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
  • Greg

    I wish "none of the above" had better numbers.

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

      Me too. I always vote for fringe parties and wished more Canadians did likewise. I think major parties take votes for granted and don't even really try and compete. Come on Canada, vote communist, libertarian, animal alliance …. etc the major parties are laughing at you!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/NotStephen Not Stephen Colbert

      I'm kind of appalled that "none of the above" didn't get better numbers. Then I think about how many of those who did answer it were probably hoping for an NDP government, and I'm even more appalled. Following politics is bad for my mental health.

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

    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?

    I'd also put 'preferred-party, personally-appalling-candidate' in that column.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

    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?

    I'd also put 'preferred-party, personally-appalling-candidate' in that column. If lived in Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, for instance, I'd have a pretty hard time voting for Cheryl Gallant, notwithstanding a general ballot preference for the Tory candidate.

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

      Ooh! Okay, so that raises another question — in that situation, when asked for your first choice, would you say Conservative, or the party of whatever other candidate you know you'll probably end up voting for instead? Because if the answer is the former, that could skew the results in some ridings, although it's probably not that common enough — and is likely very localized — to totally invalidate the national numbers, as far as the seat projection game. I mean, take Bill Casey's former riding: I suspect that a national party preference poll would elicit much more support for the Conservatives than the local Conservative candidate would have actually gotten on voting day, because people don't necessarily link their own personal vote with the outcome they'd most like to see.

    • Tom

      avr

      You have hit the nail on the head. I live in Renfrew-Nipissing_Pembroke. I have to almost stop from choking when I vote for Ms. Gallant. However, the alternatives are never that good in this Riding as they keep on re-hashing the same old worn out candidates.

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    I always wish they'd add "anarchy" as a choice. Given the last several years of government in Canada (and I'm looking back further than Jan. 2006) I'd bet "anarchy" would do pretty well in a poll like this.

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

    I probably shouldn't admit this, but I've voted for John Turmel every time he's appeared on my ballot. I just can't resist the 300-odd-time loser. Underdogs. They'll get me every time.

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

      Interesting, I've had you pegged as a dipper. I was this close to voting for Turmel last Fed election, he was in my riding for first time but I went Libertarian, after I saw him at candidates debate. Turmel's very funny and he discombobulated the serious candidates with his irreverence.

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

        Oh, it had nothing to do with his politics, which are, uh, kind of on the insane side of L/libertarianism, what with his obsession with that hideously complicated barter system, and how more legalized gambling will SAVE THE WORLD, or at least the Canadian economy. But he just keeps trying, and his worldview, though – again – kind of insane, is at least internally insistent. I like that. berried, bien sur.
        From: IntenseDebate Notifications

        • uncool

          Bring back the Rhino Party!

  • http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

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

    I can almost see you wagging a finger.

    I note the numbers are a little better for the Libs this week, but is there anything to suggest an election in 2009, 2010, or even, god forbid, 2011? Stasis until 2012 and then, apparently, the apocalypse.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      AHHHHH!!!! 2012!!!!

      (btw, that movie looks AWESOME!!!)

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

    "No, Canadians, you don’t want a majority government — you want your party — whichever one it happens to be — to win a majority."
    At first glance the above statement ranks very high on the "statement of the obvious" list. However, it was not that long ago that federally and in many jurisdictions there was a noticeable tendency for voters to fall in line with the perceived eventual winner. The strategic motivation for this is clear, there are tangible benefits for a riding with an MP, MPP in the government. On a more emotional level, people just tend to like being associated with a winner. This phenomena tended to assist the early sweeping majorities of Trudeau and Mulroney.
    The polarization in the Canadian political area has clearly changed this dynamic. It is not just that Harper and lately Ignatieff have large negative numbers, it is the depth of emotional passion associated with those numbers that is disturbing. (Trudeau and Mulroney of course eventually generated large negative numbers, but only after 1) years in power and 2) doing some fairly substantive controversial stuff) We now have public cheering from partisan insiders and commentators for actions that are seen to provide a political advantage even as those same commentators acknowledge those actions as bad for the country.
    Politically we are becoming Brodified.
    http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/03/27/ian-brodie-off…

  • Richard Peregrino

    Look at all those Liberals who would Green Shift to the Greenies and NDP! And you all laughed at me wanting a Richer, Fairer, Greener Canada.

