40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[peter12]

I think if we see a Harper minority of 145+ seats, you will see a Harper majority in about 12 months due to centre-right members of the BQ and Liberals crossing the floor to the Conservative side.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think if we see a Harper minority of 145+ seats, you will see a Harper majority in about 12 months due to centre-right members of the BQ and Liberals crossing the floor to the Conservative side.

You think BQ members will join the conservatives?

I guess in theory there is some plausibility to that (for e.g. Bouchard was with mulroney). But, I don't know, I have a hard time believing that. First, the separtist optics of it - for any party (be it conservative, liberal or whoever). And secondly I know Dardon (?) and I briefly discussed it, but I see the Bloc as a left wing party; not sure that they have similar values as the conservatives. But, then again, the uniting value with the Bloc is separatism, so you could have various individual members. But overall, I don't know, I can't see the bloc - as a whole or any members - joining up officially with another party.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

You think BQ members will join the conservatives?

I guess in theory there is some plausibility to that (for e.g. Bouchard was with mulroney). But, I don't know, I have a hard time believing that. First, the separtist optics of it - for any party (be it conservative, liberal or whoever). And secondly I know Dardon (?) and I briefly discussed it, but I see the Bloc as a left wing party; not sure that they have similar values as the conservatives. But, then again, the uniting value with the Bloc is separatism, so you could have various individual members. But overall, I don't know, I can't see the bloc - as a whole or any members - joining up officially with another party.

There are certainly soft sovereigntists in the BQ party who share many views on federalism with the Conservatives. We'll see...

But the bleed would most likely come from the Liberals, with a weak leader and many members who stand with some of the centre-right policies of the Conservatives, it is certainly a possibility.

[Thunderball]

MarchHare, I mostly agree, except the CPC Social Policy is way more varied. In fact, I would say they range from centrist (the old PC's, and the Libertarian wing of the party) to far right (Rob Anders, Stock Day and Co.)
I always find it laughable that people think the CPC are like the Republicans, its not even close. The CPCs are like the Democrats, and even then, with a few exceptions, they would be on the moderate side of the democratic party. Even Obama doesn't want socialized healthcare... just to overhaul the insurance sector.

I agree with peter12, if the CPCs are within reach of a majority, one might see some of the right leaning fringers of the Liberals and Bloc jump ship.

[Thunderball]

The Bloc Quebecois are an interesting beast. They don't really fit on the political spectrum, because they are essentially, an elected special interest group. Since it is in the best interest of Quebec for money to be allocated to them, they are typically left of centre. This is not to say the whole party is leftist. Many Bloc candidates are federalists and soft-sovereigntists with centre-right leanings. If they can better serve Quebec by jumping into the majority governing party that tacitly supports their federalism and provincial autonomy, they might.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

MarchHare, I mostly agree, except the CPC Social Policy is way more varied. In fact, I would say they range from centrist (the old PC's, and the Libertarian wing of the party) to far right (Rob Anders, Stock Day and Co.)
I always find it laughable that people think the CPC are like the Republicans, its not even close. The CPCs are like the Democrats, and even then, with a few exceptions, they would be on the moderate side of the democratic party. Even Obama doesn't want socialized healthcare... just to overhaul the insurance sector.

I agree with peter12, if the CPCs are within reach of a majority, one might see some of the right leaning fringers of the Liberals and Bloc jump ship.

I would say currently that the CPC social policy is being dominated by the libertarian wing. You have some exceptions, like Ken Epp's bill, but that social conservatism lite goes across party lines.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Centrist is the median of any given electorate. The electorate's attitudes to a bevy of issues determines what the centre is.

The assumption that political beliefs can be plotted along a one-dimensional line is one of the least helpful metaphors ever conceived. The related idea that there is a "centre" around which political parties maneuver is baseless - you cannot plot voters along a line as if the distribution has any meaning when the line itself is overly simplistic.

There is no single reason the Liberals have been the governing party for the majority of the last 40 years. One certainty, though, is that it is not because they appeal to the illusory "centre", unless by "centre" you mean Ontario and Quebec regional interests.

[Bobblehead]

Interesting site

http://www.nodice.ca/elections/canada/projections.php

Depending upon the poll, in the last 5 days it looks like the CPC would have anywhere between 125 seats (Election Prediction Project) and 152 seats (Ekos Research Assoc).

All over the map. It'll be interesting to see which is more accurate.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by jammies

The assumption that political beliefs can be plotted along a one-dimensional line is one of the least helpful metaphors ever conceived. The related idea that there is a "centre" around which political parties maneuver is baseless - you cannot plot voters along a line as if the distribution has any meaning when the line itself is overly simplistic.

