OK, I'll try and change, but I'm just so used to calling them that.
New polling thread Jan. 26/11
Tue, 2011-02-01 14:18
#52
Tue, 2011-02-01 14:22
#53
I think the point of "horse race" language is that it reduces politics to who wins the nominal race. Horse race analysis ignores questions of policy, philosophy &c, and focusses only "x on the backstretch, y on the inside."
That's very true. In fact if you look at everything that is written during an election campaign, i would say that about 95% of the time its - who is ahead and who is behind and will who is behind move ahead and who committed a gaffe and who was poised etc...
Tue, 2011-02-01 14:42
#54
I guess horserace fits with first past the post -- and it certainly is consistent with the idea that a close second is nothing only a win is a win-- everyone who voted for any other candidate-- even if they are in the majority collectively gets screwed so horserace as a term works just fine.
As well horserace does not include the idea of logic or reason -- just strength and assets and the best jockey etc.
It is intrinsically exploitative as well.
Those who bet on it are insane.
Yep the analogy is just fine.
Tue, 2011-02-01 15:00
#55
:-)
(oh, and everyone agreed on that, too, which also makes me happy)
Tue, 2011-02-01 18:46
#56
I think its a good term. To me, it always has at least some edge of perjorative. As in "[just] the horse race numbers".
Nothing more than the horse race numbers, that get obsessed with.
Etc.
Wed, 2011-02-02 00:30
#57
To me, a horserace means that 2 parties are within only 2 or 3 points of each other. In my opinion it is overly optimstic of the Liberals to claim they are in a horserace with the Conservatives when they are trailing by 7 points in all the polls. If they can get to within a couple of points of the Conservatives, then maybe they can claim they are in a horserace.
Wed, 2011-02-02 00:55
#58
So what you're saying, Lens Solution, is that there's not really a horserace in those horserace numbers. I'd agree with that.
Wed, 2011-02-02 02:21
#59
Malcolm
There may not be a horse RACE, but there's a lot of horse SOMETHING.
Wed, 2011-02-02 05:16
#60
FPTP convolutes the idea of a horserace. In the UK, because Labour's votes are relatively efficient, if the Conservatives are ahead of Labour by 3 points, the race is considered a dead heat. On the other hand a 3 point Labour lead puts Labour into majority territory. In 2005 Labour won a majority government with just a 3 point lead over the Consevatives, winning 35% - 32%. With just 35% of the vote, Labour won 55% of the seats and with 32.5% of the vote, the Conservatives won just 30% of the seats. Due to this inbuilt advantage for Labour, a horse race occurs in the UK when Labour is 5 points or less behind the Consevatives.
Here in Canada, if the Cons and Libs are tied, I'm not sure which party has the advantage due to greater vote efficiency. It would seem that because the Cons have such huge majorites in parts of Western Canada, their vote may be less efficient then Lib votes. So a 2 percentage point Conservative lead may be considered the point where a dead heat occurs and a 4 percentage point Con lead may be the point where a Con-Lib horse race occurs. In order to get into a horse race with the Cons the Libs probably only have to gain 2 or 3 percentage points from their current poll standings.
Hopefully the NDP is not in the same position as the Liberal Democrats are in the UK. The Liberal Democratic vote is extremely inefficient as they gain very few seats when their votes grow beyond 20%. The Liberal Democrats probably have to go over 30% of the vote before their votes become as efficient as Labour's and the Conservative's. The Liberal Democrats hit 23% in the last election but actually won fewer seats then they did in the previous election because their vote was even less efficient then it was in the previous election. The Liberal Democrats vote is spread out too evenly to gain traction easily within FPTP. It is difficult to know how many seats the NDP would be likely to win if they were to hit 23% because of the convoluted nature of FPTP. I'm not sure how evenly spread out the NDP's vote is when they go over 20%. If we had proportional representation this perverse aspect of FPTP would be extinguished as parties seat totals would reflect their vote totals.
Wed, 2011-02-02 11:08
#61
I don't think the "efficiency" of a party's vote is entirely outside its hands. In fact I would argue this is the major difference between the NDP and say the Green Party last time. If you can ruthlessly target some seats for attention, and recruit the very best candidates possible, that will help put some seats over the top, and put others into play. Repeating that over many elections is what makes for areas of strength, and making the vote "efficient".
Following that theory, the Liberal Democrats likely did not have the infrastructure to handle the surge in their support and translate it into the most seats possible under FPTP. The Greens here certainly didn't, nor the discipline.