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

      Richard, you *totally* have to run in Quebec. Look at all those second-choice voters — clearly, they're craving your unique blend of fair, green riches. How do you feel about spending some time in Outremont?

  • Joseph Mayer

    Kady,

    Great post. You hit the nail on the head "…Canadians, you don't want a majority government — you want your party… to win a majority." It seems from this poll that we're condemned to the current stand-off for the foreseeable future. O tempora! O mores!

    Yours,
    Joseph

  • Sigh

    I've always taken "second choice" to mean, if my preferred party/candidate doesn't win, this is the one, among the others, I would be the least upset to see win.

    Does that make sense? It's pretty early here on the west coast.

    • Charles

      Makes sense, and I think that's probably more or less what most people think. But I'm not sure it's a useful question if we don't have an electoral system that takes second choices into account.

  • John D

    It seems silly to ask someone (who is opinionated enough about politics to stay on the line with a pollster) if they want a majority government. How many of said opinionated people are going to say "Well I really like party X, but would prefer they only sort of held power?"

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

    For giggles, it would have been neat to have another option like: "A coalition of any two parties currently with seats in the HoC to form a majority". Wonder if anyone in the two major camps would pick that…

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

    It is not clear how useful aggregated "second choice" stats are… but on a riding by riding basis they would certainly be a good way to target the ridings that your party should focus its resources on.

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

    These polls are perhaps good news for the Westerners that are so west they are unlike the other Westerners. The dynamic in BC is the most volatile in the country, so the next election won't be over til its over. ( I spent an entire year in paradise listening to the natives complain their votes didn't count cause the election was already over) It will be interesting to see if the Conservative can hang on to that perfect split between the other parties in BC.

  • Calgary Junkie

    I guess the pollsters still don't want to offer up a two-choice question: Cons or Coaltion ? Harper told us all, thru the Macleans editorial board, that he will campaign on that ballot question.

    So we will just have to wait patiently to see how Harper plays that two-choice narrative via ads, stump speeches, press conferences and so on. I guess it's just too controversial for the pollsters to go there, or they would consider testing the waters on what COULD be the defining electoral question.

  • Anon

    When an incumbent government is polling at 32%, can they win?

    I guess when the opposition is the LPC, the answer is yes.

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

      In a FPTP system, not if you're drawing dead in Quebec, neck in neck in Ontario, and your 32% is backed by massive pluralities in Western Canada. The vote efficiency just isn't there.

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

        BC is correct, in the last election the CPC was very efficient in both BC and Quebec. Quebec is gone, although they are still poised to do well in BC with just 35% of the vote. I am not convinced Ontario is as volatile as the close race suggests, while the Liberals and Conservatives both poll well there, a lot of the ridings are rock stable.

      • KRB

        It's possible (Blair won a majority with 35% of the vote in the UK last election), but as BCer points out, the voting efficiency just ain't there. In the UK election, the Conservatives were very close in terms of popular vote percentage (32% I believe), but it's just that the Labour party were uniformly beating the Conservatives by those same 3 or so points in most of the ridings.

        If you take out the votes of all those parties that ended up not winning a seat in the last election, the Conservatives actually chimed in with 40.76% of the vote, whereas Chretien in 1997 won a majority with a stripped-out percentage of 38.99%.

        While the big news from the last election was that 800k Liberal voters stayed home or whatever, the Conservatives also lost 300k voters. That's not usual for a first-term government who've done fairly well … I think that has to be put down to many Conservative voters not bothering because they believed the result wasn't in doubt. Those are the voters that the CPC will be aiming to get out with the Conservatives or Coalition contrast.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      Another interesting question is, when will we have a party get over 38% at the polls again? The Liberals haven't done it since 2000, and no conservative party has done it since 12 years before that! It's strange how after decades of majority governments it's getting to the point where if a party could hit 40% in an election it would be considered a crushing landslide of historic proportions!

      Your quip about how a government polling at 32% could only hope to win with the LPC in opposition is funny, but is it not also true that only the Tories could fail to win a majority with the LPC turning in their worst electoral result EVER? Maybe only a Liberal opposition could lose with the government at 32%, but only a Harper government could hang their hat on "We almost got a majority and all we needed was the worst Liberal performance since before Confederation!!!"

