Friday, November 11, 2016

October 2016 federal polling averages

Below you will find the federal polling averages for the month of October. The averages combine three federal polls (Abacus, Forum and EKOS), one Quebec poll (CROP) and one Alberta poll (Lethbridge), altogether surveying 7,070 Canadians.

Compared to the September 2016 averages, the Liberals were down 2.9 points, the Conservatives were down 1.4 points, the New Democrats were up 2.4 points, and the Greens were up 1.9 points.

Monthly tracking chart

The tracking chart below shows the monthly polling averages stretching back to January 2009. Elections and campaigns as well as the arrival of new federal leaders are also included.


You can click or tap on the chart above to magnify it.

Seat projections

The chart below shows how many seats each of the parties would have won in an election held in this month. This seat projection uses the current first-past-the-post system. For full methodology, see here.

The tracking chart below shows the maximum and minimum seat ranges (which are wider than the likely ranges above) projected for each party since the 2015 federal election.
You can click or tap on the chart above to magnify it.

Seat projections with alternate electoral systems

The chart below shows potential seat outcomes using alternative electoral systems.

In addition to first-past-the-post (FPTP), the chart shows estimations for proportional representation (PR) and alternative voting (AV).

For PR, each province retains the number of seats they currently have. The number of seats each party receives is rounded up or down according to the vote share received in each province, and any leftover seats are awarded to the party that finished in first place in the region.

A very simple calculation is done for AV. Because the Liberals and New Democrats tend to be each other's second choice, they are awarded any seat where they are projected to be in first place (along with the Greens). Any seat that the Conservatives or Bloc Québécois leads with 45 per cent or more is awarded to that party. Any seat where the Conservatives or Bloc Québécois is in first place but with less than 45 per cent is given to the Liberals, the NDP, or the Greens, depending on which of these parties was in second place.

Though a crude method, past experience with more sophisticated methods have yielded virtually identical results in the current political landscape.

These projections also assumes no change of behaviour by the parties based on the system in place, no change in the behaviour of voters, and no other parties on the ballot. All of these assumptions are likely to be greatly tested in any change to the electoral system.

25 comments:

  1. And still the Conservatives can't get their act together !!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Tories are doing fine, they have a full roster of leadership candidates who just had their first debate! It is not as exciting as tripling the promised deficit or promising then reneging on electoral reform or promising to abide by the Paris Climate Talks only to be saddled with a Republican triumvirate down South! Governments defeat themselves and after Tuesday things became much more difficult for the Liberals.

      Delete
  2. Peter,

    They need to choose a leader who can be competitive with this Prime Minister in the next election and of course, true to form, they are likely to do the exact opposite and select the base's choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's for sure Ron. Saw two of them on CTV's Question Period today. Kelli Lietch and Michael Chong.
      She came across as a Trump nutter and he came across as sensible. Guess who's leading the polls right now ??

      Delete
    2. The polls mean nothing!

      The leader is selected through riding elections each riding has equal weight. unless you have polls of Conservative leadership candidates polling among Conservative members in a specific riding or perhaps a confined geography (Metro Vancouver) polls mean absolutely nothing.

      Just because people are in disagreement with current immigration policy does not make people nutters. Even David Suzuki opines Canada is full. Trudeau has committed Canada to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. How is this to be achieved if our population grows 1% a year? It becomes nearly impossible. There are a plethora of stories of people (immigrants and others) abusing the immigration system either by ripping off would be applicants, falsifying documentation for criminal purposes or worse. Just last week CBC Vancouver had a story on how local new mothers were denied the chance to give birth at their local hospital in Richmond B.C. because the hospital was full of foreign women giving birth, most of these women were not citizens and not even residents! They were vacationers who booked their vacation to Canada specifically so their child would automatically be granted Canadian citizenship! Having a good hard look at how we bring in immigrants and process them isn't crazy it is smart. Frankly, it is also our only bit of leverage with communist China so it is a card we should play.

