Federal Election 2011

Help Get Out The Vote

By Lorne Warwick
Published March 28, 2011

Much has been written about the badly damaged state of our Canadian democracy. Not only has the Harper Government, for the past five years, shown its contempt for Parliament, but also for the people of Canada, who have the right to expect responsible, representative and transparent government from all of our elected representatives.

The level of citizen engagement in our democratic society has dropped to dangerously low levels. The federal election of October 2008 saw a turnout of 58.8% of eligible voters, the lowest participation rate since Confederation, resulting in the second Harper minority government.

The distribution of those votes means that we are allowing a minority of people to determine the direction our country takes, the policies that are enacted, the treaties that are signed, and so on.

Given that a good portion of those who vote are 'true believers' of one political stripe or another, that means we are essentially allowing special interests to determine our collective fates.

Does this sound fair? Does this sound reasonable?

Even more disturbing is the demographic breakdown of the 2008 turnout: youth turnout (ages 18-24) was only 37.4% of those eligible to cast ballots; for those aged 25-34, it was 48%; for those 35-44, it was 53.9%; in the 45-54 category, it was 59.7.

It was only in the dinosaur category (i.e., yours truly), that voter turnout rates began to look even remotely healthy - perhaps something of an irony since we decline in so many other areas. ;)

I believe there is a way to begin to remind those who govern that they are accountable to us, and not to those monied interests who can employ expensive lobbyists agitating for more and more targeted tax breaks and other policies that may work counter to our national interests.

That way is to have a much larger proportion of average citizens exercising their franchise.

That is the reason I have created a Facebook page entitled Help Get Out The Vote - Election 2011. While I may have a political philosophy that runs counter to someone else's, I invite people of all political stripes to participate in order to help increase political awareness and to discuss ways to significantly increase voter turnout in the upcoming federal election.

My only stipulation is that discussion be kept on a civil level. Commentary based on invective, rudeness, insults, etc. will be deleted.

I hope that people who like this page will extend invitations to their family and friends to do visit and contribute to it. The more ideas, discussion and plans that people can offer, the better will be our results.

So let's use the power of social media to achieve something important. Let's work toward building a better, more democratic Canada!

Lorne Warwick is a retired high school teacher who spends his time reading, traveling, doing crosswords, volunteering, and becoming increasingly concerned about the state of democracy in Canada.

45 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By moylek (registered) - website | Posted March 29, 2011 at 07:49:12

Not only has the Harper Government, for the past five years, shown its contempt for Parliament, but also for the people of Canada,

...

My only stipulation is that discussion be kept on a civil level. Commentary based on invective, rudeness, insults, etc. will be deleted.

:|

Permalink | Context

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted March 29, 2011 at 08:55:11 in reply to Comment 61715

It's not un-civil to point out that someone who has contempt for parliment has contempt for parliment, if he said "Harper is an a*hole" -- *that would be rude.

Permalink | Context

By moylek (registered) - website | Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:36:05 in reply to Comment 61717

He didn't simply say that "the Harper Government has shown its contempt for parliament" - if he had, that would be only the mildest hyperbole and wouldn't rate comment.

But he wrote that "the Harper Government has show its contempt for the Canadian people for five years." That's a contemptuous statement itself and seems deliberately insulting - to the members of the Harper cabinet directly and indirectly to supports of the CPC. That's hardly the way to kick-start a civil discussion of politics.

I'm not leaping to Harper's or shilling for his policies. I'm pointing out that "civil discussion" does not allow unfettered sniping on those who are considered outside the pale of progressive, small-l liberal opinion which seems the norm on RtH.

As hard as it may be for many progressive urbanists to believe, there are non-troll participants here who are of the conservative persuasion - we can't assume that we can sling mud at conservatives and only spatter trolls.