      I mean, sure, the Liberals seem to have hit the floor (well, maybe Dion had them in the basement, but they're back to the floor at least) but given that the Tories seem to have hit the ceiling, and they're within spitting distance of the Liberals, is either party that much worse off than the other in the big picture? In 2008, the Liberals had their worst electoral result since the birth of the nation, and the Tories had their best result in 20 years. I see little evidence that the likelihood of the Tories improving on 2008 is high. Maybe the Tories can improve on their best result in 20 years, but I just don't see the Liberals doing even worse than their worst result ever. If you can't get a majority out of Stephane Dion, the carbon tax, and a little lingering adscam, at what point do you stop trying what you've been doing and change direction? Change to WHAT I have no idea, but at some point things need to get shaken up, don't they?

      • sbt

        To be fair, as long as the Bloc wins a strong majority of Quebec's 75 seats it'll be pretty hard for anyone to win a majority until the seat numbers in Ontario and out West are increased or one of the two main parties implodes spectactularly.

      • Charles

        I think the phrase you were looking for was "the worse Liberal performance since before responsible government."

        • Lord Kitchener's Own

          Yes, well, it's probably moot at a certain point. I mean, to find a worse Liberal electoral performance you'd need to basically go back to a time before there really WAS a Liberal Party. Suffice it to say the Liberal haven't done as badly as they did in 2008 since before the LAST century.

          • Charles

            I was mostly being silly by suggesting that the Liberals haven't done so poorly since they were constitutionally unable to form a government. ;)

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

    Actually, the very first link goes to my last loving but frustrated rant at Canadians over their response to a poll on that very question. My thoughts on your point are contained therein.

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

      Just to be contrary, that very question has not yet been framed. Harper will continue to push that the Bloc is de facto part of any coalition which would help his chances in ROC. He will of course be successful in selling that story in Alberta but it is not clear how it will play elsewhere. His risk is that if the next election comes back as a weak Conservative minority, which then falls on its first confidence vote, he will have legitimized the option of the GG asking the Liberals to try to form a government (even without a formal coalition agreement). That would make for a really interesting minority government.

      • http://www2.macleans.ca/category/blogs/national/inside-the-queensway/ Kady O'Malley

        See, when I first saw the story on the coalition poll – which didn’t include the question, or all the data – I assumed that it actually *did* present a scenario where two parties ran on a formal “coalition” platform, which was why I initially thought that it was able to garner that much support — it wasn’t a “Surprise! Guess Who’s Going To Be Prime Minister” situation, as was the case — or at least the perception/spin — with Dion, which is why I was somewhat taken aback to discover that, actually, that’s exactly what they were asked: If, after an election, no one party could form a minority, would they be okay with two of the opposition parties going to the GG to pitch a coalition government. The fact that it didn’t send respondents screaming for the hills, figuratively speaking, should definitely be seen as a red flag by the prime minister, in my opinion, given his past stated intentions to campaign on precisely that possibility.

        • KRB

          No Red flag at all … it's a winning question. My hunch is that it will be obvious that the Liberals have a ceiling in terms of seat growth fairly early on in the next election, which by itself will bring the coalition scenario to the forefront. Even if Harper were to fail again to win a majority, the long-term consequences for the Liberal party (as we know it today) in forming a coalition would be significant, for them and for the Canadian political landscape. The next election will be a watershed election, rivalling 1993 in terms of political shake-up/fallout. I look forward to it.

    • Calgary Junkie

      OK thanks, I totally missed that Blog posting of yours when it first came out. Lots of good stuff in there from the commentators too.

  • Ken S from Ramara

    If only Canada used a Preferential Ballot to vote, we'd now have majorities and 4 years of stable governance. With FPTP voting the only way to achieve majorities now will require the LIBS/NDP/Greens to enter into non-compete agreements in certain ridings, or to pledge prior to a campaign their desire to form a Coalition. I just don't see Iggy taking these steps. For some reason he feels he can defeat Harper all by himself. Silly, silly Iggy1!!

    • Charles

      I doubt there would be a majority government under a preferential ballot/alternative vote. Past experience (see, e.g., Manitoba in the 30s/40s, I believe) has shown that alternative votes tend to result in legislatures closer to the popular vote. So, while a lot of NDP votes would probably go to the Libs, a lot of Lib votes would end up going to NDP in other ridings where the NDP was in second place. Plus, the Greens would probably become a much stronger force and would almost definitely win a few seats. The end result is minority government after minority government, unless the parties eventually get together to form a coalition. In fact, Manitoba eventually abandoned the single-transferable vote and the alternate vote because they thought it was better to have majorities than to have everyone represented in the legislature.

