That's the story the polls have been telling us about the Saskatchewan provincial election next Monday. Brad Wall of the Saskatchewan Party is an extremely popular incumbent premier riding on the coattails of a hot economy and sustained growth. That the SP is going to win a massive majority on Monday is undisputed. The real question is how many of the province's 58 seats can the NDP reasonably expect to walk away with. Turnout is going to be a major player this election.
Will favourable poll numbers make Sask. Party supporters complacent, and help the NDP keep a few more seats than they would otherwise? Or will psychologically downbeat NDP supporters opt to stay home, exacerbating the SP landslide? Usually in these cases, the party with the big lead sees a late narrowing and a drop in turnout works against them.
The other question is: how low can the Liberal Party go? With only 9 candidates this election cycle, the Liberal is closer to the Western Independence Party than the Green Party. While the polls expects them to take 1.5% of the vote, even 1% could prove difficult (I've tweaked the vote projection to reflect this). It seems the Sask. Party has taken over all of their former support, and the need for a Liberal Party in Saskatchewan could very well be called into doubt.
With that, here is what is most likely the final (and only) projection for the Saskatchewan election.
SP: 60-67%, 44-52 seats; median 63.0%, 46 seats
NDP: 27-34%, 6-14 seats; median 31.5%, 12 seats
Green: 3-5%, 0 seats; median 3.5%, 0 seats
Other: 0-3%, 0 seats; median 2.0%, 0 seats
There are only 3 recent polls for me to work with, so the confidence range is larger than I'd like, but in this case the outcome is nowhere near changeable.
To conclude, Politically Uncorrect projects a SASK. PARTY LANDSLIDE.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Newfoundland and Yukon vote
Just managing to barely squeak in the final call before the polls close in Newfoundland and Labrador later this evening. The result, like PEI, is pretty much a foregone conclusion. The PCs are polling in the mid-50's and we can expect to see them there with anywhere from 38-44 of the 48 seats (median 41). The NDP appears poised to form the Official Opposition for the first time ever, having overtaken the Liberals in polling. They should take anywhere between 2-8 seats (median 5), which is actually a very big range given the absolute number of seats. This is to be expected with such a huge jump in the polls, and the rather large variations being reported in the St. John's region. The Liberals should take anywhere between 1-4 seats (median 2).
Politically Uncorrect projects a PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE LANDSLIDE.
Onto the Yukon:
There, the conservative Yukon Party is, like the NL PCs, seeking a third term in office. They were polling dismally last year, but after a leadership change appear to have revived their fortunes. Meanwhile, the NDP are, as they have been all over Canada, on the rise. Both these parties are near the mid-upper 30s, and it appears to be anybody's guess as to who will win tonight. The Liberal Party, at least according to the polls, are a ways behind, but not completely out of it yet. That said, the pollster for the Yukon, DataPath Systems, doesn't exactly boast a great track record. However, to take things at face value, the NDP and Yukon Party appear tied at the moment with the incumbency bonus and the likely voters advantage both going to the Yukon Party. It therefore would appear that the odds are slightly more favourable than not for the Yukon Party to win tonight. Yukon Party 8-12 (10), NDP 5-9 (7), Liberal 0-4 (2).
Politically Uncorrect will go on the record to project the YUKON PARTY MAJORITY, but this is more just for fun.
Politically Uncorrect projects a PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE LANDSLIDE.
Onto the Yukon:
There, the conservative Yukon Party is, like the NL PCs, seeking a third term in office. They were polling dismally last year, but after a leadership change appear to have revived their fortunes. Meanwhile, the NDP are, as they have been all over Canada, on the rise. Both these parties are near the mid-upper 30s, and it appears to be anybody's guess as to who will win tonight. The Liberal Party, at least according to the polls, are a ways behind, but not completely out of it yet. That said, the pollster for the Yukon, DataPath Systems, doesn't exactly boast a great track record. However, to take things at face value, the NDP and Yukon Party appear tied at the moment with the incumbency bonus and the likely voters advantage both going to the Yukon Party. It therefore would appear that the odds are slightly more favourable than not for the Yukon Party to win tonight. Yukon Party 8-12 (10), NDP 5-9 (7), Liberal 0-4 (2).