Wed, 2011-02-02 12:59
#62
When Alexa MacDonough became leader of the Nova Scotia NDP, it had thin and spread out support levels comparable to the Greens nationaly. The areas where the NDP was stronger probably were not any better than the pockets the GPC has now. As late as 1993, a lot of what was several laters the "NDP Metro Stronghold," was still returning in the low and mid teens. At that point, the NSNDP still had piss all for developed infrastructure, and you got NOTHING for resources in the election if you couldnt guarantee over 20%. 'Ruthless' is the word all right. But that is what gets you started.
The GPC has in the past done some focusing of resources, but they executed it very poorly. Now they've gone WAY over the top... throwing over a million dollars into electing Elizabeth May, but still without the discipline to focus effectively.
Wed, 2011-02-02 21:10
#63
Actually, the NDP can have an excellent "efficiency quotient"--think of how the lowly Audrey Democrats of '93 out-seated Avril Phaedra's PCs. Or even on an individual riding basis, you can have a third-place NDP winning a lot more polls than a second-place Liberal or Conservative...
Wed, 2011-02-02 23:01
#64
Actually, the NDP can have an excellent "efficiency quotient"--think of how the lowly Audrey Democrats of '93 out-seated Avril Phaedra's PCs. Or even on an individual riding basis, you can have a third-place NDP winning a lot more polls than a second-place Liberal or Conservative...
The numbers indicate otherwise.
"Efficiency Quotient" (votes/seats)
Con: 36,425 votes per seat
Lib: 47,184
BQ: 28,163
NDP: 67,988
Green: 937,613 - 0 seats
NDP: 104,397 votes per seat
The only way the Cons are going to be reduced to 2 seats after coming in 3rd place is if Reform makes a comeback. Somehow I just don't see that happening.
Wed, 2011-02-02 23:12
#65
Ask the wild rose party what they think of that prediction. Come on crazy alberta party, daddy needs a new vote split on the right!
Wed, 2011-02-02 23:28
#66
Under AV, a candidate that recieved almost half of the votes could be beaten by a candidate that got only a third of the vote, after preferences were taken into account. In 4-way races a candidate that got only 20% of the vote could win. That's worse than your FPTP candidate winning on 24% of the vote in the same riding.Why would that be worse? Under AV the winning candidate has to get over 50%, not just 20%. AV requires that winning candidates get the support of a majority of the voters. Only in FPTP can a candidate with very few votes, like 24% or 19% as happened in the UK last year, gain election.
If AV is worse then FPTP, why do all the political parties in Canada use AV, not FPTP, to select their candidates?
Here in BC we're electing new party leaders. Both the BC NDP and BC Liberals are using AV to elect their new leaders. Does anyone seriously think these parties would be better off using FPTP?
What happens if the initial results in the BC NDP leadership contest end up:
Farnworth 20%
Dix 19%
Horgan 19%
Lali 14%
Larsen 14%
Simons 14%Under FPTP, Farnworth would be leader with only 1 in 5 supporting him. 80% of the party would just have to live with the most right-wing candidate "winning" with a small minority of the votes. 80% of the parties member votes would not count.
Luckily the BC NDP is using AV to prevent such an absurdity. Under AV, the new leader will need to gain 50%+1 of the votes.
If the BC NDP was using FPTP, many of the candidates currently in the race would have to drop out of the race before the vote ever happens to prevent vote splitting. And if the BC NDP was using FPTP, strategic voting would once again be rearing its ugly head.
You are comparing electing a Leader (one position) with electing a representative legislature. No-one is suggesting using FPTP to elect a Leader.
Wed, 2011-02-02 23:29
#67
Progressives in Alberta should make some hefty donations to the Crazy Alberta Party.
Wed, 2011-02-02 23:45
#68
Progressives in Alberta should make some hefty donations to the Crazy Alberta Party.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKIZilenZxw]Or simply teaching Wild Rose how to be an effective opposition would suffice[/url]
Thu, 2011-02-03 08:35
#69
Actually, the NDP can have an excellent "efficiency quotient"--think of how the lowly Audrey Democrats of '93 out-seated Avril Phaedra's PCs. Or even on an individual riding basis, you can have a third-place NDP winning a lot more polls than a second-place Liberal or Conservative...
The numbers indicate otherwise.
"Efficiency Quotient" (votes/seats)
Con: 36,425 votes per seat
Lib: 47,184
BQ: 28,163
NDP: 67,988
Green: 937,613 - 0 seatsNDP: 104,397 votes per seat
The only way the Cons are going to be reduced to 2 seats after coming in 3rd place is if Reform makes a comeback. Somehow I just don't see that happening.
