Federal Election, 2015 - Seat Predictions

 Sean you overly demonize men and saintify women and I know both men and women, including divorced women who would agree with me, its not sexist to point out that some people abuse the system and so people are excessively punished by it. The system isn't as black and white as either MRAs or Feminists pretend it is, there are countless shades of grey and both sides can point to bad judgements with bitterness. Maybe Adma was a victim of an excessive settlement that was ruiness, it happens, don't pretend like it doesn't.

Brachina wrote:

Maybe Adma was a victim of an excessive settlement that was ruiness, it happens, don't pretend like it doesn't.

Actually, quite to the contrary, I was making more of a tongue-in-cheek reference to the kind of mens-rights-ish goofs who're most prone to griping about being taken for all they're worth.

bekayne wrote:

ilha formosa wrote:

Only people who blindly follow Harper or are otherwise ignorant of how Canadian governments are formed "expect the party with the highest number of votes to form the government." In actuality, whoever makes the best case to the GG that they can hold the confidence of the House forms the government.

If any party got a clear plurality then, yes, most Canadians would say that party won the election and they should be given a chance to govern

The party with a plurality gets the first chance to make its case to the GG. But parties can still form coalitions/accords. The most recent attempt was an example of a weak one - a hastily stitched Frankenstein. Coalitions aren’t/won’t be necessarily so rickety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada#Prime_Min...

Putting Canadian minority governments into four broad groupings, you have:
The King minorities of 1921, ’25, ’26, ’45   (I figure now is a good time to learn more about the arcane King-Byng affair.)
Diefenbaker/Pearson: 1957, ’62, ’63, '65
Trudeau/Clark: 1972, '79
Martin/Harper: 2004, ’06, '08

In none of these minorities were there two opposition parties who were at least marginally like-minded and whose seat totals would have made a clear majority. Going by today's projections, the second and third place parties could combine for a clear majority of seats. With such an outcome, they could make an agreement that would convince the GG and Canadians that they can stably work with each other as the government.

ilha formosa wrote:

It seems for Canadian minority governments up to now (the King-Byng affair aside), the first place finisher was granted executive power because no opposition parties were like-minded enough and/or they did not have the cumulative numbers to form a stable government.

Assuming no major changes in poll patterns, the 2015 election has the potential to make Canadian history, IF the 2nd and 3rd place parties are united enough in not wanting the Cons to be in government, AND they hold a clear majority of seats.

So far in Canadian history whenever the PC Party or Conservative party has won a minority, the NDP and LPC have never had enough seats combined to unilaterally form a coalition government. In this election, if the Conservatives come in first place and the NDP and LPC win more than 169 seats combined, it will be the first time ever the NDP and LPC will be in a position to unilaterally form a coalition government against a 1st place party.

So on election night the magic number will be 170. If the NDP, LPC, and GPC can go over that number, the CPC government will be in big trouble. If the LPC comes in second place they will likely accept the NDP's offer to make them the governing party. On the other hand, if the LPC comes in third place they will probably be hesitant in supporting a NDP led government out of fear of losing support on their right flank. So let's say the CPC wins 164 seats, the NDP wins 92 seats and the LPC wins 80 seats, the LPC might not be excited about helping a party that came a distant second become government as that would be unappealing to their their supporters on their right flank. In that kind of scenario, the NDP would likely have to offer the LPC a good deal to gain their cooperation. Agreeing to implement key planks from the LPC's election platform would likely be required.

adma wrote:

ajaykumar wrote:

adma wrote:

ajaykumar wrote:

So NDP is at 23, where its been for years. Hahahaha .

Actually, by pre-Orange Crush standards (to say nothing of the Audrey/Alexa-era doldrums), 23 would have been overachievingly impressive.  Just saying.

NDP got 19% in 1988. NDP hasn't achieved 23% yet under Mulcair. Polls are unreliable. NDP is actually somewhere around 76% currently. I think in the campaign NDP will get+ 10 to 86%. 300 seats for the NDP is doable. Tories will get 35 seats. Lib will be doomed.

Ajaykumar, you speak of the NDP as if it were some ungrateful ex-wife extorting you for alimony or something.  Just saying.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

MegB wrote:

Adma, your remark about the "ungrateful ex-wife" is sexist.

Perhaps it would have been less so if I'd put it in quotes as you did, i.e. to clearly indicate: "not my words".  (As mentioned upthread, sarcasm doesn't communicate well over the Internet.)

JKR wrote:

So far in Canadian history whenever the PC Party or Conservative party has won a minority, the NDP and LPC have never had enough seats combined to unilaterally form a coalition government.