Comment edited by moylek on 2011-03-29 10:39:23

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ballyhoo (anonymous) | Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:06:48

Lorne, first you must practice what you preach. You are the worst example of ad hominem attacks..so don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:22:33

I think that if we scrapped first past the post, voter turn out would be much higher. Those in power don't really want that though. They'd be just as happy if there is a 1% turnout... as long as it remains a 3 way race.

Permalink | Context

By Mr. Meister (anonymous) | Posted March 30, 2011 at 19:25:56 in reply to Comment 61725

How do you figure that?

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted March 30, 2011 at 22:24:02 in reply to Comment 61774

First past the post throws out most of the votes cast in a riding. That's how you can win a majority with only 40% of the vote. Why bother voting if your vote is not going to be counted?

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted March 29, 2011 at 12:27:16 in reply to Comment 61725

This. I think Canadian voters have watched 3 elections go by with minimal change and the 4th will be largely the same... and are getting annoyed with the process. Ever since the Reform/PC alliance was formed, the problems with our parliamentary system have become painfully apparent.

First, we have FPTP meaning that a divided left is hamstrung at the riding level. For example, Sweet in ADFW would likely have never been elected against a united party.

Second, we have the national problem of plurality-means-government. Instead of the British system where coalition is the default assumption, we let plurality form the government and take the PM's office... which might work fine if the PM's party were in the center beside two extremes, so with each confidence issue they could court one side and maintain compromise. But when they're out on a fringe next against a left-winged majority, they're going to keep losing confidence motions over and over, but they keep getting re-elected because of the plurality bug.

It's a fundamentally unbalanced system, and it's going to keep falling over.

If you think about it, the natural equilibrium of our current system with the current parties is endless elections. The Conservatives can't develop a consensus compromise because they're out on the side of the political spectrum, but they keep getting re-elected because their opposing majority is divided.

The PM should be elected by run-off voting in the House, similar in the manner of the Speaker.

That, combined with IRV or approval voting, would go a long way to making Canadian politics work.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By lorne (registered) - website | Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:49:42

Ballyhoo, I must respectfully disagree with your inference that I am being hypocritical. Because I wanted the piece to be fairly brief, I left out the specific context, i.e., the Government's many acts over the past five years that show its disdain for the people of Canada. Remember that in our Parliamentary democracy, those that we elect represent us, and so contempt for Parliament is in fact contempt for the people.

Should you so desire, I will be glad to list these acts when I have the time (it being a somewhat long list).

As well, my understanding of ad hominems is that they are usually attacks on individuals, not groups, so unless you share the perception of many that the Harper government is in fact a one-man show, I don't think it applies here. Also, it is usually an attack that has nothing to do with the contention or argument. For example, to attack global warming by saying, "I don't believe the evidence Al Gore brought out in 'An Inconvenient Truth' because he couldn't keep his marriage together" is an ad hominem, since Al Gore's marital status has nothing to do with the evidence he used in the documentary.

I hope this explanation has been helpful.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Synxer (registered) | Posted March 29, 2011 at 10:58:45

This opinion piece is clearly Liberal leaning, so I'll just assume the focus is to get us to vote for Iggy. While I am not a supporter of the Harper government (or the Conservative ideology in general), I'm not too sure any of the other options are better. Are we just buying the brandname here instead of actual progressive change?

I know that people say, "well, we'll get Iggy in and then that'll pave the way for hopeful increments of change". Has that ever worked? As recent memory serves, it generally angers the opposing side and we end up with no change at all - or tiny, mostly insignificant changes that get washed away as the next calvary comes in to "clean things up".

It's extremely frustrating to say the least.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted March 29, 2011 at 14:12:55

"The level of citizen engagement in our democratic society has dropped to dangerously low levels. The federal election of October 2008 saw a turnout of 58.8% of eligible voters, the lowest participation rate since Confederation, resulting in the second Harper minority government."