There is no single reason the Liberals have been the governing party for the majority of the last 40 years. One certainty, though, is that it is not because they appeal to the illusory "centre", unless by "centre" you mean Ontario and Quebec regional interests.

Certainly it's not one dimensional.

But, to say because of which, political parties don't try to capture the centre is baseless. Regression analysis can plot a two dimensional line, but most parties cater their platforms to capture the median voter along various dimensions.

Median voter theory is the most studied and applied theory of electoral behaviour.

Read up on it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

The assumption that political beliefs can be plotted along a one-dimensional line is one of the least helpful metaphors ever conceived. The related idea that there is a "centre" around which political parties maneuver is baseless - you cannot plot voters along a line as if the distribution has any meaning when the line itself is overly simplistic.

There is no single reason the Liberals have been the governing party for the majority of the last 40 years. One certainty, though, is that it is not because they appeal to the illusory "centre", unless by "centre" you mean Ontario and Quebec regional interests.

And you win. Good post. If you know anything about public choice theory, you understand that it is very easy to manufacture majorities under any political system by simply ranking electoral groups' choices and pitting them against other electoral grousp, hence the political favouratism towards central Canada and the scapegoating onto the Canadian West.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Certainly it's not one dimensional.

But, to say because of which, political parties don't try to capture the centre is baseless. Regression analysis can plot a two dimensional line, but most parties cater their platforms to capture the median voter along various dimensions.

Median voter theory is the most studied and applied theory of electoral behaviour.

Read up on it.

Read Public Choice Theory, especially libertarian public choice. Median voter theory is a sham. Lazy, lazy.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Interesting site

http://www.nodice.ca/elections/canada/projections.php

Depending upon the poll, in the last 5 days it looks like the CPC would have anywhere between 125 seats (Election Prediction Project) and 152 seats (Ekos Research Assoc).

All over the map. It'll be interesting to see which is more accurate.

It really depends on which way Ontario breaks. I'd be pretty confident that ultimately the numbers will move ahead for the CPC in Ontario. That will counteract their likely blowout in Quebec but wont see any net seat increases. I think it's safe to assume they'll be reduced to at least 2 seats if not 0 in Quebec. They will probably pick up between 8-10 in Ontario.

The lynchpin of the election seems to be in BC where they will need to win seats from the NDP and Liberals. Tough task when the NDP is polling really close to them.

My prediction is 120. But who knows, a majority isn't out of the question depending on a large percentage of closet independents who will vote out of fear of recession for the party they believe will manage the economy best. In that situation CPC wins big.

[Azure]

Anyone vote yet?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Azure

Anyone vote yet?

Yeah, I went this morning. I won't be surprised if people complain about confusion when the after-work crowd comes in, but I was in-and-out in under 5 minutes, and I forgot my card at home.

[peter12]

Yeah, I voted this morning. Went Libertarian on a whim at the last minute. My riding is a guaranteed Conservative riding and I decided to go with the party who truly reflects my own personal values, even though partisan-wise I am still realistically supporting the Conservative Party.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Read Public Choice Theory, especially libertarian public choice. Median voter theory is a sham. Lazy, lazy.

I don't think its a sham, but it means very little to people who don't care about fancy graphs and political position.

I think one would find most people identify themselves by particular positions, and not by political affiliation or perceived positions on the political compass. Which of course makes public choice theory more applicable.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yeah, I voted this morning. Went Libertarian on a whim at the last minute. My riding is a guaranteed Conservative riding and I decided to go with the party who truly reflects my own personal values, even though partisan-wise I am still realistically supporting the Conservative Party.

LOL I thought about that too, was surprised there was a Libertarian candidate in Calgary SW... but in the end, I stuck with Harper, he's pretty libertarian too, as far as big-tent party leaders go.

[octothorp]

Yeah, I went before work. Nice that the polls opened early, unlike the provincial election. No line ups at my polling station, which I'm assuming will be overwhelmingly NDP.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Azure

Anyone vote yet?

Twice

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I don't think its a sham, but it means very little to people who don't care about fancy graphs and political position.

I think one would find most people identify themselves by particular positions, and not by political affiliation or perceived positions on the political compass. Which of course makes public choice theory more applicable.

It also assumes that people can be easily broken down into identifiable groups which I think is most likely a quantitative sham that doesn't really tell us much about the wide and complex variety of choices that each individual faces.