      Delete
    3. StatsCan had the number of non-resident births at 699 in 2012. With BC having around 44,000 births per year, it’s highly unlikely that a Canadian resident mother is being denied a hospital bed by non-resident crowding. Instead of changing the Citizenship Act, why not just restrict Temporary Resident Visas from pregnant women where their stay might enter their 8th month of pregnancy?
      As for David Suzuki, the interview was in French, so he actually said “Je crois que le Canada est plein aussi!” which might mean “full”, but could also be “fraught” as in “on an unsustainable course”, which is much more in keeping with his general theme. Either way, I disagree with the general premise as Canadian immigration reduces environmental degradation in the developing world.
      Immigration gives us insolation against an aging population. Japan is the poster child for the results of a restrictive immigration policy: 26% over 64, 12.8% under 15. Their total population has been dropping since 2007. China is much more interested in our natural resources than as a location for emigration.

      Delete
    4. It was on the C.B.C. in Vancouver. The number 699 is laughable. All that proves is StatsCan does not keep accurate stats on birth tourism in this country! That should be obvious as the number is several years old.

      As for David Suzuki, he would be the first to point out we have a difficult time reducing our emissions if the population grows by 1% per year ad infinitum. Of copurse he would say different green technology would make all the changes we need but, juuxtapose to the reality of the present more people simply mean more pollution. Also the CBC translated the word as "full". "Fraught" means filled with anxiety or distress" and while I respect the translation may be open to interpretation it does not mean "on an unsustainable course" in either French or English.

      Accepting migrants from China or any other developing country only eases pressure on those countries to become democratic and more environmentally sustainable. Considering Canadians are the largest per capita energy users in the world it is difficult to see how increasing our population somehow reduces environmental degradation in developing countries.


      I am not denying benefits exist with immigration. I simply was pointing out we need a better balance. Talking about immigration policy is what happens in mature democracies. Far from being racist or even anti-immigrant it provides an opportunity to develop a better immigration system and a better integration system.

      Delete
    5. Changing the visa system will not work as most people get a visa many weeks if not months in advance. It would be an unfair burden to place on a pregnant women who legally obtained a visa if she had to be turned away upon arrival if she was obviously pregnant. Changing the Citizenship Act so that at least one parent must be a Canadian citizen and resident would solve the problem as demand would fall rapidly.

      Delete
    6. Why does the age of the statistic relate to it's accuracy? Is the unemployment rate from 2011 inaccurate now because it's 5 years old? What fact-check did the CBC actually provide besides anecdotes?

      My reading of "Fraught" being "filled with or destined to result in something undesirable" in the context of Australian/Canadian immigration as the "undesirable result" being "unsustainable".


      China is looking at their own old-age crunch and have been reducing emigration over the last decade. They removed the last vestiges of the one-child policy to stabilize their population. The current emigration rate is 1 per 3125 population on the same order as Barbados and Poland. Canada is in the bottom five of the Top 10 destinations.

      As for energy use of immigrants, first, Iceland has the highest per capita energy use, not Canada. Second, energy use isn't a great equivalence for GHG emissions. For example, 91% on Ontario's electricity is carbon-free. Third, the "average" Canadians energy use is very different than the "average" immigrant, who predominantly settle in urban areas. Fourth, even national GHG emissions aren't a good peg for the impact of Canadian population growth as the majority of our emissions relate to natural resource extraction or transportation. As a simple comparison, if the average electricity use of a Canadian resident is 9800 kWh and an Indian resident is 1075 kWh, the fact that 9.2% of Ontario power is natural gas powered while 8.2% of Indian power is from natural gas and 60.7% from coal (which is roughly twice as 'dirty' as gas). As a 'dirty power' calculation, average Ontario power use is 450.8 kWh vs average India power use is 696.6 kWh.

      My view on immigration is that 1) it's a net positive; 2) we can do it better; 3) we can accept a higher volume; 4) a large population/GDP gives us more leverage in the world. A 1.5% annual net population growth would put Canada at 1/4 of the US population in 2090.

      Unless people are getting a tourist visa 7 months in advance, they should be aware that they are pregnant. As we're talking about amending the TRV process, pregnant women would not legal obtain a visa if they would be 8+ months pregnant while in Canada. Arriving obviously pregnant would denote she lied on the visa application. It's already standard practice that after 28 weeks (6 months) to fly with a doctor's note and many airlines restrict passengers after 36 weeks (8 months).