A study of these numbers from Simon Fraser University notes: "Unfortunately, there are some fundamental problems when one tries to compare voter turnout over long periods of time. Because "turnout" is simply the percentage of the people on a list of eligible voters who actually vote, the reliability of that measure depends entirely on the accuracy of the list of eligible voters." At Confederation, 11.2% of the population was eligible to vote; by the 2004 election, electors made up 74.9% of the population – and yet in absolute numbers, the 2004 election was about a half-million votes shy of the 2008 tally. Civic engagement is a moving target.

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/historical-turnout.html

Examining votes cast as a percentage of the Canadian population, rather than as a percentage of registered voters, the average of 1953-1968 electoral turnout was 42.58%, lowest in 1953 (40.7%), 1957 (41.6%) and 1968 (41.1%) – that compared to the 2008 election’s 42.0%.

[+]

Time will tell if the focus on a five-year "culture of entitlement" has helped dispel memories of the previous dozen years of breathtaking exceptionalism - marked with sensational turmoil, palm-greasing and back-scratching: the Radwanski audit, the Gomery Commission, the HRDC scandal, the EI scandal, Challenger Jets/Sea King scandals, the Gun Registry, the lobbyist culture (eg. funding the pro-Gun Registry group Coalition for Gun Control, drafting lobbyists into the PMO), the Canada Steamship Lines scandal, the tainted blood scandal, massively slashed health care transfers, tax cuts to the rich and corporations...

http://www.rabble.ca/news/paul-martin-he-has-record




Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mike (registered) | Posted March 29, 2011 at 15:23:15

Stephen Harper has done a lot for the Canadian economy, he has done an amazing job leading this country over the last few years. I am not impressed with these scandals however they are just scandals and haven't been proven. Michael Ignatieff is just being rediculous. He has vowed to persue a plan that would cost billions of tax payers dollars for college and university. But by the way it sounds it sounds like a complicated and competative process that would cost billions. He brought down the government and made a useless election that will cost $300 000 000.00 . Jack Layton is no better. He has promised Health Care funding that would also cost billions and health care is not up to the government of Canada, it is up to the provincial governments. Hes an idiot. NDP have never formed a federal government. The Bloc Quebecois are rediculous as well. They say there hasnt been enough done for Quebec. They are a seperatist movement in the parliament of Canada! Why di they allow this? All Quebecers please see that they have done no good for you.

On May 2nd VOTE Stephen Harper. VOTE Conservative

Permalink | Context

By z jones (registered) | Posted March 29, 2011 at 21:27:46 in reply to Comment 61744

If you aren't a paid shill for the Conservatives, you oughtta be. You've regurgitated all their talking points most obediently!

Stephen Harper has done a lot for the Canadian economy, he has done an amazing job leading this country over the last few years.

Canada's tight banking regulations are what has kept the economy from crashing. Harper tried to water them down before the recession, thank goodness he only had a minority and the opposition wouldn't let him.

I am not impressed with these scandals however they are just scandals and haven't been proven.

Wrong, they have been proven and we have the auditors reports to prove it.

Michael Ignatieff is just being rediculous [sic]. He has vowed to persue [sic] a plan that would cost billions of tax payers dollars for college and university.

Stephen Harper is just being ridiculous. He whittled the government's surpluses down to nothing through corporate tax cuts and then had to run a $50 billion deficit when the recession hit.

He brought down the government and made a useless election that will cost $300 000 000.00 .

Elections are how citizens have a say in our democracy, sorry you don't think that's worth the cost. If Harper didn't want an election he should have tabled a budget that at least one of the opposition parties would support. It's called having a minority.

health care is not up to the government of Canada, it is up to the provincial governments.

Wrong, health care is split between the federal and provincial governments.

Hes an idiot.

This from the guy who doesn't know how health care is financed but doesn't let that stop him from windbagging about it.

NDP have never formed a federal government.

So? The NDP are why we have things like health care in the first place.

The Bloc Quebecois are rediculous as well.