Politically Uncorrect will go on the record to project the YUKON PARTY MAJORITY, but this is more just for fun.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Ontario votes, or Why Campaigns Matter
Ontario votes tomorrow. Three months ago, the PCs were sitting pretty, and were, as the media put it, coasting to a victory. Then we had the campaign. During the campaign, PC leader Mr. Hudak was very un-Premier-like. Meanwhile, Premier McGuinty (Liberal) behaved very much like a Premier. This resulted in a gradual shift of momentum towards the Liberals mid-campaign. Polling became very volatile but averaged onto a small Liberal lead, which, due to efficiency in voting (much like the Manitoba NDP yesterday), could win them a third straight majority. Talk about a change in fortunes.
That said, there exists a strong third party in Ontario (something Manitoba lacks). Andrea Horwath's NDP has steadily gained support throughout the campaign. Much of whether Mr. McGuinty gets a majority or not depends on how many votes go to the NDP. Given a shot at a Liberal majority, they may well be able to convince some NDP voters to vote Liberal.
The other factor to whether McGuinty gets another majority is how energized the Liberal and PC votes are. If the PCs get out their vote, they may yet deny McGuinty a majority. Conversely, should the Liberals get out their vote, they will most likely have a majority at the end of the day.
The polling ranges (and accompanying seat ranges if relevant) are like this:
Lib ........ 33-40% ... 47-65 seats
PC ........ 29-36% ... 23-37 seats
NDP ...... 23-29% ... 17-24 seats
Green ....... 2-6%
Other ........ 0-2%
Obviously this is a little ridiculously wide, so I've narrowed that down to more reasonable ranges:
Lib ........ 36-38% ... 53-60 seats (median 37.0%, 57 seats)
PC ........ 32-35% ... 27-34 seats (median 33.3%, 30 seats)
NDP ...... 23-26% ... 17-22 seats (median 24.3%, 20 seats)
Green ....... 3-5% (median 4.4%)
Other ........ 0-2% (median 1.0%)
EKOS decided to toss us a curve ball and release their final numbers late at night. It moves one seat from the PCs to the Liberals. Now the Liberals are expected end up at least one short of a majority, and makes the election somewhat easier to call. That said, election night could still hold surprises and my projection will only be as good as the polls.
Since there is aslightly much better chance of a majority than a minority (even though this is on very thin ice), Politically Uncorrect will go out on a limb and project a LIBERAL MAJORITY. Tomorrow evening will be interesting. There's only one thing I can say: Ontario, democracy is not a spectator sport. Participate. Vote.
That said, there exists a strong third party in Ontario (something Manitoba lacks). Andrea Horwath's NDP has steadily gained support throughout the campaign. Much of whether Mr. McGuinty gets a majority or not depends on how many votes go to the NDP. Given a shot at a Liberal majority, they may well be able to convince some NDP voters to vote Liberal.
The other factor to whether McGuinty gets another majority is how energized the Liberal and PC votes are. If the PCs get out their vote, they may yet deny McGuinty a majority. Conversely, should the Liberals get out their vote, they will most likely have a majority at the end of the day.
The polling ranges (and accompanying seat ranges if relevant) are like this:
Lib ........ 33-40% ... 47-65 seats
PC ........ 29-36% ... 23-37 seats
NDP ...... 23-29% ... 17-24 seats
Green ....... 2-6%
Other ........ 0-2%
Obviously this is a little ridiculously wide, so I've narrowed that down to more reasonable ranges:
Lib ........ 36-38% ... 53-60 seats (median 37.0%, 57 seats)
PC ........ 32-35% ... 27-34 seats (median 33.3%, 30 seats)
NDP ...... 23-26% ... 17-22 seats (median 24.3%, 20 seats)
Green ....... 3-5% (median 4.4%)
Other ........ 0-2% (median 1.0%)
EKOS decided to toss us a curve ball and release their final numbers late at night. It moves one seat from the PCs to the Liberals. Now the Liberals are expected end up at least one short of a majority, and makes the election somewhat easier to call. That said, election night could still hold surprises and my projection will only be as good as the polls.