      According to your proposed change, the children of permanent residents wouldn't be granted Canadian citizenship/residency? As it stands, if a Canadian PR gives birth while overseas, they need to complete a sponsorship application that can take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years to complete. If they can't get a TRV for the baby in that time, they must leave them behind or not return to Canada. An in-land PR application takes 4-5 years, so it's quite possible that a child born in Canada to parents en route to becoming Canadian citizens would not have the right to Canadian healthcare or education.

      Delete
    7. Why does the age of statistics relate to accuracy? Simple. It's 2016!
      2011 unemployment statistics are accurate if you are writing a history report on economics in 2011. They are not accurate if one is speaking of unemployment in 2016! The same goes for birth tourism numbers.

      Yes, if we changed the Citizenship Act as I have proposed children of permanent residents would not automatically be citizens but, nothing prevents them from becoming citizens. A good portion will already have obtained the residency requirement so, it is a very minor burden requiring completion of some paperwork and swearing the oath, in exchange-they have the right to vote and receive a Canadian passport with all the diplomatic protection such a luxury provides. It's a good deal and incentivises citizenship for many permanent residents.

      Delete
    8. I had really hoped I would not have to write about etymology or semantics but, your understanding of "fraught" is problematic and does not conform to the standard definition:

      Fraught(adj): 1 (follow by with) filled or attended with 2. [informal] causing or affected by great anxiety or distress.

      Never mind your incorrect definition; you then extrapolate a wholly different meaning based on the incorrect definition!~ Fraught does not imply a past event, fraught does not mean destined or hold any ideals of destiny, pre-ordainedness, or future events! Nor does it mean something undesirable or unfavourable! It certainly does not mean unsustainable! Although at least unsustainable is an adjective.

      Mapleson, you use fraught as a noun not an adjective in your final "definition"; Undesireable.

      My reading of your writing is you are purposely being deceptive to try and strengthen a weak position. example: "My reading of fraught". We have dictionaries in this day and age so why would you not refer to one of them? I can only conclude it is because it did not provide the answer you sought.

      In the past my policy has been not respond to your posts as I often found them inane and poorly thought out. Clearly, in hindsight, it was the correct way to act. Please refrain from replying to my posts in future. FCP

      Delete
    9. Obviously you have very little direct experience with our immigration system. You are suggesting that the children of permanent residents either be held without status for 4+ years or separated from their parents for 6-24 months is a “very minor burden”.

      To be eligible for citizenship, you need to be physically present in Canada for 1430 days and 183 days in each of 4 years. So it’s between a 4-5 year wait (5 years if you arrived after July 1). In-land family sponsorship applications are down to a 42 month wait. Out-land Dependent Child sponsorship applications are at 44 months for 80% of cases (20% being longer).


      Delete
    10. Mapleson,

      I do not understand your point or disagreement. Children of permanent residents would become permanent residents like their parents if they are not automatically granted citizenship. Why would children be separated from their parents? Are not most of these people-permanent re4sidents in Canada? If they are not in Canada it demonstrates the systemic problem with Canadian immigration policy. Where people with few links to Canada are granted rights and privileges without proper oversight or personal commitment to this country.

      183 days per year for four years is the law and only equates to a six month stay per year-that is quite lax. "1430 days" (sic). I think you mean 1460 day equates to four years, also not overly burdensome for people who want to emigrate and become citizens. The only people who this would effect are those with little intention of living in Canada, Canadians of convenience. Already one must be an "ordinary resident" to be eligible for free education, although the term is not defined and so long as you pay MSP premiums you can access healthcare. In time 4-5 years they will become citizens.

      Delete
    11. Capilano,

      Actually, as it stands, children of permanent residents born outside of Canada do not automatically become permanent residents and must apply for Dependent Child Family Class sponsorship. In some cases, the child can return to Canada if they can arrange a Temporary Resident Visa, but ironically you are less likely to be granted one if you have family in Canada, thereby increasing the likelihood of overstaying.
      I brought up the 183-days per calendar year requirement as it means anyone that arrived after July 1 in a given year must wait up to one year mean until July 1 to meet the calendar days rule.

      http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/red-deer-family-awaits-immigration-decision-on-son-trapped-in-afghanistan-1.3153609
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/adam-aboushady-baby-of-canadian-residents-stranded-in-egypt-by-immigration-rules-1.2938681
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-couple-s-son-stranded-in-india-after-immigration-application-error-1.2884581

      Delete
    12. Mapleson,

      I think I understand.