Tell the people of Quebec, they seem to think the Bloc are doing a good job of representing them.

They are a seperatist movement in the parliament of Canada!

If you're going to use the Conservative bogey men, at least learn to spell them properly. It's "separatist".

Why di they allow this?

It's called democracy, sorry you find it to be a drag.

Comment edited by z jones on 2011-03-29 21:31:32

Permalink | Context

By Brandon (registered) | Posted March 29, 2011 at 19:53:40 in reply to Comment 61744

If the "Harper Government" didn't want to fall, they needed to work with at least one of the parties, which they've been manifestly unable or unwilling to do.

They needed this election because if they didn't get it they would have been found in contempt for both the Kairos issue and the lies about the costs of the crime bill.

On another note you can't think of education as a cost, you have to think of it as an investment. If you lower the cost of it to students, more people get educated which means more high paying jobs for people, which means more tax revenue and more spending in the future.

Same with health care. Keeping people healthy means that they are more productive.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted March 29, 2011 at 15:23:46

"But...if you don't like the conservatives, you must be a Liberal. But if you don't don't like the liberals....you must be a conservative..."

Ummm...neither. You cannot sum up the views of a nation full of people with a single binary variable.

Permalink | Context

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted March 29, 2011 at 16:33:33 in reply to Comment 61745

Exactly. And my earlier point was not intended as a pro-Tory apology so much as an argument for the corrupting influence of power and the longstanding imperiousness of the ruling party.

Aside from the Tories, Grits, Bloc, NDP and Greens, you can choose from...

Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party >> environmentvoters.org
Canadian Action Party >> canadianactionparty.ca
Christian Heritage Party >> chp.ca
Communist Party >> communist-party.ca
First Peoples National Party >> fpnpoc.ca
Libertarian Party >> libertarian.ca
Marijuana Party >> marijuanaparty.ca
Marxist-Leninist Party >> cpcml.ca
Newfoundland and Labrador First >> nlfirst.ca
People's Political Power Party >> peoplespoliticalpower.ca
Progressive Canadian Party >> progressivecanadian.ca
Western Block Party >> westernblockparty.com
Work Less Party >> worklessparty.org
NeoRhino party >> neorhino.ca


... and of course independents.

Permalink | Context

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 07, 2011 at 15:11:01 in reply to Comment 61750

BTW, you can trace the lineage of these sorts of greasy dealings back at least as far as the 200+ patronage appointments inked in the closing days of the second Trudeau administration, continuing under the three Liberal PMs and four Conservative PMs that followed.

http://jeanchretien.libertyca.net/html/0057.html

Now the outrages grow like monster homes and brazen self-interest seems to be viewed as a constitutional right.

Permalink | Context

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 05, 2011 at 09:05:13 in reply to Comment 61750

An Other Parties Discussion – a coalition of smaller political parties – is tentatively scheduled for Saturday April 23 at York University in Toronto.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/05/green-party-snubs-fringe-debate/

Permalink | Context

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted March 30, 2011 at 01:53:35 in reply to Comment 61750

Don't forget the Pirate Party of Canada.

http://www.pirateparty.ca/

Permalink | Context

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted March 30, 2011 at 08:29:45 in reply to Comment 61763

Arrrrr... can't believe I overlooked that one!

Another 2010 registrant:

United Party of Canada >> unitedpartyofcanada.com

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By moylek (registered) - website | Posted March 29, 2011 at 21:45:49

If you lower the cost of it to students, more people get educated which means more high paying jobs for people, which means more tax revenue and more spending in the future.

That's true to a point - but at some point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in and you get less and less for every dollar you spend on education. So the question is not "is it worth spending money on education", it's "where on that curve are we now?"

