The Alberta Boundary Commission report was released this week. The commission justly concluded that population growth in Alberta's cities dictates they receive more seats. In the most extreme case alone, Calgary South-East, the population nearly tripled in ten years. However, as their purview is limited only to allocation of the 87 existing seats, they've been compelled to suggest that the Alberta government transfer three seats from the countryside to Calgary, Edmonton, and Airdrie. As anybody would have expected, this conclusion has turned into a political football on the opposition side of the legislature.
WRP Finance "critic" Derek Fildebrandt isn't too happy about the geographic size of what could be his riding after 2019, complaining about needing to fly from one end of the riding to the other. I'm curious how rural MLAs managed prior to the invention of the airplane, but I digress... he does have a point. Ridings shouldn't be geographically huge. However, they shouldn't be demographically huge, either.
It is an established principle that it is not democratic or fair that geography trumps actual votes in our parliamentary system - just look at the old debate at the "Rotten Burroughs" of England, or even the electoral divisions of the Province of Canada between 1841-1867. The ABC has kept itself within our traditions in their report. So long as Alberta's legislature restricts itself to 87 seats, we're all just going to have to acquiesce to the reality that seats will continue to move from rural Alberta to the major cities, just like the people do, now, and likely ten years from now, and ten years after that.
There is another way though, which would keep Fildebrandt's seat safe and snug: add more seats to the legislature. Four, like the last time, is hardly enough to reflect population growth anywhere in the province; so why not make it 13 or 14 for basically 100 seats in the legislature. People will decry the costs (of a few million dollars), but I believe it a reasonable price to pay for fairer representation.
A 100-seat legislature would reduce the average constituency size in Alberta from approximately 47,000 to a more reasonable 40,000. This alone would make almost every rural riding roughly proximate to the provincial average, rather than dramatically smaller. Additionally, 13 or 14 extra seats in the major cities would better reflect the tremendous growth experienced around Calgary and Edmonton in the past decade, and bring down their riding sizes to something close to the provincial average. In effect, this move would serve to level the voting power across the province without compromising anyone's access to representation.
Further, I do believe that there is something more than vote-equity at stake here. Our parliamentary system was crafted with ridings of a few thousand people in mind. In the past, our representatives knew their voters, and their voters knew them. Their issues were known to each other, and their voices were strong. Ridings of 40,000, 50,000 or 100,000 are too diverse in population and economy, and too large, to really be united and aware of their common issues and identity; rather, they are splintered, and their voters disconnected and discouraged from the process and one another. I really think it's no surprise the provinces with the smallest ridings have the highest voter turnout - it's much easier to see how your vote, and your voice, matters, when it isn't drowning in an ocean.
Taking away and redistributing seats is harsh, and only necessary if we continue to limit the number of our representatives. Far better to increase the number to better reflect all realities on the ground - from populations, to professions, to resources.
A discussion of politics, science, emerging technology, and international affairs all centred on Alberta.
Wednesday, 31 May 2017
Friday, 5 May 2017
Two years ago: The Death of the PCAA from Groundlevel
I was working in a polling station in the riding of Calgary Elbow. Gordon Dirks was the incumbent, and Greg Clark was certainly on the verge of unseating him. Perhaps that's why the PCs had so many volunteer scrutinizers at the station that day - I feel about six or so would be right.
The first sign something was up was when a young scrutineer, younger than me, walked swiftly out of the polling station, crying. Her emotion was plain, seen from across the room. As she left and cried past me, I saw on her phone an email with PCAA marks all over it. One doesn't get any news of the world in these stations, but I took that woman as a sign something was happening outside.
The older scrutineers stayed strong until the end. Maybe they didn't have smartphones. Regardless, when it came time for the ballots to be counted, my partner and I, being new, separated all the ballots into separate piles and decided to make our count of the votes by size, by smallest to largest, with Greg Clark's pile looking conspicuously bigger than the rest.
Being slow, my partner and I, soon the scrutineers had all assembled around our table. They were relieved that Larry Heather got no votes; they gave sighs of relief as the Liberal and NDP candidates were swiftly counted. There were even little cheers.