Since there is a
Monday, October 3, 2011
PEI aftermath, Manitoba, and how to win the vote but lose the election
Turns out the polls underestimated Conservative support again, so instead of 25-2, it was 22-5. This is becoming habitual. However, at least the call for a Liberal landslide was right. And anyways, having more Conservatives is always a good thing. One semi-shocker from last night: the Greens beat the New Democrats.
Manitoba is next on the list of elections. The campaign has been dull. NDP Premier Greg Selinger is seeking his own electoral victory, and a fourth in a row for the Manitoba NDP, and it seems that he will get it. The PCs under Hugh McFadyen have gained since 2007 but it does not appear to be enough. The Liberals under I-dunno-who-his-name-is are in danger of losing their only seat. Voting is tomorrow, so time for the final call:
NDP ...... 43-46% ... 35-38 seats
PC ........ 42-45% ... 19-21 seats
Lib .......... 7-10% ....... 0-1 seats
Green ....... 3-4%
Politically Uncorrect projects a NDP MAJORITY.
You will notice that the NDP and PC vote ranges overlap; that is, the PCs could conceivably win the popular vote. However, you will also notice that the PCs are not projected to have an overlap in seat count. This is the workings of our oh-so-sensible first past the post system. We divide our map into little districts, and each district elects one representative. This representative wins by virtue of having the most votes. The reason the PCs are expected to perform so poorly with a high vote total is because they pile up useless votes in very safe districts (say...about 65-35), whereas the NDP support is evenly spread enough to win more seats by smaller margins (like 55-45). A win by 10% is still a win, and is exactly the same as a win by 30%. This is why sometimes, electoral reform creeps into my mind. Of course it doesn't take long for common sense to re-assume its place in my brain and quash the idea. I mean, who would want perpetual minority governments being held hostage permanently by splinter groups like...oh...the Liberals?
Manitoba is next on the list of elections. The campaign has been dull. NDP Premier Greg Selinger is seeking his own electoral victory, and a fourth in a row for the Manitoba NDP, and it seems that he will get it. The PCs under Hugh McFadyen have gained since 2007 but it does not appear to be enough. The Liberals under I-dunno-who-his-name-is are in danger of losing their only seat. Voting is tomorrow, so time for the final call:
NDP ...... 43-46% ... 35-38 seats
PC ........ 42-45% ... 19-21 seats
Lib .......... 7-10% ....... 0-1 seats
Green ....... 3-4%
Politically Uncorrect projects a NDP MAJORITY.
You will notice that the NDP and PC vote ranges overlap; that is, the PCs could conceivably win the popular vote. However, you will also notice that the PCs are not projected to have an overlap in seat count. This is the workings of our oh-so-sensible first past the post system. We divide our map into little districts, and each district elects one representative. This representative wins by virtue of having the most votes. The reason the PCs are expected to perform so poorly with a high vote total is because they pile up useless votes in very safe districts (say...about 65-35), whereas the NDP support is evenly spread enough to win more seats by smaller margins (like 55-45). A win by 10% is still a win, and is exactly the same as a win by 30%. This is why sometimes, electoral reform creeps into my mind. Of course it doesn't take long for common sense to re-assume its place in my brain and quash the idea. I mean, who would want perpetual minority governments being held hostage permanently by splinter groups like...oh...the Liberals?
Sunday, October 2, 2011
PEI election projection
The PEI provincial election is tomorrow, and is the first of 5 in 8 days. Premier Robert Ghiz is seeking re-election from his little Island fiefdom and he's pretty popular. There was a bit of a scandal but it never really got much coverage and the general mood is that it was all just political grandstanding. The Liberal Party is still ahead of the PCs by about 20 points, and the NDP is polling dismally and could finish behind the Greens. Apparently PEI didn't get the memo that the rest of the country got about ditching the Liberals.