      This would only effect permanent residents who give birth outside Canada.

      I agree with the current policy. Why would we automatically allow people into this country who are not citizens? Permanent residency is not the same as citizenship and those couples who have children outside Canada should be aware of the consequences. I presume if the same permanent resident gave birth in Canada the parents (permanent residents) would not be separated from their children. So all the current system really does is prevent "lapsed" permanent residents (those no longer resident in Canada) from their children having automatic entry into Canada. I don't see anything wrong with that.

      If the system currently allows children of lapsed permanent residents automatic entry into Canada I would be strongly opposed and would think it a grave security lapse. Why should we give rights to people who are not Canadian citizens and may have very few ties to Canada? We shouldn't. Permanent residents who leave Canada before they become citizens make an individual choice-they decide they do not want to become citizens. Case closed as far as I am concerned. Canada gave them an option and they turned their back on Canada by leaving the country. Too bad if they have regrets later on.

      You are arguing children of permanent residents should have automatic residency rights in Canada! I don't think may people would agree with such a policy unless: Their parents are current permanent residents residing in Canada. If they do not reside here tough luck! You need a visa which is not much of as burden either in cost or time.

      Delete
    13. That's mostly right, Capilano. As it stands, PR who give birth inside Canada have children that are citizens. It's not just "lasped" PR who are affected by foriegn-born children, but all PR. Basically, if your a pregnant PR, you shouldn't leave the country.

      There are generally three cliche stories that happen. First, a wife is pregnant during the application process, and gives birth after it's reached "Decision Made" status, but prior to arriving and recieving their COPR. Generally, this is a window of 2-3 months. The child then needs to start a fully seperate application. Second, unknowning a pregnant PR will return to their homeland to be with their family when they give birth. Third, a family member becomes gravely sick or dies. The pregnant PR leaves the country to attend the funeral or support their family, and then either the baby arrives early or other complications delay their departure.

      The current system wouldn't allow parents with "lapsed" PR back into Canada, as they are considered "without status" and would be turned back by CBSA.

      Yes, I am arguing that any dependent child should automatically inherit their parents status (permanent resident or citizen) if we are going to revise the Citizenship Act and especially if we revise it as Pete's idea to remove the Right to Citizenship due to birth in Canada.

      The PR sponsorship process (for spouses and/or dependent children) costs about $1500 per person ($400 medical exam, $490 Right of Permanent Residence fee, $550 application fee) and takes 10-44 months for the majority of cases.

      I just don't see the rationale for Pete's theory that Vancouver hospitals are being overrun with pregnant visitors looking to have their children be Canadian citizens. They don't gain any immigration benefits (economic class doesn't award or subtract points for children of any type and Parental Supervisas require the child to meet LICO earnings).

      Delete
    14. I am afraid I must disagree. PRs who do not reside in Canada should not have the automatic right either to return or bring their children with them. Too many people have abused the system. This is unfortunate for that pregnant PR who returns to her country to attend a funeral but, we need to have controls. I understand Canada should take into account human rights concerns and other humanitarian considerations. I would support an expanded appeal process to alleviate some of those concerns. However, children of PRs who no longer reside in this country should not have automatic entry rights into Canada.

      Secondly, It is not a theory that birth tourism is impacting BC healthcare and hospitals. It's a problem.