Then we made it to the second biggest pile: Gordon Dirks of the PCAA. We counted the ballots in sets of 50; every time we got through another set the PC volunteers cheered. Just counting one put them ahead of every other party. By the time we had finished with the PC ballots, the volunteers seemed totally sure that at least here, in our little corner of Calgary-Elbow, the incumbent had won.
There remained the biggest pile to count, however. Again, we counted the votes in batches of 50 - and every time we did so - I will never forget this one older woman asking us, "and that's all, right?" No, not hardly; as she could plainly see, there were still hundreds of other votes to be tallied. We kept counting, and the worry on their faces grew, and every time, they wanted to believe that we had finished counting, only to be disappointed, again.
Ultimately, and to the surprise solely of the PC volunteers crowding around us, Greg Clark won our polling booth. The volunteers departed, disappointed, as my partner and I filed the paperwork.
Finally, we had our chance to walk outside, to news of an NDP majority.
The first sign something was up was when a young scrutineer, younger than me, walked swiftly out of the polling station, crying. Her emotion was plain, seen from across the room. As she left and cried past me, I saw on her phone an email with PCAA marks all over it. One doesn't get any news of the world in these stations, but I took that woman as a sign something was happening outside.
The older scrutineers stayed strong until the end. Maybe they didn't have smartphones. Regardless, when it came time for the ballots to be counted, my partner and I, being new, separated all the ballots into separate piles and decided to make our count of the votes by size, by smallest to largest, with Greg Clark's pile looking conspicuously bigger than the rest.
Being slow, my partner and I, soon the scrutineers had all assembled around our table. They were relieved that Larry Heather got no votes; they gave sighs of relief as the Liberal and NDP candidates were swiftly counted. There were even little cheers.
Then we made it to the second biggest pile: Gordon Dirks of the PCAA. We counted the ballots in sets of 50; every time we got through another set the PC volunteers cheered. Just counting one put them ahead of every other party. By the time we had finished with the PC ballots, the volunteers seemed totally sure that at least here, in our little corner of Calgary-Elbow, the incumbent had won.
There remained the biggest pile to count, however. Again, we counted the votes in batches of 50 - and every time we did so - I will never forget this one older woman asking us, "and that's all, right?" No, not hardly; as she could plainly see, there were still hundreds of other votes to be tallied. We kept counting, and the worry on their faces grew, and every time, they wanted to believe that we had finished counting, only to be disappointed, again.
Ultimately, and to the surprise solely of the PC volunteers crowding around us, Greg Clark won our polling booth. The volunteers departed, disappointed, as my partner and I filed the paperwork.
Finally, we had our chance to walk outside, to news of an NDP majority.
Friday, 7 April 2017
That Job Killing Carbon Tax
So the latest jobs numbers for the country came out today. You might be surprised, given that the Postmedia chain took its sweet time getting the good news out the public. You would think such exciting news would merit coverage, but instead it took them some hours to follow up what was front page with the CBC. Given their headline, I have to think they were quite busy this morning trying to put a negative spin on events.
Regardless, the news thus: Alberta added 20,000 full-time jobs last month. Saskatchewan, led by the second coming, Brad Wall, on the other hand showed job losses. And not by a little, either. Over 5000 jobs lost in that province in March. Ouch. Adjusted for the population, Saskatchewan lost as much as Alberta gained. The new budget cuts to jobs probably hadn't even been factored in yet.
So why do these things matter?
Since the right-wing media in the country has decided that Brad Wall is the face they want to present to all Canadians on how one does things right, and Rachel Notley is the embodiment of all that is bad, it's important to note the recent divergence. Yes, both provinces rose and fell in parallel with oil. Now, though, two and a half years after the recession began, Alberta is starting to show an improving economy.
Alberta is showing a significant budget deficit, it is true, but that is because the NDP of all people decided that, alongside keeping taxes the lowest in the country, was of prime importance. Saskatchewan, with the second highest tax rate west of the Ottawa River, also is showing a budget deficit too, which when adjusted for population and economic size, is comparable to Alberta's. They chose to cut jobs and raise taxes - a pair of options no Albertan party would contemplate together (at least right now). Where that will lead, one can easily surmise, is for yet another month of job losses once Saskatchewan's new budget takes effect, and perhaps a deeper recession.