Anyways, first and final projections:
Lib ....... 52-54% ... 25-26 seats
PC ....... 33-35% ... 1-2 seats
NDP ........ 6-8%
Green ...... 4-6%
Politically Uncorrect projects a LIBERAL LANDSLIDE. There is really not much more to say, asides from the fact that there is an outside chance of a clean sweep, which would only be the third time in Canadian and Commonwealth history (precedents include PEI 1935 and New Brunswick 1987).
Anyways, first and final projections:
Lib ....... 52-54% ... 25-26 seats
PC ....... 33-35% ... 1-2 seats
NDP ........ 6-8%
Green ...... 4-6%
Politically Uncorrect projects a LIBERAL LANDSLIDE. There is really not much more to say, asides from the fact that there is an outside chance of a clean sweep, which would only be the third time in Canadian and Commonwealth history (precedents include PEI 1935 and New Brunswick 1987).
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Hi, I'm a Vancouverite, and my bus is 20 minutes late.
Statistics Canada just released their commute report Wednesday, and one interesting tidbit was the difference in commute time between transit users and drivers in the three major metropolitan areas.
In Toronto, drivers take on average 29 minutes to get to work, and transit users 49. That's a gap of 69% (calculated with driving as the base). Seems reasonable.
In Montreal, drivers take 30 minutes and transit users just 39. That is an astounding difference of only 30%.
In Vancouver, drivers take 25 minutes and transit users 48. The difference is nearly a double, at 92%. That is ridiculous.
Greater Toronto is a very large city; larger than Metro Vancouver in both population and area. Yet, there still exists a large variation in Toronto's favour. Some may argue that Vancouver is merely experiencing "growing pains" due to a large influx of immigrants, but Toronto and Montreal also see respectable rates of immigration, so this can't explain very much. Off the top of my head I can think of two reasons for this ludicrous variation between Montreal and Vancouver:
I know for a fact that there are perfectly urban bus routes where bus frequency is 20 minutes. On a weekday. During rush hour. We're talking about Burnaby to Burnaby, not Surrey to Fort Langley. Imagine commuting during off-peak hours or to/from suburban areas...40 minutes to up to 1 hr is not out of the question. You miss the bus, and you might as well call in sick.
Furthermore, Vancouver is a city that is large area-wise, but there are only three metro lines, which, as you can imagine, serve only narrow strips of the city. Before the Canada Line was completed in 2009, the airport terminal was actually only served by one solitary bus route. At present, while they do catch the major centres of Vancouver, Burnaby, and Richmond and Surrey, they continue to fail to connect with the two largest educational institutions. Maybe this is why we're all too stupid to do anything about this. Vicious cycle.
The existence of four express bus lines does marginally correct for this, but buses on busy roads are obviously slower than trains, and one of these lines has service that abruptly cuts off for 5 hours in the middle of the day! If you have to travel from UBC to Joyce Station between 10AM and 3PM, too bad, you're going to have to use the non-express line, which basically has a stop every 300 metres for a 10 km stretch, among others. That's 75 well-spent minutes!
Again, there are several reasons for the above:
The number of buses is something that I do have some knowledge of. Translink just purchased 300 or so in 2009, and has a fleet of over 1500, which is plenty. Every time I drive by their bus lot in South Vancouver, I see a hundred buses parked there. Doubtless it is the same with the other lots. Most definitely, some of them are being serviced. That said, you cannot possibly service a hundred buses in the same lot at the same time. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why they don't free up some of these buses and boost frequency to routes where it is badly needed.
Since Translink can't hire and has extra buses, we must now explore my third proposition. The sometimes...to put it bluntly...brain-dead actions of the Translink brass is cause for great concern. These actions also sometimes squander large sums, and are a leading cause of we-have-no-money-itis, which severely afflicts Translink. Take, for instance, fare evasion on SkyTrain. Translink frequently complains that there is a high rate of fare evasion which costs them millions. There is a very simple and common solution to this. They are called gates, and have been used in major cities all over the world since the beginning of mass transportation. It is beyond me why it took 25 years (1986-2011) for officials to recognize the need for them, and why it will take 2 more years to install them.