Yes, if by unilaterally you mean a majority. In 1925, the 2nd-place King Liberals formed government with the 3rd-place Progressives, as the two parties were only one seat shy of a majority with a combined 122 (100L+22P). The Conservatives had 115 and there were 8 "Other." Anyway a bribery scandal surfaced (imagine that), and in mid-1926 the Lib-Prog coalition fell and GG Byng installed the aggrieved Arthur Meighen without an election. King roused up the masses against "interference by a foreign power," meaning the GG, the Meighen government was defeated on a non-confidence vote faster than you can say "Joe Who?", and in the ensuing election the King Libs won a minority supported by the Progressives. Gleaned from a few wikipedia paragraphs, historians please chime in.

The upshot is, a "coalition" (I use that broadly here to mean a cooperative arrangement of some kind) by non-first place parties has been in government before, and it is well within the rules of our parliamentary system. This would be even less disputable if the "coalition" accounted for a healthy majority, that is, one that wouldn't be threatened by vacancies and defections...and also if it did not include separatists. I feel it would be even more stable with only 2 parties, as there would be fewer parts to hold together. But if it needs the Greens, or the Green, why not. Current polls point to ripe conditions for a 2nd+3rd party "coalition" in 2015, which would be the second time it's happened in Canadian history, but with the potential to be much more enduring than the one that formed 90 years previous.

Another angle: The first-place Cons of '57, '62 and '79 could hang on to power by keeping the SoCreds happy. That's just going by the numbers, I haven't read up if it actually worked out that way. Same goes for the first-place Libs hanging on to minority governments with adequate numbers from the CCF/NDP in '45, '63, '65 and '72. The minorities of '04-'08 are a class of their own in that the BQ/Chuck Cadman held a balance of power.

JKR wrote:

Paradoxically, the NDP might be better off coming in third to a second place LPC than coming in second to a third place LPC as the NDP's opportunity to be a part of a coalition government may depend on the LPC.

Yes again. Mulcair has the potential to punch both his big opponents out in TV debates. But are Canadians ready to move en masse to the NDP? Will the Libs and Cons split the vote in Quebec allowing them to slip up the left flank? Would any of this be enough to move the NDP ahead of the Libs?

A government led by Trudeau but dependent on NDP support would be interesting. They might be cooperating and competing at all times. I think the electorate would punish them both severely if they couldn't cooperate. It would be best to fix an election date and refrain from any competition, overt or covert, until the final year.

NorthReport wrote:

EPP 

Cons - 109

NDP  - 42

Libs - 40

Don't forget the 145 that are too close.

You wouldn't want to post misleading seat projections...

http://www.electionprediction.org/2015_fed/index.php

308 has updated its projection:

Cons 138

Libs 117

NDP  76

Bloc 3

Greens 2

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html?spref=tw

 

And assuming minority situations:

-A Lib-NDP coalition/accord would only form if the order of finish were as it's now projected (1-Con, 2-Lib, 3-NDP), and JT were faced with the choice of either being Leader of the Opposition or PM supported by Mulcair (assuming being junior partner to Harper in an arrangement is out of the question for JT).

-If the Liberals placed first, they would try to govern by winning support from other parties on a case by case basis.

-If the NDP placed anywhere ahead of the Libs, Con-Lib cooperation would not be out of the question...especially if Harper resigned, in which case it would not be political suicide for Trudeau to cooperate with the Cons.

NorthReport wrote:

What's a clear plurality as opposed to a plurality? Are you taking about seats or votes?

sherpa-finn wrote:

Well, an 'unclear' plurality would be one in which Party A gets the plurality of seats while Party B gets a plurality of votes.  Which seems a quite likely scenario at the moment.

“Clear plurality” is unclear language for forming a government. Two parties could get 100 MPs each; the one that shows it can garner the support of at least 70 more would form government. As for one party getting more seats and another more votes, as we do not have proportional representation, the Canadian system is clearly going by the number of seats.

Imagine the first place party getting 110 seats, the 2nd: 100 seats, 3rd: 80 seats. If the second and third parties reach an agreement to show the GG, the first place party would not have a long meeting at Rideau Hall.

Edited to add: The idea of 1) "clear plurality" and 2) looking at popular vote could become relevant in highly improbable and controversial situations. For example, 1) if the first-place party had 168 seats and the next three had 170 and a weak agreement among themselves; or, 2) if two parties tied with 169 seats. The 15th Parliament after the 1925 election is a historical example of a murky situation, with the added complication of King having to get elected via a by-election as he had lost his own seat. Current polls do not point to such situations for the 42nd Parliament.

308 now has it 141-116-78

 

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html?spref=tw

josh wrote:

308 now has it 141-116-78

 

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html?spref=tw

Now 145-115-72-2(G)-1(B).