Ultimately, it is worth proclaiming that the prophecies of doom emanating from Alberta's one dimensional news market are falling on their face in turn like the historic doomsday dates of bygone years. Higher taxes and a carbon tax are not holding the province back, no less pushing it backwards. Rather they are contributing to a better budget situation in an expanding province. This is great news, and will be difficult for the opposition to argue against when the next election comes.
Regardless, the news thus: Alberta added 20,000 full-time jobs last month. Saskatchewan, led by the second coming, Brad Wall, on the other hand showed job losses. And not by a little, either. Over 5000 jobs lost in that province in March. Ouch. Adjusted for the population, Saskatchewan lost as much as Alberta gained. The new budget cuts to jobs probably hadn't even been factored in yet.
So why do these things matter?
Since the right-wing media in the country has decided that Brad Wall is the face they want to present to all Canadians on how one does things right, and Rachel Notley is the embodiment of all that is bad, it's important to note the recent divergence. Yes, both provinces rose and fell in parallel with oil. Now, though, two and a half years after the recession began, Alberta is starting to show an improving economy.
Alberta is showing a significant budget deficit, it is true, but that is because the NDP of all people decided that, alongside keeping taxes the lowest in the country, was of prime importance. Saskatchewan, with the second highest tax rate west of the Ottawa River, also is showing a budget deficit too, which when adjusted for population and economic size, is comparable to Alberta's. They chose to cut jobs and raise taxes - a pair of options no Albertan party would contemplate together (at least right now). Where that will lead, one can easily surmise, is for yet another month of job losses once Saskatchewan's new budget takes effect, and perhaps a deeper recession.
Ultimately, it is worth proclaiming that the prophecies of doom emanating from Alberta's one dimensional news market are falling on their face in turn like the historic doomsday dates of bygone years. Higher taxes and a carbon tax are not holding the province back, no less pushing it backwards. Rather they are contributing to a better budget situation in an expanding province. This is great news, and will be difficult for the opposition to argue against when the next election comes.
A by-election full of surprises!
Really!
Wouldn't you think so?
After weeks about hearing from fake news sites about how unpopular Justin Trudeau is (90% disapproval and all), the Liberals handily won the three by-elections in Ontario and Quebec, in each case winning a majority of the vote. The Conservatives destroyed all opposition in what are likely the two most conservative urban ridings left in the whole country.
By elections are good opportunities for the weak to appear strong, as the usually poor turnout means surprises can be had in store, like when the Liberals and Greens both nearly beat the Conservative candidate in Calgary-Centre in 2013. No such thing happened this past Monday. Why don't we break down the numbers, anyway, for fun!
National Party Results
New Democratic Party Results
Wouldn't you think so?
After weeks about hearing from fake news sites about how unpopular Justin Trudeau is (90% disapproval and all), the Liberals handily won the three by-elections in Ontario and Quebec, in each case winning a majority of the vote. The Conservatives destroyed all opposition in what are likely the two most conservative urban ridings left in the whole country.
By elections are good opportunities for the weak to appear strong, as the usually poor turnout means surprises can be had in store, like when the Liberals and Greens both nearly beat the Conservative candidate in Calgary-Centre in 2013. No such thing happened this past Monday. Why don't we break down the numbers, anyway, for fun!
National Party Results
New Democratic Party Results
- Total Votes: 12 259
- Placings: 2nd place (Ottawa-Vanier), 3rd elsewhere.
- Strongest riding: Ottawa-Vanier, 2nd place, 8557 votes (69.8% of the total national NDP vote).
- Ridings wherein the NDP received less than 1000 votes: 3.
Conservative Party of Canada Results
- Total Votes: 57 606
- Votes outside of the city of Calgary: 15 769 (27.4% of total Conservative vote nationally)
- Placings: wins in Calgary-Heritage and Calgary Midnapore, 2nd place in two ridings, and third in Ottawa-Vanier.
- Worst showing: Saint-Laurent, 2nd place with 3 784 votes.
Liberal Party of Canada
- Total Votes: 47 376
- Votes within the city of Calgary: 10 839 (22.9% of total Liberal vote nationally)
- Placings: 3 wins and two second place finishes.
- Total Votes: 4062
- Placings: 3rd (Saint-Laurent), 4th elsewhere.
