Friday, August 28, 2015

#Elxn42...First Pass On Where Strategic Voting Could Matter In British Columbia.


Friday Lunchtime: Please see the reader-driven update at the bottom of the post...

First, another important tidbit from that Insights West Poll we mentioned yesterday, specifically regarding the malleability of so-called 'decided' voters in British Columbia:

Do you see what I see?

Essentially, those British Columbians who have identified themselves as Liberal and, especially, Green Party voters are those of us who are most willing to change their votes.

And, presumably, at least some of those 'changeable' Green- and Red-leaning folks are willing to do so if they recognize it will do some good (i.e. help stop the re-election of the Fed-Cons).


Where could that 'good' occur in British Columbia, specifically.

Well, as a starting point I've had a close look at Eric Grenier's early aggregator projections (from and have tried to identify key ridings in a couple of clusters....

Ridings where hopeless (i.e. can't possibly win) Green votes alone (not to mention almost hopeless Lib votes) could stop the Con by helping to elect a Dipper:
Cariboo-PG....Here Dipper looks to be very strong but Green votes alone (not to mention a few % of those almost as senselessly weak Liberal votes) could seal it:
Con - 38
Lib - 11
Dipper - 42
Green - 9

Northern OK...Here, any significant movement from a stronger (but still non-winnable) Green vote could put the Dipper over the top for good...And, again, the Lib vote here that doesn't look like it can win either would help stop the Con.
Con - 34
Lib - 15
Dipper - 36
Green - 14

Central OK...The Dipper is only a little behind the Con and, if things stay the same the Green votes alone could turn this Okanagan (yes, Okanagan!) riding orange.
Con - 37
Lib - 20
Dipper - 33
Green - 10

Mission-Matsqui-Fraser Canyon...Here the Dipper has been rising even higher recently, presumably based on recent polls...That Green vote could drive in the last spike however.
Con - 35
Lib - 17
Dipper - 42
Green - 6

Ridings where hopeless (i.e. can't possibly win) Green votes alone (not to mention potentially hopeless Dipper votes) could stop the Con by helping to elect a Liberal:
Steveston - Richmond East...This is one where my Dipper compatriots may argue (and or get mad at me) but I just don't see that orang vote holding in this riding (although I'll change things if it does)...At the moment, the safe place for the few Green votes to go to surely beat the Con is to theLiberal.
Con - 31
Lib - 35
Dipper - 28
Green - 5

South Surrey - White Rock...Here, at least at the moment, things are a little more clear than in Steveston.... Greens for sure, and maybe a few Dippers too(?), should consider going Liberal to stop the Con.
Con - 34
Lib - 35
Dipper - 23
Green - 7

Richmond Centre...The Con is still pretty strong here, but the Liberal has gained and has a chance with those Green votes and a few Dipper votes for good measure.
Con - 37
Lib - 34
Dipper - 22
Green - 6


Finally there are a few weird ridings where it still looks it's too difficult to tell where, specifically, any excess vote should go to beat the Con....

First there is WestVan, etcetera where the Con vote is suddenly weak enough that it looks like even a 50:50 split in a significant (but not winnable) Green vote to either the Dipper or the Liberal could send the Con off to climb the Chief in perpetuity...I wonder....Should this be dubbed the 'Rafe' effect?

Then there are the new/redrawn Van-Granville and Delta ridings where the Con could win if everybody else doesn't get together to form some sort of an alliance (i.e. the nightmare scenario that elected so many Cons in 2011)....Ugggghhhh.

So, have at it...Especially you pros/insiders/deepnumberdivers out there...Again, please remember that this is only a first, early look at things...
And why am I doing this as an 'equal' opportunity Strat-Voting enthusiast?....Because, as things currently stand, I don't see this thing as being a majority for anybody...Thus, it is my position that anything that helps lower the Con count at the end of the day on Oct 19th is vital to the interests of all Canadians (and that includes those folks who are more than willing to vote against their own best longterm interests for an extra hockey stick or three)...OK?
Update: Paul Ramsey makes a very important point in the comments that the Grenier riding predictor runs on a "proportional swing model" which relies heavily on previous election results as a starting point  that then change based on regional polling numbers as they roll out...While it has had some validity in the past with picking winners when things are pretty obvious, particularly as things get closer to E-Day (and more regional polls accumulate), it is no substitute for riding-specific polling - particularly in riding where things are tight...Which, in my opinion, is why folks should not get excited about single Forum polls that say the Dippers are in majority range (for example)...



Anonymous said...

Is it the most important vote of 21st century./

Anonymous said...

One thing I'm definitely going to do this election is con the PC's into driving me to the polls. I figure I can put up with a bit of propaganda in return for a chance to (minimally) waste some of their time and money.

Eleanor Gregory said...

Good point about asking for a ride. I would like to point out, however, that it is wrongheaded to refer to the Cons as PCs. The current Cons are not our mothers' and fathers' and grandparents' Progressive Conservatives. The Progressive Conservatives did such things as bring in the Bill of Rights.

Why hasn't someone coined the term "Regressive Conservatives"?

Anonymous said...

One thing I'm definitely going to do this election is con the PC's into driving me to the polls. I figure I can put up with a bit of propaganda in return for a chance to (minimally) waste some of their time and money.

