Greens Projected To Win 2 Seats! But what's the methodology?(or source?)

Home / Blogs / Matthew Piggott's blog /
By Matthew Piggott on 13 February 2010 - 7:09pm

Recently there has been some talk floating around many Green Party blogs talking about recent seat projections based on current polling numbers.  This is certainly some encouraging news as we have polled better in recent months but many different seat projection sites, democraticspace, electionprediction, 308.com, have always had us coming up with "zero" in the all important categories of MPs elected.

So what exactly is the source for the prediciton that the Green Party will win 2 seats?(I don't blindly follow blog rumours).  A little research led me to a Globe and Mail article by Jane Taber which references presumeably an interview with pollster Frank Graves from Ekos.  There is reference to the Green Party winning 2 seats in Ontario, and have a strong presence in B.C.(but no seats unfortunately).

Thing is, Ekos' "seat project" portion of their website last lists a seat projection from November 2009.  So I guess Mr. Graves just punched in his latest polls numbers into his model and went from that?  No further information was provided.

Do people think that is credible?  How good is Ekos at predicting seat counts?  Can we trust this projection?
I admit that it's good news that we've finally been projected to win a seat.

I would like to publicize this locally(in Kitchener) but am always aware of people's expectations and how that might backlash if we don't follow through.  In any case this might be a great talking point that would break through an important psychological barrier(that Greens can't win). 

Might also be a strong talking point against strategic voting(because we can win!).

Matthew Piggott
Kitchener Centre

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Crude projections, but encouraging

Submitted by Erich Jacoby-Hawkins on 13 February 2010 - 9:28pm.

Projections like these are fairly crude. Basically, they take the current polling, apply the adjustment to the previous election, and see what changes. So if Greens are up 4% and Conservatives are down 6% (total swing 10%), then in the riding where the Green was only 9% behind the Conservative the adjustment for the new polling would have the Green winning.

(Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that, as you have to adjust each riding by a sliding percentage depending on where it was compared to the average for the party in that province).

Anyhow, it doesn't in any way take into account factors specific to the riding, such as change of candidate (the Green or the Conservative), local issues, a ramped-up local effort (by the Greens) or a collapsed local effort (let's say the local NDP riding is deregistered) or whatever. On a larger scale, such as comparing Liberal to Conservative seats in Ontario, these factors more-or-less balance out. On a smaller scale - like looking at 2 ridings where Greens would win - they are far less reliable.

But feel free to use encouraging polling results like this when speaking to groups or at meetings. Even though they aren't reliable predictions, they do prove strengthening support for Greens and an increasing chance that we might pick up a win in split ridings. If we weren't a significant factor, then seat projections would not be putting any numbers in our column. 

Our first seat wins will come not because of a fluke or an upswing in polling or an all-out local effort or a celebrity candidate - but rather, due to a combination of all 4 (or at least 3) of these factors together. The upswing in polling won't do it by itself, but it is an important check on the checklist. Milestones should be celebrated. Even when it's two steps forward, one step back, we need to take heart from each step forward.

Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca

Electing MP's is an outcome, not a goal

Submitted by Jim Johnston on 14 February 2010 - 9:22am.

(cross-posted at http://lkm-green.blogspot.com)

If the Green Party continues to climb in popularity and voter first preference, then there will eventually be Green MPs.  That is a mathematical certainty.

However, I believe that we do ourselves a disservice every time we say that we will elect MPs in the next election, or worse, that we must elect MPs in order to remain viable as a political party.  The reason for this is that the first is not necessarily true, and the second is clearly false.

I am profoundly guilty of promoting the first point of view in the past.  I believed that by being optimistic, I created a sense of vision and momentum and made the realization of the dream more possible.  Instead, I now believe that my credibility comes from being true to my word, rather than being unrealistic.  To me, this means that we run to win in every campaign, but without making the promise of winning, a promise that is fulfilled only by the voters.

I post this because I have become concerned that people inside and outside the party are beginning to believe that the second statement is true, that is, we must elect MPs in the next election.  I think this is patent nonsense.  If we do, great .. good for us.  But if we don't, we are not going to disappear.  We are not going to stop trying.  We will get back to work doing what we have always done .. a process that has gotten us this far, and will continue to develop support for us, as more and more people come to understand that the status quo in Canadian politics is simply too dysfunctional to keep propped up.

So, back to the point of your original post, Matthew, I would suggest that you can use the polls to show that things are changing, because some people will not change unless they see that others are changing too.  Just don't make any promises about electability.  Remember, that Kim Campbell's Progressive Conservatives were leading in the polls in 1993, and the election moved them  from 169 seats (22 more than a majority) down to 2.  The outcome of the election is in the hearts and minds of the voters.

Jim Johnston, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex Opinions expressed are my own.

Electing MP's

Submitted by Bram Kivenko on 14 February 2010 - 10:34am.

It's not that we will or must elect MPs, but that it's that we must adapt so that we can elect an MP.  The GPC is composed of a diverse wealth of opinion, but at some point we need to accept that not all ideas help us get elected because they appeal to too few people on what I guess we can call a natural basis -- ie, you can't change people's opinions on some subjects.