Well, I said "can"...and you have to consider that under the circumstances, the 1993 seat result *did* speak to the NDP's hidden strengths "despite it all". Heck, Jack's clawing his way to the second highest party seat total ever speaks to such strengths.
And come to think of it, re the Lib Dems in Britain, the 1997 election was a landmark in *their* discovering "seat efficiency"--not in the rep-by-prop sense, but in that they more than doubled their seat total through strategic targeting w/an assist from the Tory collapse. Only in 2010 did they come to cropper w/the old "generalized vote spread" thing; maybe in part because Cleggmania caused them to get too complacently ambitious (oxymoronic as that may sound).
Oh, and there are times when the NDP's likewise come to cropper--I think of how in Ontario, Howard Hampton's share rose and seat total fell in '03, as a lot of that was "wasted share" in bottom-feeding 905-type seats; or how Jack Layton's first election in '04 fell short of Alexa's seat-total peak...
Thu, 2011-02-03 12:43
#70
Adma, I agree that the NDP at moments does very well due to incumbents -- considering that its vote totals are in a very inefficient range. This does not at all contradict the reality that compared to much bigger parties the NDP is not efficient.
However, I think there is a near randomness to the FPTP system that has to be in every discussion we have about it. at the end of the day, there is luck involved in those close races-- being up or down a handful of votes decides who represents thousands. At moments the NDP has been lucky in those and at others very unlucky. This is separate from the skill to draw out supporters to bring certain seats in reach. In other words there are a pile of factors in getting a seat into contention but more randomness than anything else if the seat is to be decided by less than a percentage with winner take all.
Thu, 2011-02-03 21:59
#71
A 9% shift between The Cons and the NDP, in the NDP's favour.
Keep kicking ass Jack!
Tell Olivia it's time to get some quotes from the movers. Stornway's looking good!
Poor Steevie - what a shame! :)
It's time to kick this guy in the b.... when he is down. Trust me he he wouldn't hestitate to do it to you.
And from Ipsos- Reid to boot.
Leading Tories losing vote momentum: Poll
Cons - 34%, down 5%
NDP - up 4%
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Leading+Tories+losing+vote+momentum+Po...
Thu, 2011-02-03 22:11
#72
Though that "up 4%" was from a 12% low blip, so I'd urge caution in reading *too* much into it; may be not so much upward trending as it is a "correction"...
Thu, 2011-02-03 22:48
#73
If it's Ipsos-Reid, any NDP support from a right-wing pollster is worth considering. :)
Or would you rather have the BS from that 308 website or whatever's it's called.
Fri, 2011-02-04 00:08
#74
The movement is in the right direction, but I think they probably also asked about corporate tax cuts in the same poll, so that probably helped too.
Still, you have to figure that with Layton not maintaining his usual hectic pace last year, but stepping it up a whole lot over the past month, a few things are starting to take hold.
By the way, if you missed him in Question Period today, definitely catch the video rebroadcast, because he knocked it out of the park on the Conservatives' talks with the BQ:
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/ParlVu/ContentEntityDetailView.aspx?ContentEnti...
It was hilarious, charming, and had the press gallery (well everyone except that sourpuss Susan Delacourt) in stitches on Twitter.
Fri, 2011-02-04 00:11
#75
Leading Tories losing vote momentum: Poll
Cons - 34%, down 5%
NDP - up 4%
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Leading+Tories+losing+vote+momentum+Po...
Full results that were deftly omitted:
Con: 34%
Lib: 29%
NDP: 16
BQ: 11
Grn: 10
Compared to other recent polls, this poll shows no real change. All the recent polls show very similar results.
Fri, 2011-02-04 02:06
#76
True, but NR's point was that Ipsos-Reid typically discounts the NDP's result by a few points, thus if we're at 16 in Ipsos, we're probably a bit higher in some of the others. If you look at the regionals, we're a bit low in BC and the prairies in Ipsos, compared to our results in other regional sub-samples (albeit that regional subsamples in a national sample of 1000 is a mugs game).
Fri, 2011-02-04 18:49
#77
Leading Tories losing vote momentum: Poll
Cons - 34%, down 5%
NDP - up 4%
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Leading+Tories+losing+vote+momentum+Po...
Full results that were deftly omitted:
Con: 34%
Lib: 29%
NDP: 16
BQ: 11
Grn: 10Compared to other recent polls, this poll shows no real change. All the recent polls show very similar results.
