Our logo is bigger now

Did NDP-Liberal vote-splitting deliver the PCs a majority in Ontario?

138 posts / 0 new

Log in or register to post comments

Fri, 2018-06-08 22:24

#1

SocialJustice101

Did NDP-Liberal vote-splitting deliver the PCs a majority in Ontario?

Did NDP-Liberal vote-splitting deliver the PCs a majority in Ontario?

A day before the Ontario election, Nathalie Des Rosiers, the Liberal candidate for Ottawa-Vanier, issued a warning: A vote for the New Democratic Party was "a vote for Doug Ford.”

People may have listened. Ms. Des Rosiers won her race – one of just seven Liberal seats left in the province.

In the coming days, we’ll hear much about what, exactly, clinched this election for Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives. Tax cuts, stagnant jobs, buck-a-beers and lower gas prices, maybe – but given the Liberals’ historic collapse, did an NDP-Liberal split vote have an effect?

Let’s do some math. Mr. Ford’s campaign delivered 76 seats, far more than the 63 necessary to clinch a majority. Other parties would have had to siphon off 14 ridings to bring the PCs down to 62 seats, one shy of a majority.

As it turns out, the PCs won 34 ridings where the NDP-plus-Liberal vote outnumbered the PC vote. That’s well beyond the 14 seats necessary to deny the PCs a majority.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-did-ndp-liberal-vote-splitting-deliver-the-pcs-a-majority-in-ontario/

Fri, 2018-06-08 22:34

#2

quizzical

good pointing out by the Globe article a vote for the Liberals was a vote for Doug Ford.

they are the reason why ON will be a mess for another 4 years.

Fri, 2018-06-08 22:40

#3

SocialJustice101

That's not what the article is saying quizzical. You should read it in full.

Sat, 2018-06-09 00:51

#4

Sean in Ottawa

This is the same garbage making presumptions about second choices. If you want to try to calculate then what you would have to do is calculate the third choices to the second based on the third party's presumed second chocies. We do have polls that give an idea. I am not sure how this is worth ddoing. Presuming the entire vote would transfer is nonsense. For some Liberals and for some NDP voters the other is not the second choice.

The result of this excercise would be to see if a STV would have made a difference.

If you make assumptions about a disorganized attempt at strategic voting it is possible that if more had participated they would have got some of the ridings wrong and some woudl have been losts as well.

Blaming this loss on Liberal voters is nasty, pointless, arrogant and really no better than the crap that has been thrown at the NDP in the past. To engage in it is to invite it the next time.

Stop being hypocrites. Stop pretending that people had hindsight and did this on purpose.

Honour the poeple who took the time to vote and give them some respect.

Sat, 2018-06-09 01:17

#5

Misfit

Misfit's picture

If someone came up to me and told me that I had to vote Liberal, I would tell whoever where to go and what to do with him/herself.

I am a New Democrat and I respect the history of the New Democratic Party and most of the platforms it has put out.

I am sure that most diehard Liberals are proud of their party and the values it promotes. I'm sure many of them did not appreciate the suggestion that they compromise their values and vote for another party that they don't believe it.

The people who voted for Doug Ford are responsible for this majority government and they will be responsible and need to be held accountable for the damage That Many fear is going to happen.

Sat, 2018-06-09 01:51

(Reply to #5) #6

Ken Burch

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is the same garbage making presumptions about second choices. If you want to try to calculate then what you would have to do is calculate the third choices to the second based on the third party's presumed second chocies. We do have polls that give an idea. I am not sure how this is worth ddoing. Presuming the entire vote would transfer is nonsense. For some Liberals and for some NDP voters the other is not the second choice.

The result of this excercise would be to see if a STV would have made a difference.

If you make assumptions about a disorganized attempt at strategic voting it is possible that if more had participated they would have got some of the ridings wrong and some woudl have been losts as well.

Blaming this loss on Liberal voters is nasty, pointless, arrogant and really no better than the crap that has been thrown at the NDP in the past. To engage in it is to invite it the next time.

Stop being hypocrites. Stop pretending that people had hindsight and did this on purpose.

Honour the poeple who took the time to vote and give them some respect.

