in SGI... with little sign they will even focus resources on the few more seats where they do the best. [With the exception of Carr's run- she also gets a big share of the limited resources at all times.]
Their national air campaign will be smaller, they are doing virtually nothing to prepare on the ground, and even previous high flyer campaigns like Guelph will get little or nothing transferred from the national party this time around.
Why is it no polling this week after the whole torture scandal...do the numbers look pretty bad on certain parties?
I was polled yesterday morning as part of the big Harris-Decima omnibus poll. They asked about a lot of different topics (federal, provincial and commercial), but nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan or the situation with detainees. They did ask a LOT of questions about Copenhagen, however, and it's now clear to me from listening to Harper's comments in the last 24 hours that some of the language he was using had been tested in the poll.
Ekos did come out on Thursday on its new bi-weekly schedule ... I think the polling firms are dialling back now that it looks like an election is off and the numbers appear to have stabilized.
There is a new Leger poll of Quebec only that confirms the NDP is gaining ground there and that everyone is feeding off the Liberal carcass:
http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/278277/sondage-leger-marketing-...
BQ - 37% (up 4% since last Leger poll in September)
CPC - 20% (up 3%)
Libs - 20% (down 13%)
NDP - 17% (up 3%)
Green - 5% (up 1%)
Libs - 20% (down 13%)
Actually it's down 10%, not 13%. There were 2 Leger polls in September:the first was Quebec only, the second as part of a Canada-wide poll
http://legermarketing.com/documents/intvote/IVFEDEN_quebec.pdf
Here's the current poll in detail:
so 17% according to that chart is the highest level of NDP support Leger has EVER recorded in Quebec.
remember though, nothing to see here
Slow but sure, just like the NS NDP.
What has to happen for the NPD to pick up 5 seats in Quebec in the next election?
Slow but sure, just like the NS NDP.
What has to happen for the NPD to pick up 5 seats in Quebec in the next election?
To give you some idea-here is every riding where the NDP had over 15% & finished within 30% of the winner:
1.Gatineau- 3.1% behind the BQ, 2nd (26.1%)
2.Pontiac-17.3% behind the CPC, 4th (15.4%)
3.Hull-Aylmer-17.7% behind the LPC, 3rd (19.8%)
4.Jeanne Le Ber-19.2% behind the BQ, 3rd (15.7%)
5.Drummond-22.4% behind the BQ, 4th (16.4%)
6.Westmount-Ville-Marie-23.6% behind the LPC, 2nd (22.9%)
7.Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine-29.4% behind the LPC, 4th (15.2%)
If you subtract the % behind the winner from the % of the vote, it would be:
1.Gatineau
2.Hull-Aylmer
3.Westmount-Ville-Marie
4.Pontiac
5.Jeanne-Le-Ber
If I understand correctly the NPD is most popular amongst urban Anglos in Quebec.
Which are the five most urban Anglo seats in Quebec? I know that's six, as I would assume Mount Royal is almost an impossibility for the NPD.
Westmount-Ville Marie
NDG-Lachine
Outremont
Mount Royal
St Laurent-Cartierville
LaSalle-Emard
If I understand correctly the NPD is most popular amongst urban Anglos in Quebec.
Which are the five most urban Anglo seats in Quebec? I know that's six, as I would assume Mount Royal is almost an impossibility for the NPD.
Westmount-Ville Marie
NDG-Lachine
Outremont
Mount Royal
St Laurent-Cartierville
LaSalle-Emard
The 5 most Anglo seats would be
1.Lac-St-Louis (61.9% English spoken at home)
2.Westmount-Ville-Marie (49.2%)
3.Pierrefonds-Dollards (48.5%)
4.Mount Royal (45.5%)
5.Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine (43.0%)
Lasalle-Emard is next at 29.9%
So, west and west central Montreal Island then: Liberal bastions, for the most part. I'd be more inclined to concentrate on the earlier seats where the NDP has done well before, but use this information to try and focus efforts a bit better within them.
That's what I mean when I say the NDP has to crush the Liberals. Out West the NDP has to crush the Cons. This is the reason regional campaigns, marketing, advertising, strategy, tactics, etc. in a federal election are so important.
It's certainly amazing how fast Ignatieff managed to blow the huge lead he had in Quebec earlier this year. He is now about 15 points lower than where he was.
It's also important to remember though that the Quebec electorate is very fickle and volatile and that these poll numbers are likely to change again.
Its not amazing at all. And thats not a dig at Iggy or the Liberals.
Bumps like that for new Leaders are really common. They mean nothing until the dust settles.
All that bump meant- and this was predictable- is that in Qubec there is a significant slice of the population waiting for a Liberal saviour. While they are primed, they obviously won't buy into just any smuck who trips into the role.
[And the follow-up safe bet: Over time, and even more- after disssapointments like Iggy- those people stop waiting and start looking elsewhere. IE, by the time when/if the next reputed Liberal saviour comes on, on the aggregate they are somewhat less prone to buy into it... even if this latest version is 'real'.]