So this poll shows only a 5% gap between the Cons and the Libs? That's a bit of a good news for the Libs, although not as much as they need. As I said above, the other polls show the Libs behind by 7 points and in a distant 2nd so they can't claim bragging rights anytime soon, but a 5 point gap is not too bad. The Ontario numbers look good for the Libs, although their Quebec numbers are still poor.
Fri, 2011-02-04 18:59
#78
It's a close. And I think all teams are taking a "team Sweden" or even Azzurri-NJ Devils approach where the objective of the game is not to lose. It's boring. FPTP is the most boring and most uncompetitive style of play where teams tend to be punished on the scoreboard for taking chances. Rules need changing for the sake of democracy and ticket sales.
Mon, 2011-02-07 01:53
#79
Now here's the voice of bullshit if I ever heard one.
NDP weakness sets up two-way race between Harper and Ignatieff
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-weakness-sets-up-two-wa...
Mon, 2011-02-07 17:32
#80
Malcolm
Grenier is a hack who offers up oversimplification as though it were analysis, using an untested projection methodology that even a drunken chimpanzee could see is useless. He's also known to plagiarize data collation and analysis from other (more credible) analysts, passing it off as his own.
Mon, 2011-02-07 18:52
#81
I've also noticed that the media has even referred to him as a "pollster" when in fact he has never conducted a poll nor (as far as i know) has ever worked in market or public opinion research. He is just a guy - like any of us - who has some half-baked "formula" for synthesizing other peoples data - and as has been mentioned, his formula has never been tested in an election.
Mon, 2011-02-07 19:00
#82
He is a free lance journalist who has managed to parlay what had been a little hobby sideline into a regular paid gig. His copy for the Globe offers itself up for the kind of headlines they like.
Mon, 2011-02-07 20:26
#83
Malcolm
Free lance I can buy.
Journalist is a bit of a stretch.
No, I still think hack is the correct noun. Free lance hack.
Mon, 2011-02-07 21:03
#84
There are many hacks around and there always will be. But why does a major newspaper elevate a particular hack to expert status?
Progressive media like rabble should have someone to do a political prognostications web site like threehundredeight.com. It doesn't seem like a very difficult job.
Mon, 2011-02-07 21:21
#85
All the prognostications are hack jobs. It is inherent in making predictions based on a VERY narrow slice of past performance data... irregardless of whether there is any history of predictive accuracy using the methodilogies [which no one tests].
In principle, there MIGHT be a model that uses a broad enough range of data, and knows who the variables interact. But that is only might be. There is certainly no one doing it. And it is only hypothetically feasible.
Check out this Pundits Guide blogpost.
Excerpts:
In a typical general election over the last 20 years, 12 per cent to 16 per cent of the ridings are close races-that is, races where five per cent or less of the vote separates the first and second-place finishers. The 2004 election came in a bit higher at 19 per cent, and 1988 sported an unusual 24 per cent.
Of those close races, roughly a quarter of them will go on to be close in the next election. That's slightly higher than average, but still means that just three per cent to four per cent of all ridings will be close two elections in a row.
Let's put that another way. Of all the races that weren't close last time, all other things being equal, they stand nearly as good a chance of being close this time as any riding in the last election does, whether it was close last time or not.
...and...
in every election studied, more of the seats that flipped by party had NOT been close in the previous election than had been.
Mon, 2011-02-07 23:18
#86
I would add jennifer ditchburn to the list of hacks. Or more likely propagandist. She was on P&P last week saying layton will likely continue to prop up harper for the next budget the way he has for the past 3 years! Hey Ditchburn, I know you are a reporter or at least a stenographer, but did you even look at the votes moron?
Mon, 2011-02-07 23:23
#87
On the other hand, she has done some great reporting on the goings-on in the Conservative riding associations, first all the shenanigans in Simcoe-Grey, then Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette, and then today on Mississauga South.
Admittedly she's repeating the received wisdom in the press gallery right now, but the NDP is not her beat at CP and she's winging it.
Mon, 2011-02-07 23:29
#88
There are many hacks around and there always will be. But why does a major newspaper elevate a particular hack to expert status?
Progressive media like rabble should have someone to do a political prognostications web site like threehundredeight.com. It doesn't seem like a very difficult job.
There was: it was called Paulitics. Was he a hack too?
Tue, 2011-02-08 00:21
#89
Malcolm
I don't have a problem with hacks. I have a problem with hacks who pretend they aren't hacks.
You want a real political-electoral analysis website? Try Pundits' Guide. Solid data collation and insightful analysis.