- Strongest riding: Saint-Laurent, with 1548 votes and beating the NDP candidate there.
- Worst vote total: Calgary-Heritage with less than 2% of the vote.
Largest Wins
By Vote
- Calgary-Midnapore: Stephanie Kusie, CPC, 22 454
- Calgary-Heritage: Bob Benzen, CPC, 19 383
- Ottawa-Vanier: Mona Fortier, LPC, 15 195
By Percentage of Popular Vote
- Calgary-Midnapore: Stephanie Kusie, CPC, 77.2%
- Calgary-Heritage: Bob Benzen, CPC, 71.5%
- Saint-Laurent: Emmanuella Lambropoulos, LPC, 59.1%
Conclusions
The Conservative Party did deceptively well during this slate of by-elections. I don't want to sound dismissive. They won a plurality of the votes and 40% of the available seats, whereas in the last federal election they did considerably worse on both measures. However, when I mean deceptive, I mean that they received pretty much the bulk of their support in just the two ridings in south Calgary. Looking outside of this area that runs along Macleod Trail, the Conservatives did only marginally better than the NDP, and got almost as many votes the NDP and Greens together.
The Liberals did better in the east and worse in Calgary than they probably expected. To receive less than 25% of the vote in both Calgary ridings, during a by-election is surprising. However, they won local majorities in the other three.This, I believe, indicates some strength in Trudeau's brand in these areas, coupled with weakness in the NDP and Conservatives while they go through the motions of getting new party leaders.
That is probably the biggest lesson, if indeed there is any, from these last by-elections. The incumbent party with a popular leader will trump the leaderless opposition. What will be more interesting is how the NDP and CPC perform once their parties have leaders. An NDP lead by a Quebecker might do better than fourth in Saint-Laurent; and a CPC led by someone like Kellie Leitch will likely do worse in ridings like Markham or Ottawa.
Thanks for reading. I would appreciate your thoughts.
Thursday, 30 March 2017
I came, I saw, I left: the death of the Liberal Party?
While Alberta's monolithic media has been blasting bangs to accompany Jason Kenney's anointment, the whimpers have been left to the common man to provide if they even discover that Alberta's oldest political party, the Liberals, is clinically dead.
Today, on the eve of the deadline in that party's unstoried leadership race, their one and only candidate, St. Albert mayor Nolan Crouse, withdrew his name "for personal reasons." The Calgary Herald provided no front-page coverage; the Edmonton Journal barely a mention.
In passing, let us remember that this party ruled Alberta from 1905 to 1921, first under Alexander Rutherford, then Arthur Sifton, and lastly, Charles Stewart. They walked in the politically wilderness for decades as Alberta became dominated in turn by the United Farmers, Social Credit, and then the PCs. After 70 years of irrelevance, Laurence Decore nearly restored them to power in the 1993 election. They never stood a chance thereafter, but until 2012 the Liberals still regularly received 25% of the provincial vote.
The final collapse of the party has been curiously timed. One would have expected, given the acrimonious take-over of the PCs by the hard right, that the Liberals would have benefited from renewed interest. It is no secret many former PCs have no interest serving Jason Kenney's agenda. I think many more Albertans will probably feel the same in short order as they realize the PCs have utterly vacated the political centre and anything within throwing distance of it to merge with the big-C Wild Rose Party.
So what finally killed the ailing Liberal Party?
It's easy enough to say that the NDP beat the Liberals at being the centre-left. This is obvious. It may also be fair to say that up until two weeks ago, the PCs had been out centre-righting them, too. Fear of a Wild Rose government pushed traditional liberal supporters right, and then in 2015, the other way.
This needn't have been the case, but unlike the NDP, the Liberals coasted for years under the illusion that they were the logical replacement once the province realized how dissatisfied they were with the PCs. This took longer than they thought, and they proved incapable of dealing with the rise of the Wild Rose Party. Ultimately, the solid but ordinary David Swann lost out big time to a much more extraordinary Rachel Notley.
I can only imagine that in the end the numbers killed the Liberal Party. They had been burdened with high debt, limited activity, and terrible polls. While never anywhere near as dependent on corporate donations as the PCs, their banning hurt them too. They undoubtedly expected a bump in membership and donor support following the PC convention. This likely did not materialize. While this is hypothetical, I really supposed it had to be the realization that the party had lost its remaining vitality.