I think I'll spread that gem around to my like minded friends.I'm in! I am scared for my riding as the minds here are gonna send back Andrew Saxton, one of Harper's best behaved lap dogs.Nothing I'd like better than to have the electorate pee on his fire hydrant, but the new North Van resident mindset isn't like it was when I moved here in 79.

RossK said...


Most important this century for sure



Saxton is in big, big trouble this time...Lib Wilkinson charging hard...Dipper Thomas may not be a factor...Wildcard is the 'weather presenter', Greeniac Martin.


RossK said...


Regressive AND Repressive?


Paul Ramsey said...

Important to note that, unless there has been actual local polling that Grenier has seen, the riding-by-riding forecasts are based on a "proportional swing model" that just reallocates the 2011 vote based on the current best guess regional/provincial polling. All you're seeing is the 2011 proportions adjusted slightly for changes in regional vote.

You can see some of this in action in the Grenier forecast for a Green win in Victoria, which is based on applying the proportional swing methodology to the 2012 by-election numbers. Where you start from makes a huge difference. The same model applied to the 2011 general numbers would predict an easy NDP win. The truth is somewhere in the middle, likely.

persey said...

Funny you didn't pick up on this one -- only the Liberals can muster more than 100% in people voting. (49% plus 52%)

RossK said...


Point very much taken (see my point also, above, about Claire Martin being a potential wild card in North Van, for example, which wouldn't be in the swing model)...I'll add something to the post.

However, I'm a little confused about your specific comments about Victoria...Doesn't Grenier have the NDP in front there by quite a margin on the riding predictor...Is there something I'm missing?

Have you seen any more riding specific- polls other than the one commissioned by Lead Now that we talked about last week?


scotty on denmanc said...

We never had it so bad as with Harper, why this is the most important election, and why SV is getting a favourable gander: some voters, even new voters, see it as a way to finally (or finally for the first time) have some real influence when it's really needed. And, considering the likelihood of a hung parliament and all the contingencies that flow from that, SV affords the expectation of electing one's preferred party, if not preferred candidate, to a cabinet seat, a sort of dry-run pro-rep experience, with two, maybe three parties in cabinet (and, to be sure, 2 to 3 whips at the ready to preclude precipitating an election before these smaller, poorer parties can afford it.) Thus an extraordinarily bad, single Con majority has inspired interest in SV to get rid of it, then SV itself inspires interest in what other kinds of parliamentary cooperation might look like. All good!

The chart says it all: Cons wobbling due to internal disappointment among traditional Tories; the Dippers so close they're only slightly willing to take one for the Gipper; Libs not sure---or, to be sure, "not ready" to be sure---as might be expected after such self-inflicted wounding, and self-delayed convalescence; and, finally, Greens who know their most realistic and vital goal is to return their leader, but otherwise avoid splitting the vote in the Cons' favour---the prospect of pro-rep, the Green dream, which both big opposition parties have committed to vanishes with a Harper win, as so might the Green Party itself---besides, they have a good shot at a cabinet seat by holding the balance of power. All of these partisans see something for themselves by way of SV (I think Greens are getting a bump from disaffected Cons who can't bring themselves to vote NDP or Lib---at least it's a no-split, compensating error.)

The big thing is, though, even non-partisans, "undecideds," and first-time voters see something for themselves with SV: like the Azidis, they can piece off the devil to keep him at bay. Personally, I would just as soon he simply go away, don't care how mad he gets about the lack of tribute.

My Courtenay-Alberni riding is the weirdest thing: our previous boundaries (very much different) enclosed a perennially tight partisanship which the Greens easily split in the neo-rightists favour (BC Liberals and federal Cons) five times in a row. This time the NDP candidate Gord Johns is the far-and-away favourite. Nevertheless, the Greens have targeted this riding---why? there seems even less than their usual not-much-of-a-chance, but as much of a chance of splitting again, like usual. Is there perverse logic going on here (I mean, in the Green riding office here)?

Naturally Cons want to make discerning who's the strategic choice as difficult as possible. In the past couple years, we've gotten ample reason to distrust popularity polling, or even election returns (remember the judge said it wasn't possible to recount in Etobicoke); adding to the difficulty is riding boundary changes which look like they were designed by Gerry Mander. But I remain confident that increasing interest in SV will provide favourite-selection that's close enough. Keep in mind dark forces will be working on this, their biggest threat---well, next to the possibility of Harper making an unnecessary but intemperate, damning remark, as he's been known to do.

Anonymous said...

Seems his iron fistedness and the rest of his henchmen are sinking in the polls for what they're worth. Not far enough, but a good start.

Hope you're correct about Saxton- I would personally love to see Elizabeth May hold the others by the berries. I've had the chance to meet and talk to Claire Martin and I was impressed with both her and her team. No hiding and the freedom to speak candidly.

RossK said...


Well, you know...

All rounding errors go to the chosen one!


Paul Ramsey said...

@RossK, I should read before I write. An earlier peruse of the Grenier site showed him giving Victoria to the Greens, so I chuckled and said to myself "ha ha, I know why that number's there". Perhaps he got some pushback and adjusted it back to using 2011 numbers since then (which would be wrong in its own way, since that would also discount the very real uptick in local Green fortunes in the interim (although, using the 2011 numbers adjusted with sub-regional numbers for the Island might at least get w/i spitting range of the "truth")).