Sunday, August 09, 2009

Close Ridings

The other day, I listed all the "razor thin" ridings, wherein Liberals finished within 5% for the 2008 election, amounting to 18 seats. Here are all the ridings where the Liberals finished 5-10%, amounting to 17 seats:

Alfred-Pellan 5187 votes 9.8% Bloc

Laval 4895 votes 9.7% Bloc

Outremont 2303 votes 6.4% NDP

Pontiac 3617 votes 8.4% Con

Saint-Lambert 3962 9.1% Bloc


Brant 4789 votes 8.9% Con

Haldimand-Norfolk 4080 8.4% Con

Kenora 1967 votes 8.5% Con

Oakville 5583 votes 10% Con

Ottawa-Orleans 3702 votes 6.1% Con

Ottawa West-Nepean 4948 votes 8.9% Con

Thornhill 5212 votes 9.6% Con

Thunder Bay-Rainy River 2884 votes 8% NDP

Thunder Bay-Superior North 3091 votes 8.7% NDP

Trinity Spadina 3475 votes 5.8% NDP

British Columbia:

Vancouver Kingsway 2799 votes 6.2% NDP


447 votes 5.6% Con

Obviously, highly questionable methodology, but if you combine both sets of "swing" seats, you have the following totals:

Conservatives 123
Liberals 112
Bloc 41
NDP 30

When you look at some of the names that hold certain ridings, it's hard to see the Liberals winning all of these, which makes the numbers even more daunting. To balance that, there are a few Con ridings vulnerable, particularly to the Bloc, which would narrow the theoretical gap.

Really, the only value in pouring through the numbers is that it demonstrates how far back the Liberals have to come to win the next election. Right now, the current polling shows about a 12% national swing from 2008 between the two principle parties, the regionals slightly better math for the Liberals. But, a 66 seat gap represents a massive hurdle, especially when you factor in the intangible of incumbency. On the plus side, polling only a couple months ago showed the Liberals well placed to win what is necessary, so that latent support exists, scenarios available.


CuriosityCat said...

But still you ignore the obvious: a coalition would gain 142 seats (assuming they only won the seats you indicate and not more because of the non-opposition agreement during the election), and so would become the next government.

Harper united the right and now reigns.

Will Ignatieff show the statesmanship needed to unite the left, so that a progressive left government might take power?

Steve V said...

Maybe some of us aren't OBSESSED with tired arguments, that we need to rehash for what, eight months now?? And, you're coalition scenario here still doesn't get you a majority, so you're back to the "separatists". As for Harper uniting the right, does that mean we will have one alternative party, because if you're actually going to use that analogy, that's the implication?

CuriosityCat said...

A formal coalition representing the largest number of seats in Parliament would be asked by the Governor General to form the government.

The Bloc would then have to consider whether to support the Coalition in the first confidence motion.

If it did, the Coalition could govern as a minority government, without any formal agreement with the Bloc (unlike the formal 18 month agreement which the Liberal Party entered into with the Bloc).

If the Bloc voted against the Coalition, the GG would turn to the Tories to attempt to form a government which had the confidence of the House.

And, Steve V, reality cannot be brushed aside by using terms such as "tired arguments".

The reality is that the Liberals are stuck in territory which means the Tories will gain more seats and become the minority government after the next election. And this is because the Tories face 3 fragmented parties on the centre-left.

Deal with that problem, or remain an ineffectual protest party.

RuralSandi said...

This damn coalition thing....a vast majority of Canadians don't want it, period.

Would Layton, with his huge ego, step aside? I don't think so.

The left would have to merge prior to an election - that won't happen.

There is no guarantee that the GG would go along with it.

Steve V said...

"The reality is that the Liberals are stuck in territory which means the Tories will gain more seats and become the minority government after the next election."

And, that's called losing an election in Canada. You act like this is some new revelation. We need to win the most seats in parliament, or at least be able to present a majority with the NDP. Those are the only two options, anything else is simply wishful thinking, that ain't happening. Deal with it :)

Anonymous said...

So you came back from the BBQ to blog this :)

Yes, we are looking at a two election strategy. This shows how much time and effort was wasted on renewal during the Dion leadership. We should be doing this in 2007, not in 2009!!!

Like the Cat, I am looking for ways in which the Grits can overcome the two election strategy. Or maybe we just let Harper pull the plug on his own. Do you think the Grits can win less than 77 seats with Ignatieff, even if he runs a lacklustre campaign the next time?

Steve V said...

Before the BBQ :)