This final embarrassing collapse instead yields a rather significant amount of room for the Alberta Party to grow. Don't be surprised if a number of high profile Albertans start giving their support to this party in the near future. An Alberta Party successfully integrating the residue of the Liberal Party and the left-wing of the PC party could prove to be very powerful, especially in rural northern Alberta and Calgary.
Thanks for reading.
While writing this article, the CBC reported that two people have stepped forward to claim leadership of the Alberta Liberal Party. Such a late competition gives me little reason to believe this event in any ways contradicts the essence of what I've just written - Adam
Today, on the eve of the deadline in that party's unstoried leadership race, their one and only candidate, St. Albert mayor Nolan Crouse, withdrew his name "for personal reasons." The Calgary Herald provided no front-page coverage; the Edmonton Journal barely a mention.
In passing, let us remember that this party ruled Alberta from 1905 to 1921, first under Alexander Rutherford, then Arthur Sifton, and lastly, Charles Stewart. They walked in the politically wilderness for decades as Alberta became dominated in turn by the United Farmers, Social Credit, and then the PCs. After 70 years of irrelevance, Laurence Decore nearly restored them to power in the 1993 election. They never stood a chance thereafter, but until 2012 the Liberals still regularly received 25% of the provincial vote.
The final collapse of the party has been curiously timed. One would have expected, given the acrimonious take-over of the PCs by the hard right, that the Liberals would have benefited from renewed interest. It is no secret many former PCs have no interest serving Jason Kenney's agenda. I think many more Albertans will probably feel the same in short order as they realize the PCs have utterly vacated the political centre and anything within throwing distance of it to merge with the big-C Wild Rose Party.
So what finally killed the ailing Liberal Party?
It's easy enough to say that the NDP beat the Liberals at being the centre-left. This is obvious. It may also be fair to say that up until two weeks ago, the PCs had been out centre-righting them, too. Fear of a Wild Rose government pushed traditional liberal supporters right, and then in 2015, the other way.
This needn't have been the case, but unlike the NDP, the Liberals coasted for years under the illusion that they were the logical replacement once the province realized how dissatisfied they were with the PCs. This took longer than they thought, and they proved incapable of dealing with the rise of the Wild Rose Party. Ultimately, the solid but ordinary David Swann lost out big time to a much more extraordinary Rachel Notley.
I can only imagine that in the end the numbers killed the Liberal Party. They had been burdened with high debt, limited activity, and terrible polls. While never anywhere near as dependent on corporate donations as the PCs, their banning hurt them too. They undoubtedly expected a bump in membership and donor support following the PC convention. This likely did not materialize. While this is hypothetical, I really supposed it had to be the realization that the party had lost its remaining vitality.
This final embarrassing collapse instead yields a rather significant amount of room for the Alberta Party to grow. Don't be surprised if a number of high profile Albertans start giving their support to this party in the near future. An Alberta Party successfully integrating the residue of the Liberal Party and the left-wing of the PC party could prove to be very powerful, especially in rural northern Alberta and Calgary.
Thanks for reading.
While writing this article, the CBC reported that two people have stepped forward to claim leadership of the Alberta Liberal Party. Such a late competition gives me little reason to believe this event in any ways contradicts the essence of what I've just written - Adam
Friday, 24 March 2017
By-election Time!
Well, Spring Break looms, so it looks like I finally have time to write what's on my mind. The world weeps. Coincidentally, today I can also vote in the advance polls for one of Calgary's two by-elections. To be honest this year I'm having an awful lot of difficulty choosing who I should vote for.
First of all, a shout-out to the Christian Heritage Party's Jeff Willerton (the "Real Conservative!") for putting out the most interesting campaign advertisements of this election. His posters were big, colourful and sturdy, and always left me wondering just where the CHP got all that money from. His brochures were also entertaining, and really helped my wife and I make up our minds. "Why did you keep this? Just to make me mad?" she asked of the brochure that came in the mail. I'm sure we'll be voting for someone else.