As to Grenier and his hack and slash site, his analytical model (blend the results of different polls using different methodologies and different questions and apply the results uniformly across the country) is even more useless than Milton Chan's - and Milton's (get people to comment and then predict based on how he'd like the seat to go) was pretty useless.
In fact, Paul the Octopus could still do more credible work than Grenier despite having died more than three months ago.
Tue, 2011-02-08 00:55
#90
You want a real political-electoral analysis website? Try Pundits' Guide. Solid data collation and insightful analysis.
The main difference is that Pundits' Guide doesn't deal with polling & doesn't try to predict the future
Tue, 2011-02-08 01:05
#91
Malcolm
It avoids phoney-baloney projections, yes.
Tue, 2011-02-08 01:34
#92
There is also an opportunity cost of having so much politcal discourse centred around polling and seat projections. Instead of talking and debating issues we end up talking about a meaningless political scoreboard.
When was the last time a we saw a real debate concerning important issues? It seems debates in our society have been left to a few private high school debating teams.
In the realm of ideas, progressives would do very well debating the issues against their political adversaries. I wonder why the corporate media has not provided a platform for that? hmmm....
As it is we are limited to one faux debate in each language every election that are closer to political advertising then real intelectual debates.
Tue, 2011-02-08 20:28
#93
the goings-on in the Conservative riding associations, first all the shenanigans in Simcoe-Grey, then Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette, and then today on Mississauga South.
There seem to have been several blow-ups involving Conservative candidates in the GTA.
Last year the Conservative candidate in Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Parvinder Singh, was forced to step down in a controversy and he basically accused the Cons of being prejudiced against Sikhs.
http://www.southasianfocus.ca/community/article/86485
Anyone know if they have found a replacement candidate yet?
Tue, 2011-02-08 20:29
#94
I think it was mentioned somewhere down in Ditchburn's story that they still had no candidate there.
Tue, 2011-02-08 20:36
#95
Thanks. I guess I didn't see it in there. I'll take another look.
I get the sense that the Cons have given up on targeting Bramalea-Gore-Malton next time around, or otherwise they would probably have a new candidate in place by now.
The Cons have made some progess in recent elections in taking votes away from the Liberals in certain minority communities, but if they keep having incidents like these, the Liberals could make back some lost ground.
Tue, 2011-02-08 21:01
#96
I agree. But I think they'll concentrate on a few priorities to make sure they make a breakthrough, rather than spread themselves too thin. We can probably already guess which ones those will be.
Wed, 2011-02-09 00:06
#97
I never said ditchburn liked the cons, but she is blatently shilling for the libs when there is no one leftish on the panel to call her on her BS. Its like delacourt or travers, you know they are libs by how they talk up the libs while bashing the NDP with pretty much lies.
Gotta say mulcair made shelly glover on P&P look like a liar. Unless of course the viewer is too lazy to actually look up facts. Evan did his usual ask a question move to someone else instead of follow up. So mulcair re asked her the same question that glover couldn't respond to and instead threw out the usual con talking points. IE change the channel...question of the day? Should the government be involved with regulating sports. Um what happend to some of the other important stories like CRTC party hack appointment? Or why didn't the ethics commish show up after a court summons...oh just another day the cons are in contempt of the house, no biggie, carry on.
Wed, 2011-02-09 00:29
#98
Susan Delacourt is definitely a Liberal, and has trouble being objective about anything. Jim Travers is a bit more objective and is willing to dish out some criticism of the Liberals sometimes.
This isnt the first time that Shelley Glover has given a bizarre interview on that show. I remember last year when Tom Flanagan (Harper's former political mentor and advisor) said something in the press about Stephen Harper - I think it may have been about Harper's real reasons for prorogation. Glover was on the show that day and was asked about it, and she claimed she had never even heard of Tom Flanagan!
Fri, 2011-02-11 18:06
#99
And the NDP too, so I'm not sure why that's good news.
So it doesn't look good for any of the opposition parties.
But how accurate is this poll? It has much lower numbers for the Liberals and NDP than other recent polls, and has the Conservatives much higher.
Fri, 2011-02-11 18:12
#100
Liberals sinking like a stone, I mean more like a rock
Liberal support, the survey suggests, is lower than the result in the 2008 federal election - the party's worst-ever showing at the polls.
Fri, 2011-02-11 18:16
#101
Tack on an additional 10% difference which the Liberals will lose to the Cons during the actual election campaign just like they have for the past 5 elections, and I don't even know why the Liberals will bother running at all. Liberals campaign terribly, and their track record shows it loud and clear.