Ontario Vote Projection

Based on the results of the 2011 election, I am projecting a Liberal majority.

Here is the table of results for 2011.  Voter turnout was 49.2% of eligible voters which means there were 9 million eligible voters.

Assuming 50% come out to vote this time, and taking into account approximately 5.5% population growth, there will be 4.757 million voters this election.  Let's round up to 4.8 million.

There are 1.1 million civil servants that Tim Hudak alienated with his 100,000 jobs cut slogan.  Let's assume most (not all) of them turn out to vote, to save their jobs.  Let's assume half of them are married and that, half of their spouses are not civil servants, themselves.  Let's assume that most of the spouses vote and that they cast their ballots for anyone but the PC's.

Let's assume ethnic groups comprise about one quarter of the voters who go to the polls.  Let's assume just 25% of them cast ballots for the PC's.

When you subtract the civil servants, their spouses and 75% of ethnic voters, Tim Hudak's PC's are competing for what's left of a drastically shrunken pool of voters, about 2.8 million.  If they weren't scared off by Tim's hundred thousand job cuts and they forgave him for the so-called arithmetic error (what kind of a bonehead makes a stupid mistake like that?) in his Million Jobs Plan, then there is a chance some of these remaining 2.8 million will vote for Tim.  But how many?

Let's assume Andrea Horwath does no better or worse than last time, about a million votes.  That leaves 1.8 million for Tim to split with the Liberals, the Greens and all the other parties running in this riding or that.  Last time, these fringe parties siphoned away nearly 300,000 votes.

I assumed that of the remaining 1.8 million votes, 200,000 went to the Greens and to the fringe.  That left 1.6 million.

The polls suggest the Liberals are capturing 35% of uncommitted voters.  But let's assume that, of this remaining 1.6 million, the Liberals gather just 25%, 400,000.  That leaves 1.2 million votes for Tim Hudak and his PC's.

The 2014 chart looks like this:

According to my calculations, owing to the fact that popular vote does not necessarily translate exactly into a proportional number of seats, my numbers project a landslide majority for Kathleen Wynne and her Liberals.

What if this is the year everyone turns out to vote?  Will that make a difference?  Yes, but no.

If all 9.6 million voters cast a ballot on election day, Tim Hudak's PC's have a bigger pool to work with.  But according to my calculations and resulting chart, below, even this kind of fantastic turn-out will not help the Tories win the election.

It looks like it'll be a majority under any scenario.

Coincidentally, a new poll released today seems to agree. 

Ontario Votes 2014 - Their Platforms on a Napkin

Any questions?

Only One Choice on June 12 in Ontario

Ontario goes to the polls June 12 to elect a new government.  Disclosure: I am a Liberal supporter.  But I will add in the same breath that I have voted PC in the past and would do so again if they represented the better choice.

So I went to the Ontario PC website.  This is what I saw: Nothing.  Nothing but platitudes,that is, that are designed to look, feel and sound good at the thirty-thousand-foot level but, as soon as you click for more, well, there isn't any more.  For example, the website opens with, "Nearly 1 million workers in Ontario are out of a job or need a better one".  Wait a minute.  Ontario's population consists of just 13.5 million people of whom 68.4% are of working age (15-64) according to this government fact sheet.   That means there are 9.2 million working age residents.  The PC's assertion that 1 million of them are "out of a job" means that Ontario's unemployment rate is 11%.  That's funny.  Because I could have sworn Ontario's unemployment rate was 7.5%, as widely reported this week, including here.   Maybe the Conservatives really meant that, of the 1 million, more of them "need a better" job.  That makes sense.  My friends hate their jobs.  My relatives complain about their jobs too.  Heck, I'd be surprised if less than half of the people working today wouldn't say they "need a better" job.

After making a -- let's call it a weak case -- for 1 million higher quality jobs, the Conservatives lay out their plan for how they will create the jobs.  It consists of: (1) "Lower taxes and less debt" (sounds good but how do you lower taxes and reduce debt, I wonder); (2) "Affordable energy" (sounds great); (3) "Train more skilled workers" (we're doing that now, aren't we, and anyway, why, so they can go to Alberta -- in other words, how is that going to create jobs?); (4) "Increase trade with our neighbours" (isn't that what NAFTA and a ninety-cent Loonie are supposed to do?); and (5) "End the bureaucratic runaround that inhibits job creation" (translation, move government out of the way and let business do its job -- this is the piece we are all supposed to rally around, but what does it mean, exactly?).  As you can appreciate, I was left wondering what the PC's meant by these sounds-good-feels-good-must-be-good statements.  Trouble is, a click on any of them produced -- well -- again --nothing.

At least the NDP had a bit more substance in their website.  That is, until I was invited to download their Plan for Affordable Change and got to the part that said, "We will also work with Jack Layton and the federal New Democratic team to push for the expansion of Canada Pension Plan benefits".  Huh?  Jack's been dead for nearly three years.  Maybe the NDP plan needs to be refreshed a little.   Maybe the whole website needs to be updated?  Odd, because it's the NDP that triggered the Ontario election, after all.  I would have thought they'd have had their marketing materials ready to roll.

I was almost afraid to peer under the hood of the Ontario Liberal website but, to my relief, what I saw were mostly thoughtful and well-articulated policies and strategies, starting with an honest acknowledgment that Ontario operates in a highly competitive world.  Overall, in addition to a strong desire to attract businesses, create jobs, and foster economic growth, the Liberals seem to have good strategies for fighting income inequality and a scary dearth of retirement savings for a majority of Ontarions.  In that sense, they seem to be heeding the warnings of some of the most celebrated economists of our time, namely, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and, most recently, Thomas Pickety.

I have said before that capitalism is like a nuclear reaction which, if left to its own devices, blows up like an atom bomb.  Kathleen Wynne and the Ontario Liberals are the moderating rods in that nuclear reactor that tame the beast and harness its power to sustain society for generations.   Not only does she have my vote for Ontario in June, she has my vote of confidence for prime minister of Canada some day.  Perhaps that's why the current prime minister, Stephen Harper, feels threatened enough to break tradition and wade into this provincial election.