As regards the (fake?) Conservative Party, turns out one of my friends knows their candidate, Bob Benzen. Apparently he's a real nice guy, but just doesn't know anything about politics. I got the same impression from his campaign brochure. Also, I don't want to vote for a leaderless party, especially one so full of clown-shoe candidates like the Conservative Party's. This also excludes the NDP, I guess, though I must admit I know next to diddly about their folks. Go figure.
I even checked out the website of the "National Advancement Party of Canada." They have a lot of policy positions, and I went on to read a bunch of them, before I though, "what's the point?"
So, the Liberals or the Greens. Who to chose?
I generally agree with the Liberals the most, historically, and I know voting for them would make my dad proud. However, they already have a majority, and to be honest, while I understand why the new budget was the way it is, I'm still unimpressed. Deficits until 2055? No new taxes? Differed military spending? Let's be real here. The Liberals could have brought the GST back up to 7% and brought the government back into surplus by Christmas. They could have eliminated some BS-tax credits that only help the super-rich, but nope, not today! Now, I would be afraid of Trump, too, but I still think they could have done more, and better. Their candidate in my riding, Forsyth, doesn't seem to have many public positions beyond supporting the government, a trait I hated when the local conservatives ran under it and still do with everybody else. Having ideas like an individual should be a natural part of being an MP.
So, do I vote for the Green party? Honestly, I just might. I read their platform in its entirety back when I was in the army (wow, recent!) and honestly it impressed me. I sympathize with their issues, and really, they probably are on the right side of history on most of their opinions. I don't really know much about their candidate - I don't even remember her name at the moment - but I do know she spent years learning about Indigenous Canadians. I believe our relationship with our indigenous people is possibly the most important national issue in the country today, so this is a good thing. Lastly, Elizabeth May has been one of the best MPs in recent memory. Ultimately, maybe it's time I finally reward the Green Party with my vote.
What do you think? Thanks for reading!
First of all, a shout-out to the Christian Heritage Party's Jeff Willerton (the "Real Conservative!") for putting out the most interesting campaign advertisements of this election. His posters were big, colourful and sturdy, and always left me wondering just where the CHP got all that money from. His brochures were also entertaining, and really helped my wife and I make up our minds. "Why did you keep this? Just to make me mad?" she asked of the brochure that came in the mail. I'm sure we'll be voting for someone else.
As regards the (fake?) Conservative Party, turns out one of my friends knows their candidate, Bob Benzen. Apparently he's a real nice guy, but just doesn't know anything about politics. I got the same impression from his campaign brochure. Also, I don't want to vote for a leaderless party, especially one so full of clown-shoe candidates like the Conservative Party's. This also excludes the NDP, I guess, though I must admit I know next to diddly about their folks. Go figure.
I even checked out the website of the "National Advancement Party of Canada." They have a lot of policy positions, and I went on to read a bunch of them, before I though, "what's the point?"
So, the Liberals or the Greens. Who to chose?
I generally agree with the Liberals the most, historically, and I know voting for them would make my dad proud. However, they already have a majority, and to be honest, while I understand why the new budget was the way it is, I'm still unimpressed. Deficits until 2055? No new taxes? Differed military spending? Let's be real here. The Liberals could have brought the GST back up to 7% and brought the government back into surplus by Christmas. They could have eliminated some BS-tax credits that only help the super-rich, but nope, not today! Now, I would be afraid of Trump, too, but I still think they could have done more, and better. Their candidate in my riding, Forsyth, doesn't seem to have many public positions beyond supporting the government, a trait I hated when the local conservatives ran under it and still do with everybody else. Having ideas like an individual should be a natural part of being an MP.
So, do I vote for the Green party? Honestly, I just might. I read their platform in its entirety back when I was in the army (wow, recent!) and honestly it impressed me. I sympathize with their issues, and really, they probably are on the right side of history on most of their opinions. I don't really know much about their candidate - I don't even remember her name at the moment - but I do know she spent years learning about Indigenous Canadians. I believe our relationship with our indigenous people is possibly the most important national issue in the country today, so this is a good thing. Lastly, Elizabeth May has been one of the best MPs in recent memory. Ultimately, maybe it's time I finally reward the Green Party with my vote.
What do you think? Thanks for reading!
Wednesday, 22 February 2017
Finally, a new Poll, and more weirdness...