It's equally arrogant to blame this on NDP voters. If you're arguing for pr, well so are most people here. It's not as simple as saying it was NDP voters who had a duty to vote Liberal but never Liberal voters who had a duty to vote NDP.

Sat, 2018-06-09 08:57

#7

Todrick of Chat...

This is why the NDP, Greens and Liberals should unite as one party.

Sat, 2018-06-09 10:40

#8

josh

There’s no saying that if it had only been between the NDP and the Cons that the NDP would have won. They probably would have. But it likely would have been close to a 50-50 proposition, And had someone more acceptable than Ford been leader, the NDP probably wouldn’t have. I’m sure there are a number of Liberals who would vote PC before they would vote NDP.

Sat, 2018-06-09 11:05

#9

Pogo

Pogo's picture

This endless debate ignores a number of issues.

It assumes that the left-right spectrum trumps everything for everybody. It assumes that the Green, NDP and Liberal agenda is so minimally different that people should just abandon their first choice without a second thought.
That the election period is a time for engagement. The reason 'also rans' participate is chiefly to present their alternative platform and vision. It is a time when the general public will take time and consider issues that they will pay scant attention to otherwise. We need more ideas not less.
It assumes that this election is infinitely more important than future elections. Votes for parties in losing causes now are not wasted, provide the basis for growth. The Greens didn't come in to being out of nowhere there has been decades of work by committed activists.
Today's boogey man is not much different from the next one. Yes they cause unnecessary damage to the fabric of society, but today's Ford is not unlike yesterday's Harris and tomorrow's replacement.

All of these issues can easily be turned into an argument for PR. We need a system where people can vote for their first choice and get a result that is responsive to the diversity of choices.

Sat, 2018-06-09 11:23

JKR

If I remember correctly, one opinion poll during the election indicated that if it comes down to NDP versus PC, roughly 2 Liberal voters in 4 would vote NDP as their second choice, 1 would vote PC, and the other Liberal voter would not support any party. So conservatively, the NDP seems to gain 1 in 6 of the non-PC votes against the PC's total. So a simple rule of thumb would be to add a 6th of the non-NDP vote to the NDP's total to see if a majority in an electoral district actually prefers the 2nd place NDP candidate over the PC candidate that won the plurality contest. How many constituencies would the NDP have won if 1/6th of the non PC vote was added to the NDP's total? To be more Conservative, how many more districts would the NDP have won if 1/7th of the non-PC were added to the NDP'S totals? Or 1/10th?

Sat, 2018-06-09 11:21

JKR

I think the primary point of looking at how vote-splitting effected an FPTP election is to show how FPTP elections don't adequately reflect the will of the voters.

Sat, 2018-06-09 11:36

Unionist

I'm trying to understand what is meant by the term "vote-splitting". Does it simply mean that if Liberal and NDP voters had voted "strategically" (hate that term too), then the PCs might have been defeated? So until PR comes down from heaven (even though none of the three big parties promotes it), when someone uses "vote-splitting" with negative connotations (which seems to be the whole point of the term), is this an argument for "strategic" voting? Just trying to understand what this thread is about.

Sat, 2018-06-09 11:45

Pogo

Pogo's picture

Yes (as I understand it). It is when two like individuals or parties divide (split) a vote such that the unlike party wins even though the majority of the voters were leaning to another party.

Sat, 2018-06-09 12:02

JKR

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_splitting

Quote:
Vote splitting is an electoral effect in which the distribution of votes among multiple similar candidates reduces the chance of winning for any of the similar candidates, and increases the chance of winning for a dissimilar candidate.

Vote splitting most easily occurs in plurality voting (also called first-past-the-post) in which each voter indicates a single choice and the candidate with the most votes wins, even if the winner does not have majority support.

...

Vote splitting most easily occurs in plurality voting because the ballots don't gather any information about the secondary preferences of the voters.

Sat, 2018-06-09 12:02

(Reply to #14) #15

SocialJustice101

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

This is why the NDP, Greens and Liberals should unite as one party.

But then new leftist parties would pop up because the "Liberal Democrats" are not progressive enough and the split would begin again. Proportional Represenation would be a better long-term solution.

Sat, 2018-06-09 12:04

NorthReport

The Liberals were running ads against the NDP right up until the end of the election. Go figure!