Q. How many Translink staff does it take to install a fare gate?
A. Seven. Six to retire and one to put in the screws.
This brings us to the amount of time it takes for things to be done. Let us study the Canada Line and the proposed Evergreen Line. The idea for the Canada Line came in 1995. A temporary bus route (98 B-Line) was proposed in 1998. The route entered service in 2001. In 2002, 10 months were taken to study whether the line could be built in time for 2010. In 2005 work finally started and the line was opened by 2009.
The Evergreen Line could be just as bad. The idea originally came with the Millenium Line, which opened in 2002. This idea was replaced with a temporary bus route (97 B-Line) implemented that year. By 2004 Translink had a plan; however, following public consultations beginning 2006, Translink changed the plans completely in 2008, then discovered they couldn't agree on the money in 2009. The expected completion date of 2014 (already 3 years delayed) was put into jeopardy with late 2015 now cited as the potential completion date.
The above analysis can be summed up in two short phrases: there are redundancies, and management can't manage. And this is why I'm a Vancouverite, and my bus is 20 minutes late.
In Toronto, drivers take on average 29 minutes to get to work, and transit users 49. That's a gap of 69% (calculated with driving as the base). Seems reasonable.
In Montreal, drivers take 30 minutes and transit users just 39. That is an astounding difference of only 30%.
In Vancouver, drivers take 25 minutes and transit users 48. The difference is nearly a double, at 92%. That is ridiculous.
Greater Toronto is a very large city; larger than Metro Vancouver in both population and area. Yet, there still exists a large variation in Toronto's favour. Some may argue that Vancouver is merely experiencing "growing pains" due to a large influx of immigrants, but Toronto and Montreal also see respectable rates of immigration, so this can't explain very much. Off the top of my head I can think of two reasons for this ludicrous variation between Montreal and Vancouver:
- Montreal transit operators are haphazard and drive recklessly, or
- Translink service is terribly inadequate.
I know for a fact that there are perfectly urban bus routes where bus frequency is 20 minutes. On a weekday. During rush hour. We're talking about Burnaby to Burnaby, not Surrey to Fort Langley. Imagine commuting during off-peak hours or to/from suburban areas...40 minutes to up to 1 hr is not out of the question. You miss the bus, and you might as well call in sick.
Furthermore, Vancouver is a city that is large area-wise, but there are only three metro lines, which, as you can imagine, serve only narrow strips of the city. Before the Canada Line was completed in 2009, the airport terminal was actually only served by one solitary bus route. At present, while they do catch the major centres of Vancouver, Burnaby, and Richmond and Surrey, they continue to fail to connect with the two largest educational institutions. Maybe this is why we're all too stupid to do anything about this. Vicious cycle.
The existence of four express bus lines does marginally correct for this, but buses on busy roads are obviously slower than trains, and one of these lines has service that abruptly cuts off for 5 hours in the middle of the day! If you have to travel from UBC to Joyce Station between 10AM and 3PM, too bad, you're going to have to use the non-express line, which basically has a stop every 300 metres for a 10 km stretch, among others. That's 75 well-spent minutes!
Again, there are several reasons for the above:
- Not enough drivers;
- Not enough buses;
- Translink is mismanaged.
The number of buses is something that I do have some knowledge of. Translink just purchased 300 or so in 2009, and has a fleet of over 1500, which is plenty. Every time I drive by their bus lot in South Vancouver, I see a hundred buses parked there. Doubtless it is the same with the other lots. Most definitely, some of them are being serviced. That said, you cannot possibly service a hundred buses in the same lot at the same time. I cannot for the life of me comprehend why they don't free up some of these buses and boost frequency to routes where it is badly needed.