For the first time in three months, somebody decided to poll Albertans regarding their political views. Mainstreet conducted a fairly large survey of 2589 people across the province, asking them their opinions in both provincial and federal politics.
It is obvious by now that I'm an NDP supporter (by circumstance, rather than choice), and the initial results looked highly discouraging. According to their numbers, the NDP fell to third place among voters, with only 23% support. The Wildrose Party won the round with 38%, with the PCs finishing a strong second with 29%. The Liberals and Alberta Party, those two seemingly dubious entities, trailed significantly with only 5% support each.
Looking deeper, there were further surprises. The PCs lead the pack in Calgary, with 38% support, and the WRP is in a measely third - with 22%, outside the margin of error to be considered equal to the NDP's 26%. In Edmonton, the WRP are in a baffling second place, again outside the margin of error, leading the PCs 26 to 21.
There are some unsurprises. The NDP lead Edmonton with 43% support (with the closest competitor having only 26%, they're still in place for another sweep of that city in 2019). The Wildrose Party has a stranglehold on rural Alberta; with the PCs they would have 75% support (assuming naively nobody would jump ship in the process).
One issue with the polling data is that it relies on the outdated 2011 census for its weightings. The poll was conducted Feb. 9th-10th, days after the release of the new census data. It was undoubtedly too late to change the planning of the poll, but it is curious why they would plan their poll around so obviously important a date. Given that rural Alberta has continued its losing streak relative to Calgary and Edmonton over the past 6-7 years, we can safely assume the results over-represent the overall favourability of the WRP, while downplaying the governing NDP.
How would things really look if they used the 2016 data?
According to the new census, 1.4 million people live in Calgary and area (which curiously excludes Foothills County and bedroom cities like Okotoks), 1.3 million in Edmonton and area, and 1.4 million in the rest of the province. One gets proportions of roughly 35% of the population living in Calgary, another 30% in Edmonton, and the remainder elsewhere. This is a part of a long term trend wherein Calgary and Edmonton gain more and more prominence compared to the rest of the province.
Given this, 43% NDP support in Edmonton turns into a base of 12.9% provincially. 26% in Calgary means one can add another 9.1 to that base - where we get the figure close to Mainstreet's result, 22%. But then, one needs to consider the remainder of the province. Weighed equally with Calgary, the 16% NDP support in the rest of Alberta would add a further 5.6% to the total. With rounding, one gets a result of 27.6% support for the NDP provincially - a fairly higher amount than one would be lead to believe.
For the WRP, their 48% lead in "rest of Alberta" gives them a base of 16.8%. However, they can only add 7.7% to that for Calgary; meanwhile Edmonton grants them a further 7.8%. Rather than having a 38-23 lead over the government, the WRP actually only has a 32.3%-27.6% lead; almost within the margin of error.
From the looks of things so far, I'm beginning to suspect the PCs are actually doing better than the polling suggested. Lets do the same test: Edmonton is a bust for them: 21% support gives a base provincially of only 6.3%. However, things do pick up! With the "rest of Alberta's" 27%, they go up another 9.45%; finally, with Calgary's significant 38% support, they get another 13.3%. In total, their provincial support can be estimated at 29.05%.
Now, I have to admit my process here is pretty sketchy. I simply don't know how Mainstreet defines these areas. You could consider this an educated guess, or wishful thinking, or data mining; whatever.
But I think we continue to have a horserace.
Mainstreet's Massive Sampling Bias
According to Mainstreet's own data, they surveyed 2598 Albertans for the results above (though the projections were based on a smaller sample of "decided" voters - 2,382 strong). From this respectable cadre of 2382 decided/leaning voters, however, we get this age breakdown:
18-34 year olds: 360
35-49 year olds: 590
50-64 year olds: 647
65+: 785
So, percentage-wise, these poll results were based on a sampling mix of 15% 18-34s, 25% 35-49s, 27% 50-64s, and 33% senior citizens.
This weighting simply does not at all reflect the population of Alberta; it doesn't even closely resemble the make up of Canada's oldest province, Newfoundland. Alberta is the youngest province in Canada, with a median age of 38, if I recall correctly. How is it that this survey so overwhelmingly samples the aged?
Maybe that old adage that polling is limited to people with landlines is truer than I thought (even though I've been polled on my cell, once).