Sat, 2018-06-09 12:07

JKR

Although it is not proportional, single-member ranked voting would deal with the problem of vote-splitting. I think the Liberals would support single-member ranked voting.

Sat, 2018-06-09 12:09

(Reply to #17) #18

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

The Liberals were running ads against the NDP right up until the end of the election. Go figure!

Maybe they wanted to maintain party status? Go figure!

Sat, 2018-06-09 12:25

(Reply to #18) #19

SocialJustice101

JKR wrote:
Although it is not proportional, single-member ranked voting would deal with the problem of vote-splitting. I think the Liberals would support single-member ranked voting.

But both the Cons and the NDP would be against this, as they both would likely lose seats to the Liberals as a result. That's under normal circumstances, not involving an extremely unpopular incumbent.

Sat, 2018-06-09 12:30

(Reply to #19) #20

JKR

Maybe a proportional or semi-proportional system with ranked voting would be enough of a compromise?

Sat, 2018-06-09 12:33

SocialJustice101

I think 50% Ranked Ballot, 50% non-top-up PR would be a good compromise, but the NDP would likely agree to full PR only.

Sat, 2018-06-09 12:37

JKR

42% of Ontario voters cast their ballots to stop another party from winning: Ipsos poll
By Jessica Vomiero
National Online Journalist Global News

https://globalnews.ca/news/4260547/ontario-election-voters-strategic-vot...

Quote:
New polling data suggests that an unusually large number of voters cast their ballots for one party, specifically to stop another party from winning.

An Ipsos election day poll, conducted exclusively for Global News, found that 42 per cent of voters cast their ballots strategically. This refers to Ontarians who voted for the party they thought stood the best chance of stopping their least favourite party or candidate from forming a government.

“It’s normal but it’s not this normal,” said Sean Simpson, Ipsos’ vice-president. “We’ve got 42 per cent who wanted to make sure another party didn’t win — that’s high compared to the previous election.”

...

A previous poll from Ipsos stated that almost half of NDP voters just wanted to stop the Liberals or the Tories from winning.

Sat, 2018-06-09 12:43

(Reply to #22) #23

JKR

SocialJustice101 wrote:

I think 50% Ranked Ballot, 50% non-top-up PR would be a good compromise, but the NDP would likely agree to full PR only.

I think it would be very good if the NDP and Liberals arrived at a compromise on this issue.

Sat, 2018-06-09 14:04

(Reply to #23) #24

Pogo

Pogo's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

I think 50% Ranked Ballot, 50% non-top-up PR would be a good compromise, but the NDP would likely agree to full PR only.

I assume you are looking at the dual member proportional that is one of three choices in BC. Unfortunately the BC Liberals are dead set against it.

Sat, 2018-06-09 14:29

SocialJustice101

Dual Member proportional is a form of PR which involves FPTP + top-up PR. There's no ranked ballot.

BC Liberals are Liberals in name only and not alligned with the federal Liberals.

Sat, 2018-06-09 14:45

(Reply to #25) #26

josh

NorthReport wrote:

The Liberals were running ads against the NDP right up until the end of the election. Go figure!

Still haven’t answered.

Sat, 2018-06-09 14:47

(Reply to #26) #27

josh

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

This is why the NDP, Greens and Liberals should unite as one party.

But then new leftist parties would pop up because the "Liberal Democrats" are not progressive enough and the split would begin again. Proportional Represenation would be a better long-term solution.

To me, you either have a system where 50 plus 1 wins, or you have PR. Personally, I like the French and German systems.

Sat, 2018-06-09 15:58

robbie_dee

Which one of these new systems do you think Doug Ford will introduce? Because if the answer is none of them then all of the other parties have failed miserably because they were unable to work together to come up with a plan to stop the truly disastrous result for all of them that just happened.

Sat, 2018-06-09 15:58

SocialJustice101

The Cons love FPTP. They could never win without it, except for the 1984 federal election.

Sat, 2018-06-09 16:18

robbie_dee

I think the other three parties, or at least, any two of them that can agree, should run together next election on a one time basis with a promise to introduce a new voting system (PR, STV, alternative vote I don’t really care) to stop false majorities. This result is unacceptable.

