EKOS Weekly: So, y'all really do want a majority government, huh?

by kadyomalley on Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:34am - 78 Comments

Once again, ITQ is loath to be the bearer of bad news, but — I mean, seriously, just look at the numbers.

The highlights, courtesy of CBC:

The EKOS poll, commissioned for the CBC and released Thursday, asked which of the following outcomes of the next federal election “would be best”:

  • Liberal minority.
  • Liberal majority.
  • Conservative minority.
  • Conservative majority.
  • None of the above.

Nationally, 26 per cent of those polled said they wanted a Liberal majority, while 25 per cent called for a Conservative majority. An equal amount — 25 per cent — responded with “none of the above.”

Fifteen per cent of those polled called for a Liberal minority and nine per cent said the best result would be a Conservative minority.

Ekos puts it more starkly:

When asked to choose among the most likely outcomes of the next election – Conservative majority, Conservative minority, Liberal majority or Liberal minority – most say they would like a majority government. The problem is that those people are almost evenly divided between favouring a Conservative majority and those who prefer a Liberal majority. About a quarter of Canadians say they do not like any of these four options. Even fewer opt for either a Liberal or Conservative minority government.

ITQ, however, will be blunter still in her assessment.

No, Canadians, you don’t want a majority government — you want your party — whichever one it happens to be —  to win a majority. There’s a difference, and unless and until some of you are willing to switch your vote to one of the other parties — or convince other people to switch to yours —  you’re going to keep electing minority governments until the end of time. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but you can’t then turn around and gripe about the results. (Well, you can, but it’s just going to make ITQ start to doubt your collective common sense when it comes to recognizing cause and effect.)

Oh, and as for party preference numbers, there is once again almost no movement. The Conservatives are still ahead, but just barely — seriously, it’s like, point three percent — with the Libs up by a similarly virtually imperceptible amount, and the NDP down by about the same.

Anyway, we’ve also got “second choice” results this week, and the Liberals are barely ahead of the NDP when it comes to the next-best-thing option — 22.1 to 19.7, with 14.1% for the Greens, 13.2% for the Conservatives, 4.1% for the Bloc Quebecois — but holding sway over all is, unsurprisingly, “no second choice” at 26.8%., which includes 40.2% of Conservative supporters. Interestingly, the NDP is the second choice of 29% of Bloc Quebecois voters.

A fellow poll junkie suggests that for Conservatives, these are actually pretty good results — their vote is “rock solid” when compared to the other parties, which raises an interesting question — interesting, at least, to ITQ, who has never totally gotten the concept of “second choice” surveys: When answering the question, what scenario is the respondent imagining? Does having a second choice mean that you are fairly sure you’ll be voting NDP, for instance, but are still open to being persuaded to go Green instead? Or is it more of a, well, if the candidate of my party of choice is tossed from the ballot after an unfortunate Facebook photo-related incident that happens after the nomination period closes, I guess I’d vote for this other party instead, just this once?

Anyway, as always, over to you, commenters.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Wascally_Wabbit Wascally_Wabbit

    You tell 'em Kady…
    Unlike Stewart Smith – who clearly reflects a certain Liberal point of view (at least that's how I read his various posts) I do NOT rate THE PARTY as something that is – or should be caste in concrete. In fact, my observations over the last two decades is – the party has moved left and right – wider tent and slimmer tent – dramatically over that period. My view – for what it is worth – is that the Liberals of Paul Martin and now Michael Ignatieff have taken the party further right than many Liberals feel comfortable with – and are now suffering the growth ceiling that is the result. They can't attract true Conservatives- therefore reaching out to many voters in Alberta is nice – but futile. They leave a lot of Bloc voter fruit on the trees – unpicked – in Quebec – because they are not far enough left…
    Michael Ignatieff has to get a new set of advisors – IMO.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

      Never really tried to hide my Liberal bias (although I have voted for the NDP and Conservatives in the past). Don't understand the caste in concrete comment, although if it alludes to my appreciation of Martin's strategy as finance minister fair enough.
      However, I am not certain I agree that Martin was so far to the right. By creating an environment of perpetual surpluses, Martin offered the Liberals an opportunity to make investments. If an investment makes sense, it probably makes the same sense whether the money is borrowed or comes as a windfall. However, the psychology is different. People borrow for immediate needs and tend to take a longer view with windfalls. In my view, the Liberals are at their best when they take a long term view. {Pearson (peacekeeping, health care), St. Laurent (NATO), Trudeau (Charter), Chrieten (Science funding)} So most correctly, I am a fan of both fiscal prudence and imaginative government initiatives.
      The Conservatives understood clearly that ongoing surpluses encourage the public to think about how to invest that money, while ongoing deficits encourage the public to think about cutting government. It is no accident that the most notable structural change Harper instituted upon being elected was eliminating the surplus.
      and btw please don't start on the capitals with me or I will use capitals on you until I am done.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SophiaGeffros SophiaGeffros

    I want an option of "No partisan prefernence, personal preference for a member of my community."

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

      Hear hear!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Wascally_Wabbit Wascally_Wabbit

    Caps are my only option – within the constraints of the Maclean Blog structure – to add emphasis Stewart. I'm not shouting at you!
    I continue to disagree with you about Martin position in the political spectrum however – he was much more interested however in trade and treaties – less so on social issues – though I tip my hat to him on the Kelowna Accord (let's see if Michael Ignatieff revives it – that's what the grassroots of the part told him to do. now whether he will be able to do that with Shawn Atleo at the helm of the AFN remains to be seen).
    Once you get past the structural part left behind by Mulroney's Tories) – which Jean Cretien told Paul Martin to fix – whether a surplus or deficit occurs is largely a result of good luck and the way the world economic trends effect what is still largely a resource based economy

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

      Glad to see you found the ! (an ancient tool for indicating emphasis). The size of the surplus or deficit is good luck I agree, but especially wrt revenues the government can either be wildly optimistic (Flaherty) or very conservative (Martin) and on average deficits/surpluses can be expected. Moreover there is significant positive feedback to the system, if you run a large deficit, then the next year you must payoff the interest (or sell off the CBC, Banff etc) to cover your accumulated debt. Martin had us on the positive side of the spiral, each year getting another surplus was easier because the debt payments were reduced.
      (I also think Martin would have eventually done something significant on early child care)

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      You can use bold tags too.