Perhaps we'll only really know how people think when the votes are cast.
Thanks for reading.
It is obvious by now that I'm an NDP supporter (by circumstance, rather than choice), and the initial results looked highly discouraging. According to their numbers, the NDP fell to third place among voters, with only 23% support. The Wildrose Party won the round with 38%, with the PCs finishing a strong second with 29%. The Liberals and Alberta Party, those two seemingly dubious entities, trailed significantly with only 5% support each.
Looking deeper, there were further surprises. The PCs lead the pack in Calgary, with 38% support, and the WRP is in a measely third - with 22%, outside the margin of error to be considered equal to the NDP's 26%. In Edmonton, the WRP are in a baffling second place, again outside the margin of error, leading the PCs 26 to 21.
There are some unsurprises. The NDP lead Edmonton with 43% support (with the closest competitor having only 26%, they're still in place for another sweep of that city in 2019). The Wildrose Party has a stranglehold on rural Alberta; with the PCs they would have 75% support (assuming naively nobody would jump ship in the process).
One issue with the polling data is that it relies on the outdated 2011 census for its weightings. The poll was conducted Feb. 9th-10th, days after the release of the new census data. It was undoubtedly too late to change the planning of the poll, but it is curious why they would plan their poll around so obviously important a date. Given that rural Alberta has continued its losing streak relative to Calgary and Edmonton over the past 6-7 years, we can safely assume the results over-represent the overall favourability of the WRP, while downplaying the governing NDP.
How would things really look if they used the 2016 data?
According to the new census, 1.4 million people live in Calgary and area (which curiously excludes Foothills County and bedroom cities like Okotoks), 1.3 million in Edmonton and area, and 1.4 million in the rest of the province. One gets proportions of roughly 35% of the population living in Calgary, another 30% in Edmonton, and the remainder elsewhere. This is a part of a long term trend wherein Calgary and Edmonton gain more and more prominence compared to the rest of the province.
Given this, 43% NDP support in Edmonton turns into a base of 12.9% provincially. 26% in Calgary means one can add another 9.1 to that base - where we get the figure close to Mainstreet's result, 22%. But then, one needs to consider the remainder of the province. Weighed equally with Calgary, the 16% NDP support in the rest of Alberta would add a further 5.6% to the total. With rounding, one gets a result of 27.6% support for the NDP provincially - a fairly higher amount than one would be lead to believe.
For the WRP, their 48% lead in "rest of Alberta" gives them a base of 16.8%. However, they can only add 7.7% to that for Calgary; meanwhile Edmonton grants them a further 7.8%. Rather than having a 38-23 lead over the government, the WRP actually only has a 32.3%-27.6% lead; almost within the margin of error.
From the looks of things so far, I'm beginning to suspect the PCs are actually doing better than the polling suggested. Lets do the same test: Edmonton is a bust for them: 21% support gives a base provincially of only 6.3%. However, things do pick up! With the "rest of Alberta's" 27%, they go up another 9.45%; finally, with Calgary's significant 38% support, they get another 13.3%. In total, their provincial support can be estimated at 29.05%.
Now, I have to admit my process here is pretty sketchy. I simply don't know how Mainstreet defines these areas. You could consider this an educated guess, or wishful thinking, or data mining; whatever.
But I think we continue to have a horserace.
Mainstreet's Massive Sampling Bias
According to Mainstreet's own data, they surveyed 2598 Albertans for the results above (though the projections were based on a smaller sample of "decided" voters - 2,382 strong). From this respectable cadre of 2382 decided/leaning voters, however, we get this age breakdown:
18-34 year olds: 360
35-49 year olds: 590
50-64 year olds: 647
65+: 785
So, percentage-wise, these poll results were based on a sampling mix of 15% 18-34s, 25% 35-49s, 27% 50-64s, and 33% senior citizens.
This weighting simply does not at all reflect the population of Alberta; it doesn't even closely resemble the make up of Canada's oldest province, Newfoundland. Alberta is the youngest province in Canada, with a median age of 38, if I recall correctly. How is it that this survey so overwhelmingly samples the aged?
Maybe that old adage that polling is limited to people with landlines is truer than I thought (even though I've been polled on my cell, once).
Perhaps we'll only really know how people think when the votes are cast.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)