Sat, 2018-06-09 17:03

(Reply to #30) #31

Pogo

Pogo's picture

SocialJustice101 wrote:

BC Liberals are Liberals in name only and not alligned with the federal Liberals.

Yet the Federal Liberals will often campaign hard for them in provincial elections.

Sat, 2018-06-09 17:21

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
I think 50% Ranked Ballot, 50% non-top-up PR would be a good compromise

We've all read the slogans and catchphrases about PR -- "make EVERY vote count" and suchlike -- and we've even seen suggestions that a truly proportional system is a Charter right. So I don't know if there's really any room for a "compromise". If you have a Charter right to something, it's to that something, not to 75% of that something.

Sat, 2018-06-09 17:50

(Reply to #32) #33

SocialJustice101

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I think 50% Ranked Ballot, 50% non-top-up PR would be a good compromise

We've all read the slogans and catchphrases about PR -- "make EVERY vote count" and suchlike -- and we've even seen suggestions that a truly proportional system is a Charter right. So I don't know if there's really any room for a "compromise". If you have a Charter right to something, it's to that something, not to 75% of that something.

Even PR systems usually have a threshold for obtaining list seats, such as 5% of the popular vote. You don't want a Nazi party seating in Parliament and breaking ties, do you?

Sat, 2018-06-09 17:56

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Even PR systems usually have a threshold for obtaining list seats, such as 5% of the popular vote. You don't want a Nazi party seating in Parliament and breaking ties, do you?

I've taken issue with that many times. If "convenience" or "efficiency" is more important than making "every vote count" then I'd like to hear fairvote.ca tell us by way of a nice slogan, like "make MOST votes count" or "make RESPONSIBLE, ADULT votes count" or whatever. However they want to push the weirdos under the bus is fine by me.

Sat, 2018-06-09 18:03

(Reply to #34) #35

SocialJustice101

josh wrote:

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Todrick of Chatsworth wrote:

This is why the NDP, Greens and Liberals should unite as one party.

But then new leftist parties would pop up because the "Liberal Democrats" are not progressive enough and the split would begin again. Proportional Represenation would be a better long-term solution.

To me, you either have a system where 50 plus 1 wins, or you have PR. Personally, I like the French and German systems.

Germany has MMPR, which NDP supports. But unfortunately, Trudeau rejected it. Hopefully people will like the new BC system and it will spread nationally.

The French system has 2 rounds for electing assembly members. If no one achieves 50%+1 vote in the 1st round, a run off round is fought between top two candidates. It's still a lot better than FPTP but the NDP would be against this, and it would cost more money.

Sat, 2018-06-09 19:18

WWWTT

The people who voted for Doug Ford are responsible for this majority government

Bang on Misfit!

Vote splitting and strategic voting is a bunch of gobly gook used primarily by the liberals to play on some voters fears of the conservative politician boogeyman.

Sat, 2018-06-09 20:43

(Reply to #36) #37

cco

JKR wrote:
So a simple rule of thumb would be to add a 6th of the non-NDP vote to the NDP's total to see if a majority in an electoral district actually prefers the 2nd place NDP candidate over the PC candidate that won the plurality contest. How many constituencies would the NDP have won if 1/6th of the non PC vote was added to the NDP's total? To be more Conservative, how many more districts would the NDP have won if 1/7th of the non-PC were added to the NDP'S totals? Or 1/10th?

Why only the "non-PC vote"? Why not add half the PC vote to the NDP or (more likely) Liberals and see what outcome that would've produced?

Again, it's every bit as fallacious to assume the Liberal vote alone is fungible as it is to assume the NDP vote alone is fungible. If 25% of Tory voters had stayed home instead, Horwath might be premier.

SocialJustice101 wrote:

Even PR systems usually have a threshold for obtaining list seats, such as 5% of the popular vote. You don't want a Nazi party seating in Parliament and breaking ties, do you?

Nothing prevents a Nazi party from winning FPTP seats and, given the right balance of power, breaking ties.

Either you believe that the voting system should be there to deliver an approximate representation of how people voted, or you see it as a machine to be gamed, with your preferred outcome the goal of design. One of these views is democratic. The other is not.

Sat, 2018-06-09 20:51

(Reply to #37) #38

JKR

cco wrote:

Why only the "non-PC vote"? Why not add half the PC vote to the NDP or (more likely) Liberals and see what outcome that would've produced?