  • an online reader

    Sinclair Stevens / Elizabeth May / Jack Layton form a Canadians First Party ?

  • http://twitter.com/larrylarry @larrylarry

    I can see Stephen Harper grinning madly and tapping is fingers together and sneering, "Exxxcccellent". This is exactly the outcome he was hoping for with his years now of divisive politics – divide and conquer, and conquer he's doing. He's pitted every party against each other, hardened party lines, and made it impossible for cooperation. With an atmosphere like that, the politically interested electorate becomes hardened behind their own party, and the uninterested? They become even more uninterested. The only way to end this is for either the right to become splintered again or for the Liberals to squeak in with a minority and govern with a completely different tone, openly, and with transparency.

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

    I haven't dug deeply into the poll yet but based just on your comments, and the horserace numbers, one interesting observation does emerge:

    Both parties polled at 32%, but an LPC or CPC majority only polled at 26% and 25% respectively. Which, if we assume all those wanting a majority want it for their own party, then 6% of Liberal supporters and 7% of Conservative supporters DON'T want their party of choice to have a majority, but would prefer their party be held to a minority. Speaks to perhaps a lack of confidence in by each group in their respective parties.

    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,

    I'd argue that point, or rather, that spin. The CPC does have a rock-solid base. And it's not likely to go anywhere, it largelt having nowhere to go. But their problem is, compared to the Liberals, their growth potential is limited. That's been their challenge for 3 years now, trying to grow that base by moving to the centre to grow, without pissing off the base (leading to Trost/Ablonczy controversies). They consistently seem to top out around 36/37, and just briefly, before slipping back down.

    So yes, solid base for the CPC. But limited growth potential remains their problem.

    • Dakota

      Until the Conservatives accept the fact that Harper has already accomplished his role, reuniting the right and forming a government, I totally agree that they have reached a ceiling. However, if Harper ever steps down, the right person could give the Conservatives the small push they need to capture a majority government.

      Sadly, there are so few engaging politicians today it would be a miracle to find the person to do it.

      I guess the same argument can be mad for the Liberal cause as well, although having Bob Rae take over is absolutely horrifying.

      • Lord Kitchener's Own

        "However, if Harper ever steps down, the right person could give the Conservatives the small push they need to capture a majority government".

        That seems totally right to me, however, as you imply, the WRONG person could throw the Tories right back into the wilderness.

        • Dakota

          Which is why I think there isn't a lot of grumbling from the Tory backbench, fear of the unknown.

    • KRB

      Rewind to 2005, and the "limited growth potential" threshold at that point was 30%, as in "they can't get over 30%". Things change rapidly in campaigns, major breaks can happen, setting up new "normal's". The next election looks to me ripe for one.

      Having said that, a major break happened in the 2007 Ontario election, and I did not see that happening in the run-up (years out i mean). John Tory looked solid, and had great recognition numbers for an opposition leader (usually the biggest obstacle in the job). I didn't think that McGuinty would lose the election to Tory (being a 1st term gov't), but neither did I think it would be the wipeout that it was. I was predicting a minority Liberal gov't there, and whoa, was I ever wrong. Things happen in campaigns, and one wrong step can be an instant deal-breaker.

  • Gentle Reader

    Really, it's just the bloc that is making majorities impossible. What do quebecers say?

    • Scott M.

      As a new Quebecer, I can only tell you what I think, which is that the vast majority of people vote for whomever they think will serve their interests the best. Say what you will about the BQ… they know their constituents well.

  • Mulletaur

    Considering that a significant portion of the 26% who prefer a Liberal majority government are likely to vote for the NDP, being one point ahead of the Conservatives on this question is not particularly good news for the Liberal Party of Canada.

    • Charles

      I'm not so sure about that – I would expect most NDP supporters would prefer a Liberal minority government where the NDP had some influence. If the Libs have a majority, the NDP slinks back to opposition.

  • knick

    Do those second-choice numbers represent an intention to vote strategically?

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    Very true.

From Macleans