      Just put (b) before the word you want to emphasize and (/b) after, but replace the circular brackets with the triangular ones.

      i.e. put < instead of ( and > instead of )

      (I hope that comes out so you can see all of that!).

  • Dee

    How many more ways can EKOS say (yet again): "Nothing happened to the polling numbers this week."? The polls haven't changed significantly since May. It being summer and all, the public simply isn't paying attention.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

    I always find it intriguing how people are ever-willing to form conclusions from one set of polls. Its like reading the baseball scores from last night and making conclusions about who is going to win the world series, without any recognition that it is a long season, and the the regular season is not the playoffs.

    Another puzzlement is that pollsters and media always talk about the collective conscience of Canadians like such a thing exists. In the unlikely event that you are going to get anything useful out of polling information, you have to begin by recognizing that there are a whole lot of very contradictory forces at work that cannot possibly be reconciled into a collective one-ness, no universal thought processes.

    But the conjecture certainly is fun, if rather meaningless. Regarding the conjecture about what it would take for either of the two contending parties to form a majority, I think for Ignatieff, it would take a rather significant transformation of being a gifted communicator in one form (euro-intellectual media figure), to becoming a gifted communicator in another form (Canadian politician). To date he seems to be having most difficulty with a new-found tendency to drop his principles at the first sign of political resistance or backlash – politics at an amateurish level.

    For the Conservatives, the key is, once again, finding a message that resonates with those on the right in Quebec and attracting key leaders from within Quebec. That means consensus building, which is not a strength of Harper's.

  • jay

    Conservative Majority : )

  • michele

    and we the taxpayers are paying this socalled pollster to do this crapola….it stinks to high heaven..more like hell. What a pile of bull.

  • Dieter

    This is not a good time for Jack Layton:Canada's top doctor singled out New Democrat leader Jack Layton yesterday for "hypocrisy" for undergoing hernia treatment at a private Toronto medical clinic.

    Yep, good old Taliban Jack went to a private clinic.

    • Scott M.

      Every clinic in Ontario is private… do you mean he went to a Doctor who doesn't subscribe to OHIP?

      Which would mean he paid for it himself.

      Which is allowed under our current system, no changes required.

    • Dee

      Dieter, "your story has become tiresome".

  • Scott M.

    [One] way to end this is… the Liberals to squeak in with a minority and govern with a completely different tone, openly, and with transparency.

    Alas, over the last 30 years or so power has become ever increasingly centralized in the PMO. As long as that trend continues, you won't see an open and transparent government coming from any party, I'm afraid.

  • Tguy

    Why is everyone acting like this is news?

    This has always been Canada. This has always been any healthy democracy. Some people love party A. Some people love party B. Some people HATE party A. Some people HATE party B. WOW!!!!

    The only thing that's news, (OLD OLD NEWS) is that the Bloc has screwed up the math for 25% of our House of Commons seats, effectively making Majorities near impossible.

    You can watch the polls between the Libs and Tories everyday for the next 10 years, but the only number that matters is the Bloc. If the Bloc isn't dead, I don't care which side the of the fence you are on, you are NOT winning a majority. A minority, either of you could. But a majority? No. Deal with it. Accept it. Maybe one day you'll embrace it. You have no choice, after all.

  • David

    Go Green!

  • KRB

    (cont'd) Ignatieff in 2006 was far from a natural campaigner … very far from it. This is the guy that LOST to Dion after all. He's the rookie next time, going up against what will be a 6-time campaigner in Duceppe – with the majority of his guns directed at Ignatieff – and two 4-time campaigners in Harper and Layton. As Wells says, "the other guy can always win", but the smart money is betting against a smooth and gaffe-free campaign from the Liberals next time out.

  • Amazed

    There are a lot of Liberals who would be more comfortable in the current Conservative party since the Liberal party has moved so far far left. That happened to me and I am sure it is in the secret minds of many who are now leaders within the Liberal party. It is a scandal that lefties like Dion, Bob Rae and Gerard Kennedy have enough support among Liberals to even consider running for leadership there.

  • Mars

    Stop & think!. If U vote 4 Iggy–better find out what he is talking about & stands for–first! Talks with "forked tongue"! which side of the fence will he take us? Does he have any policy-program-plateform-convictions–or-even principals– 2 stand by? so far- he hasn't said anything- that has any purpose-4 -even being in politics–except-that if he loses — he "quits"!! We need majority– minority– can not pass bills-unless all partys agree–so there is no point in having minority or coalition.. all that gets done is arguing– 2 see who can speak the longest & loudest in parliament.. then there is the N D P– well- we all know what they stand for—greed-jealousy-have no convitions 2 stand on–socializem simply does not work–every body equal–won't do it–just look across the line– in a while–when Obamas money is gone– he will be stuck!!!– they don't know how 2 make money– just SPEND! when the coffers are dry– they blame the previous government-for spending it all!!! Greens are redundant– all parties are working on the enviroment– so why waste a vote -there. So–stop & think–& get away from this –manority thing.

  • Wayne

    The latter Kady … always … when asked for a second choice it means if you absolutley have to because your first choice keeled over and unlike the sates they woun't let you vote for dead people up here!

From Macleans