      "BC moms turned away as birth tourism spikes" from Vancouver CTV
      http://bc.ctvnews.ca/b-c-moms-turned-away-as-birth-tourism-spikes-at-hospitals-1.3150142

      "Nothing illegal about birth tourism" Vancouver Sun.
      http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/nothing-illegal-about-birth-tourism-at-b-c-hospitals

      Delete
    15. Capilano, there is some disconnect, I’ve been talking about PRs who RESIDE IN CANADA. The Richmond BC occurrence of 305 non-resident births out of 1935 in 2015/16 at the Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) resulted in “more than a dozen” residents being turned away “in the past 18 months”. However, they have new policies for pre-registration 6-8 weeks before their due date “to help plan for space and workforce needs”.

      http://www.richmond-news.com/news/petition-filed-as-non-resident-births-rise-at-richmond-hospital-1.2294797

      Delete
  3. Éric,

    It's beyond passing strange that the CPC once supported cap and trade and now are booing Chong for proposing a carbon tax. And they think that will resonate beyond the base? Guess again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With Donald Trump as the next American President any form of carbon tax doesn't look like such a good idea anymore.

      Delete
  4. Off topic I know but does anyone have a clue what is happening in Alberta right now? The PCs are polling in majority government territory and the NDP is in fourth place 4th! Behind the Liberals!

    ReplyDelete
  5. It would seem that the polls are missing the link in Ontario.

    Trudeau/Wynne were the power couple that got the Liberals a majority government.

    Now Wynne is pretty much the most despised politician in Canada and has the support of 24.3 % of the Ontario electorate and has a 14% approval rating.

    Meanwhile the polls have Trudeau with 49.5% of support in Ontario.

    I do not see how the closely linked campaign partners would have such a dramatic difference in support.

    The Polls (either the Ontario polls or the federal polls in Ontario) have to be wrong.

    Which is it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BCVoR,

      Don't worry considering Trudeau has taken to obfuscation of the truth on an almost daily basis: This week; F-18 contract was not open sourced or tendered-against his campaign promise 2; accepting money from Chinese billionaires in violation of his own ethical guidelines. He is headed for 14% in the polls, in short order.

      If Justin had any dignity and honour he would resign for breaking his own ethics guidelines. That would show open and transparent government, as he promised!

      Liberals are addicted to money, from their big money friends. It's not just the money-they want to preserve their clique of the rich and powerful. They willingly seek advantage in unsavoury ways. Liberals are never interested in a fair fight if it means they might lose-They're stacking the deck even while they make faint sounds of electoral reform! They're cheats! Spendthrifts! and obscure of truth! I've seen enough! Does Canada really want another three years of broken promises and the obfuscation of the truth? Does Canada really want another three years where the prime minister runs roughshod over human rights so he can cozy-up to the largest and most murderous tyrannical government in history-Communist China? Does Canada want another three years where the prime minister is disappointed he can't meet his father's old dictator friend Fidel Castro and is woefully unprepared for a President Trump?

      Just yesterday Young Trudeau had the vacuous idiocy to tell children in Liberia human rights progress differently in every country! Well, I'm sorry but, human rights are human rights. We are born with them. They are God given-they are us! To deny these Liberian children that heritage is to deny their very humanity. Clearly, Justin has never read the UN Declaration of Human Rights co-written by the Canadian John Humphrey. Apparently Trudeau hasn't read much at all. Justin Trudeau is out of his league. I have come to the conclusion not only does he not have the education to be a good prime minister he lacks the intellect.

      Time to GO! Resign! Justin Resign! Otherwise he's headed straight to the bottom, 14% a la Kathleen Wynne is around the corner. The act is wearing thin.

      Delete
    2. You are talking crazy talk!!

      Here is the list of Liberals who resigned when adscam was exposed:


      .

      Interesting that The PET foundation was funded in 2001 with 125 million grant from the Chretien government who was running adscam at the same time.

      Would be very interesting how much the Trudeau boys charged the Trudeau foundation in honorariums and expenses over the last 14 years.

      I always thought that foundations like that are funded from the estates of their namesakes.

      Delete
    3. I don't think he will resign he is far too arrogant. He should resign, however because he broke his own ethics guidelines! Just as Chretien should have resigned because of adscam-He eventually did remember, after polls showing only Martin could return the Grits to a majority became the norm. He waited but, make no mistake Chretien resigned because of the sponsorship scandal leaving just before the news broke in early 2004.

      When young Trudeau presented his new ethics guidelines he asked the media to hold him and his cabinet accountable. That is what I am doing-He broke his own guidelines-He broke his word-He broke his promise to himself, his cabinet, his caucus and Canadians. Time to do the honourable thing. Resign Justin! Resign!

      Delete

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.