Canadian Election: It's On

[KrazyHorse]

Again, you've completely missed the change from 1993.

The difference is that back then French Quebec did vote PC in large numbers. 11 years ago the dynamic you mentioned was in full swing. The Bloc picked up nearly every French riding in the province due to federalist votesplitting. Nowadays:

a) The Conservatives poll much lower in Quebec than they did in 1993

b) Their support is concentrated in anglo ridings, strongholds for the Liberals which have next to no chance of going blue and which have less than no chance of going Bloc

The 50% support they enjoy in Quebec right now vs. 40% for the Liberals and 10% for assorted other parties is much different than 1993's 55-60% vs. 25% for the Liberals and 15% for the PC. Much different both in overall gap in support between them and their nearest rivals and in the way the vate is distributed. You should look at what happened in 1997 as an object lesson. The support for the Bloc in that election hardly changed at all in terms of overall percentages. What changed was that federalist votesplitting became unimportant. Nobody's forgotten this lesson.

[KrazyHorse]

Hey, Ben. Put your money where your mouth is. I'm predicting 45 seats for the Bloc, you're predicting 66.

For every seat the Bloc takes over and above 55, I'll send you 10$ Canadian. If they win less than 55 seats you send me 10$ Canadian for every seat they miss 55 by.

[KrazyHorse]

*rubs hands at the thought of taking Ben for at least 100$

[Ben Kenobi]

Riding by riding, the Conservative and Alliance combined, in Quebec, would have recieved 11.8%.

Now, lets look at each riding. Did the Conservatives do better in the Liberal ridings, or in the BQ ones?


Richmond, Arthabaska went Alliance with 41% voting for the Conservatives.

Edit:

RIDING / % CONSERVATIVE / WINNER / BQ in 3rd.

Now, in order:

PortNeuf-- 24% LIB
Quebec East-- 22% LIB
Levis-et-Chutes-de-la Chaudier 21% BQ
Charlesbourg-Jacques Cartier 21% BQ
Drummond 20% BQ
Louis-Hebert 19% LIB
Hull-Aylmer 18% LIB
Pontiac-Gatineau 18% LIB
Brome-Missisquoi 18% LIB
Beauport 17% LIB
Ile-d'Orleans 17% LIB, BQ 3rd
Westmont Ville-Marie 16% LIB, BQ 3rd
Lotbiniere-L'Erable 15% BQ
Beauce 15% BQ
Lac St. Louis 15% LIB, BQ 3rd
Pierreford-Dollards 12% LIB, BQ 3rd
Mount Royal 10% LIB, BQ 3rd


Surprisingly, there seems to be no pattern to the seats that elected the most Conservatives in the last Federal election in Quebec. Rather than seeing the BQ finish third in the top Conservative ridings, it seems that this is not the case.

[KrazyHorse]

Did you just miss my entire spiel on why support for the PC does not translate into support for the Conservatives? The 8% or so that the COnservatives are polling at in Quebec comes almost entirely from people who voted Alliance. Please do your analysis based on this.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't bet cash.

How about an avatar?

1 week for every 2 seats?

[KrazyHorse]

Come on. Put your money where your mouth is. We'll all see who has to send the other money in 4 weeks.

[KrazyHorse]

Snooze. Boooooooorrrrrriiiiiiiinnnnnnnggggg

Avatar bets suck. I need to buy a scanner, and the money you have to send me will go a long way.

[Ben Kenobi]

Did you just miss my entire spiel on why support for the PC does not translate into support for the Conservatives? The 8% or so that the COnservatives are polling at in Quebec comes almost entirely from people who voted Alliance. Please do your analysis based on this.

Gee, the Alliance only got 6% support last election, and the Progressive Conservatives got 5%.

So if they are at 8%, some of that support likely comes from the PC's.

I don't see why Progressive Conservative support won't go over to the new Conservative party. It's not just the old Alliance.

Heck, would the old Alliance expect to grab 40 seats in Ontario? Would they have a leader who boasted of his ability to speak french?

[Ben Kenobi]

I need to buy a scanner, and the money you have to send me will go a long way.

And I need to buy a new soundcard.

No dice. I don't bet cash. I prefer humiliation over out of pocket expense.

Perhaps if you are over in BC I'll buy you a beer for every percent.

[KrazyHorse]

Fine then. Your prediction is going into my sig and we'll leave it at that.

[Ben Kenobi]

"As I was walking, this ribbon of highway."

[notyoueither]

I was wondering how much attention this would get. Not much, I guess. *Sigh*

Originally posted by St Leo
Oh, no! The homeless and the welfare impoverished will no longer be able to place paid $5000+ announcements in the papers about their plight. This is a travesty of justice.

Originally posted by Flinx
Does Ms. Corbella think Canada should have a political system where only rich white male property owners have a say or one where the rules are such that a millionaire and a working class person have the same opportunity and ability to express themselves?

I think the real issue is that the writer is appalled that the GoC would take it upon itself to regulate expression by citizens on a topic like politics (which she might argue is the most important form of expression of all). Her distress is compounded by the stamp of approval given to this odious law by the SCoC.

So tell me, how much is the average editorial page worth and will editors have to register their pens with Elections Canada in some sort of Registry of Rhetoric? Are the various parties run by angelic entities who are somehow better qualified at influencing opinion than us mere peons?

[St Leo]

The point is that the vast majority of peons don't have the moolah to even start influencing public opinion. It's not free speech if we are not free to engage in it.

IANAL, but there is a difference between an editorial and an ad. Editorials are a "pull" medium. People opt in to read editorials. Ads are a "push" medium. They force people to look at them.

[Ben Kenobi]

The point is that the vast majority of peons don't have the moolah to even start influencing public opinion. It's not free speech if we are not free to engage in it.

Since when does one need substantial cash to get the ball rolling?

There are plenty of forms of advertising that do not cost much, especially when people start to pool their money together.

Yet, according to the gag law, these groups are not allowed to run advertisements? How fair is that?

It's a poor argument that just because people do not have equal amounts of money, that we should squelch the speech of those who do have money.