Sunday, November 1, 2009

What-If, The next step


Next, I applied the same idea to more elections. I did a very educated 'guesstimation' of the 2006 and 2004 elections. I then compared it to a 4 party system by combining the PC and CA votes during the 90s. I even then compared this to 1988, 1984, 1980, and 1979 with this simple formula:

The Bloc wins 50 seats in Quebec. In 1979 and 1980 they take those seats from the Liberals, and in the 80's from the Tories. The Alliance wins all PC western seats, and half their Ontario seats. The remainder of the Ontario seats go to the Liberals. (This is very realistic when compared with what we now know) This is for the 5 party system. For a 4 party system, I only did the 50 bloc seats from above. In 1979 I re-added 6 to the Liberals to account for Social Credit.

This is my result:

I present the following arguments:

Since 2004, we've had a minority government in Ottawa. This is about 1500 days. Lester B Pearson lead about 1500 days of minority governance.
All other Prime Minister's combined, lead about 1500 days of minority governance.

Therefore, 1/3rd of our minority governments have occurred since 2004.

As is visible above, so long as the Bloc exists, we will have a minority government 9 out of 10 times. As is also visible above, only then both the Bloc and Reform/Alliance exist, will the Liberals win endless strings of government (9 out of 10). Therefore, I conclude the following.

Canada might be a "Liberal Country" but English Canada is "Conservative"

The Liberals are not the Natural Governing Party without Quebec. The Tories are. The Tories cannot, however, fill that role when split in half. The only time the Liberals have beat a unified Conservative party is either when Quebec is in their back pocket, or when there is 'something wrong' with the Conservative Movement (IE got to ditch Mulroney, we don't like Manning/Day/Harper, etc)

I also present that Minority Governments, in this country, can be damaging. While they have 'worked' over the past few years, I argue that they only add to the pre-existing stress on the country, especially where unity is concerned.

Quebecois have also shown multiple times in the past that they lean to the left, not to the right. If Harper now leads "Canada's Natural Governing Party (TM)" then this could only add to stresses on unity

Therefore. I present the following unsettling conclusion.

Canada cannot continue to exist so long as the Bloc Quebecois exists.

Am I wrong in this assessment? Perhaps. Time will tell.

Sorry, no extra data today!

Interesting What-If


I've decided to run an interesting what-if scenario. Over at 308.blogspot, they ran a piece on removing parties, and what would happen. See more info here Click Me! I've decided to add parties. Using the 2000 election as a base, I've decided to see what would have happened in the 2008 election, if the parties were split the way they were in 2000 (PC and CA)

Lib - 5
PC - 1
NDP - 1
(2006 was used as a base for NL due to the anybody-but-harper campaign. Harris, however, was declared Elected)

Lib - 4

NDP - 5
Lib - 3
PC - 3 (Including Casey)

Lib - 6
PC - 3
NDP - 1

Lib - 18
PC - 7
NDP - 7

(Personal note - I'm a bit shocked at this myself!)

CA - 7
NDP - 4
PC - 2
Lib - 1

CA - 12
Lib - 2

CA - 25
Lib - 2
NDP - 1

British Columbia
CA - 25
NDP - 8
Lib - 3

CA - 69
NDP - 13
Lib - 8
PC - 2

Lib - 1
NDP - 1
PC - 1

BQ - 56
Lib - 16
PC - 1
CA - 1 (in Pontiac)
NDP - 1 (in Outremont)

(See my note later)

Lib - 62
CA - 24
NDP - 18
PC - 2

Lib - 105
CA - 94
BQ - 56
NDP - 40
PC - 13

And there you have it. Stephane Dion would have been popular enough to get elected Prime Minister... If the right were still divided.

Note that in Quebec I gave the Alliance the seat they would have won by the math. This happens to be the seat currently held by Andre Arthur. I feel he would have been more likely to run as an Alliance candidate than a "Conservative" one.

Sorry, no extra data today!