Because the NDP and PC's were the top two parties and no party won a majority.

Sat, 2018-06-09 20:55

(Reply to #38) #39

JKR

WWWTT wrote:

The people who voted for Doug Ford are responsible for this majority government

Bang on Misfit!

Vote splitting and strategic voting is a bunch of gobly gook used primarily by the liberals to play on some voters fears of the conservative politician boogeyman.

But the majority of voters didn't vote for this "majority" government. I guess a minority of voters are responsible for this "majority" government.

Sat, 2018-06-09 21:07

Mr. Magoo

I could be wrong here, but I think that "majority" government refers to the party that wins the "majority" of seats. Not necessarily a majority of the popular vote. This could be a throwback to a time when elections were essentially two-party, and maybe before riding jerrymandering.

Sat, 2018-06-09 21:11

(Reply to #40) #41

cco

JKR wrote:

Because the NDP and PC's were the top two parties and no party won a majority.

So to hell with everyone who voted for any party other than the top two? We should assume their votes were insincere tantrum-throwing and that if they were more responsible, they would've looked at the polls and switched teams?

Sat, 2018-06-09 21:14

JKR

FPTP did make some sense back in the day when Whigs and Tories were competing against each other in Britain's olde two-party system circa the 18th and 19th centuries.

Sat, 2018-06-09 21:19

(Reply to #42) #43

SocialJustice101

cco wrote:
JKR wrote:
Because the NDP and PC's were the top two parties and no party won a majority.

So to hell with everyone who voted for any party other than the top two? We should assume their votes were insincere tantrum-throwing and that if they were more responsible, they would've looked at the polls and switched teams?

The votes of other people are not proportionally represented. Ford won 41% of the vote, 61% of the seats, and 100% of power. This is not a fully democractic system.

Sat, 2018-06-09 21:28

(Reply to #43) #44

JKR

cco wrote:
JKR wrote:

Because the NDP and PC's were the top two parties and no party won a majority.

So to hell with everyone who voted for any party other than the top two? We should assume their votes were insincere tantrum-throwing and that if they were more responsible, they would've looked at the polls and switched teams?

Instant runoff voting is a fairer system than FPTP that all of our political parties including the NDP use to elect their own candidates for elections to legislatures.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

Sat, 2018-06-09 21:43

SocialJustice101

Additionally, some countries have 2 round voting systems, which allows top 2 candidates to face each other head to head. This will always ensure that the winning candidate has an actual majority support. (See France)

Edit: I cross posted with JKR, on the same subject.

Sat, 2018-06-09 21:33

SocialJustice101

Yes, it's very strange that parties use ranked ballot internally, but still defend FPTP for general elections.

Sat, 2018-06-09 21:36

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
This will always ensure that the winning candidate has an actual majority support.

Doesn't it acheive that by arbitrarily reducing the options to two, in the final round? That would seem a very mathematical, or technical, way to say "the majority has chosen".

Sat, 2018-06-09 21:42

(Reply to #47) #48

SocialJustice101

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
This will always ensure that the winning candidate has an actual majority support.

Doesn't it acheive that by arbitrarily reducing the options to two, in the final round? That would seem a very mathematical, or technical, way to say "the majority has chosen".

The French say they vote with their heart in round 1, and with their brain in round 2. It's a system that recognizes that we rarely get what we want, and allows for a compromise. Surely, it's a lot better than the FPTP system, in which somebody can win a seat with as little as 26% of the vote. How is that person really repsentative of the riding?

Sat, 2018-06-09 22:03

WWWTT

You guys complain all you want. In the end the corporate masters of Canada aren’t interested in hearing any rubbish that may lead to their loss of control over the majority.

Sat, 2018-06-09 22:08

(Reply to #49) #50

SocialJustice101

WWWTT wrote:

You guys complain all you want. In the end the corporate masters of Canada aren’t interested in hearing any rubbish that may lead to their loss of control over the majority.

PR passed in PEI and will likely pass in BC. Then it may spread nationally.

Sat, 2018-06-09 22:24

WWWTT

Ya So what?

What’s happened in PEI?

I think everyone in PEI that were hoping for a peaceful revolution are going to be disappointed

Pages