Since Translink can't hire and has extra buses, we must now explore my third proposition. The sometimes...to put it bluntly...brain-dead actions of the Translink brass is cause for great concern. These actions also sometimes squander large sums, and are a leading cause of we-have-no-money-itis, which severely afflicts Translink. Take, for instance, fare evasion on SkyTrain. Translink frequently complains that there is a high rate of fare evasion which costs them millions. There is a very simple and common solution to this. They are called gates, and have been used in major cities all over the world since the beginning of mass transportation. It is beyond me why it took 25 years (1986-2011) for officials to recognize the need for them, and why it will take 2 more years to install them.
Q. How many Translink staff does it take to install a fare gate?
A. Seven. Six to retire and one to put in the screws.
This brings us to the amount of time it takes for things to be done. Let us study the Canada Line and the proposed Evergreen Line. The idea for the Canada Line came in 1995. A temporary bus route (98 B-Line) was proposed in 1998. The route entered service in 2001. In 2002, 10 months were taken to study whether the line could be built in time for 2010. In 2005 work finally started and the line was opened by 2009.
The Evergreen Line could be just as bad. The idea originally came with the Millenium Line, which opened in 2002. This idea was replaced with a temporary bus route (97 B-Line) implemented that year. By 2004 Translink had a plan; however, following public consultations beginning 2006, Translink changed the plans completely in 2008, then discovered they couldn't agree on the money in 2009. The expected completion date of 2014 (already 3 years delayed) was put into jeopardy with late 2015 now cited as the potential completion date.
The above analysis can be summed up in two short phrases: there are redundancies, and management can't manage. And this is why I'm a Vancouverite, and my bus is 20 minutes late.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Requiescat in paces
"My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world." ~ Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, August 20, 2011
Yesterday was a sad day for us all, as we learned of the passing of Jack Layton. These last words from his letter to Canadians two days before his passing are words we can all agree with. What he loves, what he hopes for, what he is optimistic for may not be what all of us love, hope for, and are optimistic for; but his last words encompass the person he truly was. He stood for all that, and more. He was genuine and sincere, in the face of politics, and to the very end, he worked for Canada, and that is to be respected.
While I may not agree with his party, his opinions, and his policies, I will still miss 'Smiling Jack,' as he was known, for what he brought to Canadian politics. I will mourn his loss as a fellow Canadian and human being. Ever since I began to follow politics, Jack Layton has been there. Sometimes he brought real ideas, but sometimes they were (no offense) a joke. He made us think and he made us laugh -- and usually when that happened he laughed with us.
With a Conservative majority, an NDP opposition, the Liberals battered, the Bloc crushed, and the Greens represented, the last election already represented a sea-change from the Canadian politics that I knew. Harper and Layton remained the only constants. Now even Layton isn't around anymore...Canadian politics is about to take on a whole new look. Jack would have wanted us to look forward, so now we ask, "What's next?"
Prime Minister Harper's offer of a state funeral, although out of the ordinary, is nothing more than what Mr. Layton deserves. May he rest in peace.
Yesterday was a sad day for us all, as we learned of the passing of Jack Layton. These last words from his letter to Canadians two days before his passing are words we can all agree with. What he loves, what he hopes for, what he is optimistic for may not be what all of us love, hope for, and are optimistic for; but his last words encompass the person he truly was. He stood for all that, and more. He was genuine and sincere, in the face of politics, and to the very end, he worked for Canada, and that is to be respected.
While I may not agree with his party, his opinions, and his policies, I will still miss 'Smiling Jack,' as he was known, for what he brought to Canadian politics. I will mourn his loss as a fellow Canadian and human being. Ever since I began to follow politics, Jack Layton has been there. Sometimes he brought real ideas, but sometimes they were (no offense) a joke. He made us think and he made us laugh -- and usually when that happened he laughed with us.
With a Conservative majority, an NDP opposition, the Liberals battered, the Bloc crushed, and the Greens represented, the last election already represented a sea-change from the Canadian politics that I knew. Harper and Layton remained the only constants. Now even Layton isn't around anymore...Canadian politics is about to take on a whole new look. Jack would have wanted us to look forward, so now we ask, "What's next?"
Prime Minister Harper's offer of a state funeral, although out of the ordinary, is nothing more than what Mr. Layton deserves. May he rest in peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)