I don't want to go into this in depth again, but the GPC cannot now, nor will it ever be a meaningful force if it's social agenda appeals almost exclusively to NDPers.  I know this because, the NDP, at least at the federal party level has not ever been a political force.  We must acknowledge the strong correlation between strong young voter support and that demographic's inability to understand the GPC has policies beyond environmentalism.  The implication being as younger voters drift to more comprehensive platforms, that they will drift to parties based primarily on their fiscal principles (of which hard left socialism is not the winner.)

Re: Electing MPs

Submitted by Michael Vaillancourt on 14 February 2010 - 12:46pm.
Ditching social justice as a key green objective would be a significant change for us. I don't think it would be a vote-winner either. That space is already occupied by the Conservatives and Liberals. Also, don't assume that by championing a social justice agenda that makes us equivalent to the NDP. I see us as generally Left-Libertarian / Green-Libertarian.

MPs

Submitted by Bram Kivenko on 14 February 2010 - 1:17pm.
I certainly do not advocate getting rid of social justice as an agenda, but we need to pick and choose what people are ready to accept. Livible wages, fair use of intellectual property, fair trade, medicare, better retirement assistance.... The list goes on, and all good ideas. But we also have more radical ideas that I won't reiterate here. We have plenty of ideas that don't resonate widely. It is worth surveying the public to identify which ideas we should defer or shelve. that's all I am saying. I am not even saying my judgement is relevant... Just ask the electorate what's relevant to them and then we can focus our message better. I'm telling you that this is how we can greatly improve our polling numbers.

Re: MPs

Submitted by Michael Vaillancourt on 14 February 2010 - 1:46pm.

What are these radical ideas that you won't reiterate? If we support only those social justice issues that our polling tells us the majority of people accept, in a misguided effort to increase our popular support, then we will become a wishy/washy semi-leftish party like the NDP (which is what you say we shouldn't become). Our polling numbers are low because our message - our good policies - are not getting out to the public. We just need to be more creative in engaging the public.

MPs

Submitted by Bram Kivenko on 16 February 2010 - 12:45am.

We can start with the standard withdrawl from Nato, Norad, and military conversion.  They all sound like nice ideas -- by which I really mean naive if you consider what is happening with Iran right now -- and I think an opposition candidate pointing out that is the GPC stance would vaporize support for a Green candidate in the lead -- I would guess that support for these ideas tops out at about 10% in any given riding.

I don't really want to get into a discussion on whether or not these are good ideas.  What I want to get into is a discussion on whether these ideas prevent us from ever getting elected.   We are after all a political party.  Electing an MP is a goal, not a side effect.

The GPC's platform is so

Submitted by David Barclay on 14 February 2010 - 11:10am.

The GPC's platform is so diverse I think its oversimplification to call it 'hard left'.  In fact, I'm pretty tired of hearing the media reduce complex multi-dimensional issues and their solutions to a one-dimensional line   <--->    left or right.

We have a mixed economy. There are areas where government involvement in some way is essential, (this isn’t the U.S.) and others where the private sector is better equipped to produce results. We’ve seen what happens when unregulated speculation by the finance industry almost destroyed the world’s monetary system. And who bailed them out? The governments. And we’ve also seen what happens when the state tries to run everything, i.e. communism and total collapse of the Soviet Union.

As to the future success of the Green party. At the risk of being redundant, without a new much broader approach to messaging, with or without a seat, if it hasn’t already, it will hit a ceiling. Communications need to be balanced, topical and present the attributes of the platform which impact everyday lives of Canadians.

Respectfully, D. Scott Barclay

financial regulation

Submitted by Bram Kivenko on 14 February 2010 - 1:27pm.
For the record I favour strongly financial regulation. I also favour regulation in many areas as long as it doesn't interfere with people's ability to conduct business. And I mean that in the sense that it's easy to pass regulations but it can be difficult for people to know how to follow them. Regulations need to be obvious and concise. Governments should be obligated to assist people in navigating regulations instead of just outlining what you can't do. But anyway that's off topic... I just thought it important to say.

Jim says it very well

Submitted by Stephen LaFrenie on 14 February 2010 - 7:47pm.

The consistency of Greens in the polls over the last few years demonstrates that people are waiting for an alternative.  The reality of election day voting tells us they are still waiting and the Greens may not be the alternative. 

The encouragement is that the other parties haven't been able to change their minds and haven't found what it is that voters are looking for.  Canadians are no longer willing to just vote tradition and give a majority to either the conservatives or liberals.  They also make it clear that the NDP and Greens still have work to do in order to change their minds.

The task is to talk to Canadians and find out what's missing in the equation.  What do they need to change a green second choice into a green first choice.  Polls can't tell you that because polls are always slanted.  Seat projections are deceptive and won't get you anywhere.  The best way to use them is simply to give you incentive to keep working in the riding. 

This blog reflects my personal opinion. It is not official Green Party Policy. www.departmentofpeace.ca 

http://stephenlafrenie.blogspot.com