NorthReport wrote:

EKOS Seat Projections showing the NDP surging past the Liberals and closing in on the Cons.:

Cons - 125 seats 

NDP - 117 seats

Libs - 94 seats

BQ - 1 seat

Grn - 1 seat

I just posted this on Warren Kinsella's blog before I saw these numbers. These numbers would mean Trudeau should pull a Prentice:

Given what parliament is likely to look like, Trudeau might have to pull a Prentice on election night even if he more than doubles his current seats. By saying he will not work with the NDP in a coalition, Trudeau has set up some impossible situations. He is fine if he gets a majority. He might be fine with a strong plurality. If the Conservatives get a majority he must resign. That was always a given.

However, if the NDP and Liberals together have a majority but the Liberals don’t have the horses to govern alone, Trudeau must resign. His statement that he would not work with the NDP in a coalition means that his party could split with many of his members joining an NDP-Liberal government without him. The NDP does not accept floor crossers to their party but they can accept Liberals into a coalition without their leader. The risk of this alone would have people calling for Trudeau’s head even if he ended up with a respectable increase in seats to the 80-90 range with the NDP around 100. In this case it could be as hard for Trudeau as if Mulcair won a majority and the Liberals remained under 50 seats.

Trudeau’s comments were made presuming the Liberals would get a lot more seats than the NDP. In fact those comments bet the farm on exactly that.

His position on C-51 was based on the premise that former CPC voters would opt for his party if he sounded more like the CPC and did not rock the boat too hard. But if Canadians are split between loyalty to Harper and those who want real change and not just CPC-lite it will be Trudeau who is left behind.

The more Canadians look at Mulcair, the more they may feel that the NDP is a home for all the traditional values the Liberals used to stand for. The Liberal party may not be missed by Liberals and if not them who else would care?

- See more at: http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/05/time-for-some-big-changes-at-the-top-l...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

However, if the NDP and Liberals together have a majority but the Liberals don’t have the horses to govern alone, Trudeau must resign. His statement that he would not work with the NDP in a coalition means that his party could split with many of his members joining an NDP-Liberal government without him. The NDP does not accept floor crossers to their party but they can accept Liberals into a coalition without their leader. The risk of this alone would have people calling for Trudeau’s head even if he ended up with a respectable increase in seats to the 80-90 range with the NDP around 100. In this case it could be as hard for Trudeau as if Mulcair won a majority and the Liberals remained under 50 seats.

Excellent. I have the same scenario in my mind given the polls in their current state. It is now clear that Trudeau did not speak for his party when he said "I" will not work with the NDP in a coalition/supply and confidence agreement etc. Liberal MPs can now save their necks by saying they will work with the NDP if it comes to that.

The current Conservative government and Justin Trudeau offend the traditional Liberal support of the Charter, and their neoliberal privileged aspects offend the traditional NDP support of social equality and economic efficiency.

Trudeau and his sycophants are going to side with Harper. Liberals, do you believe in the Charter and social equality? You had better start saying so, and join with the people.

On vote-splitting, who must stay and who must go as far as the Liberals go? I think all the people who were instrumental in the neoliberalization and authoritarianism of Canada under Paul Martin must go, as they invented the Harper Government. Any neoliberal/authoritarian cabinet ministers under Martin should go.

Here is a page with all of them on:

https://www.liberal.ca/mp/

This is funny as Eve Adams comes first alphabetically. Her fate will be decided by the winds of change.

I would like to see the following Liberals lose: Wayne Easter, Ralph Goodale, Stephane Dion, John McCallum, David McGuinty, John McKay, Judy Sgro, Scotty Bryson, and Justin Trudeau. I am not sure if Marc Garneau did anything, and if not he seems like an OK guy.

None of the others seem to have done anything I do not like.

On the other hand, if you are in a place like suburban Ottawa, and all you have is a Liberal whippersnapper who wants to chop Harper's head off, go with him or her. If you are a Liberal in Atlantic Canada who is about to beat Peter McKay, Via con Dios!

This is a hard concept for people to wrap their heads around, as they would rather group people into labels in a very unjust manner. Each individual must be judged for what they have done.

With Twitter and Facebook a STOP HARPER page can be set up for each riding. Activity on that page will tell wise people which way the winds are blowing, and it should be a lot more transparent than a pollster who might have an agenda.

This is excruciating but it would work.

Find the three most bellweather polls in the riding. If you canvass them you will probably find about 100 beating hearts. You will have slurped a very nice statistical picture of that riding.

A Real STOP HARPER Liberal (RSHL) will give way to the NDP if by not doing so Harper would win. Even a Real Stop Harper NDPer would want to know if they had to vote Liberal beyond the wishes of the Liberal Shills. RSHLs and RSHNDPs would go together and do the canvas and sign off on the data. Then that could be posted on Twitter, Facebook, etc.

In Alberta, it has been shown what Liberals and NDs can do when they work together.

North REport-- did you prepare at one time a chart of the pollsters indicating their relative accuracy in mathematical terms against the previous elections? Would be useful in this. I can't remember if you have already done this.