Comment edited by moylek on 2011-03-29 21:59:16

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By sBallyhoo (anonymous) | Posted March 29, 2011 at 22:10:24

Lorne, here is what you say, "Ballyhoo, I must respectfully disagree with your inference that I am being hypocritical." and you go on to be smug in explaining what you intended. Of course I was referring to your other posts where you take individuals to task on other issues. So don't dismiss your history of ad hominem attacks. Also, your 'get out the vote' suggestion is a not so thinly veiled anti-Tory attack. Why don't you just say your are a shill for the NDippers?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By BobInnes (registered) - website | Posted March 31, 2011 at 19:11:14

Getting Canada out of Afghanistan is a main concern in this election.

Permalink | Context

By Fritz Dei (anonymous) | Posted April 01, 2011 at 08:57:06 in reply to Comment 61800

I'm lousy at anagrams. "Fan Gnash At I" is as close as I can get.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted April 02, 2011 at 23:29:33

Let me preface by saying that I enjoy elections and politics in general (yes, you read that correctly). Let me also say that at some point in my life, I have voted for all 3 main political parties. My biggest beef with Canadian voters: pigeonholing themselves into only voting for one party and one party only.

Whenever I hear someone say "I only vote _______", I always ask them why. The answers will astound you. The main 3 reasons always seem to be:

1) "I was raised to vote for the ________________ party". (Are you kidding me? You only vote that way because that's how you're parents always voted? Very scary)

2) "I really liked (insert old PM here i.e.Trudeau)" or "I really hated (insert old PM here i.e. Mulroney)". Okay, it's a bit better than reason #1. But just because you liked Trudeau, doesn't mean that Iggy will be anything like him. Likewise, just because you hated Mulroney, doesn't mean Harper is anything like him.

3)"Their political ideology most resembles mine". A much better reason than #1 or #2, and a reason that I can actually respect. However, this does not particularly guarantee that they will actually pay attention to the election and study the platforms.

I encourage all Canadians to think outside their comfort zone and study each parties platforms (the Liberals is due tomorrow, the NDP should be released soon and CPC is basically their budget). If in the end, your mind hasn't changed, then vote the way you originally intended. Too many people get pigeonholed into voting for a certain party, and it's a hard hole to get out of. Remember, it's our country's fate that's in our hands!

We can do it!

Comment edited by mb on 2011-04-02 23:30:09

Permalink | Context

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted April 03, 2011 at 15:35:31 in reply to Comment 61824

mb,

I feel the same way. It bothers me so much that a lot of people say things like "I'm a liberal" or "I'm a conservative". To pigeon hole one's self to a particular party seem ridiculous to me as well. As long as people think like that, there is no reason for any party to try and better themselves or the voters they are supposed to be working for.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 04, 2011 at 09:50:48

"The Conservatives know that by throwing mud at whoever is leading the Liberals, it will persuade some of their supporters not to show up at the ballot box.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that Stephen Harper's party smears anyone who happens to be heading the Liberals.

In the 1984 and 1988 elections, 75.3 percent of eligible voters cast ballots.

In 1993, that fell to 69.6 percent. It was 67 percent in 1997, and only 61.2 percent in 2000.

In 2008, there was a record low turnout of 58.8 percent for a federal election.

If the Conservatives can suppress the turnout even more in the May 2 federal election, their chances of winning will increase.

That's because wealthier voters—who tend to vote Conservative—are more likely to show up at the polls than low-income Canadians."

...

http://www.straight.com/article-384795/vancouver/stephen-harpers-secret-weapon-low-voter-turnout

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 05, 2011 at 11:26:18

Not sure how this might impact Hamilton, since the city is both struggling with poverty numbers and perpetually looking for miraculous budget solutions:

The Liberal plan, released Sunday, promises a $275-million-a-year “Affordable Housing Framework,” aiming to reduce homelessness, and build and maintain social housing. To pay for this, a Liberal government would end the $1-billion Public Private Partnership Infrastructure Fund on the grounds that it has “accomplished virtually nothing.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cities-bristle-at-liberal-plan-to-scuttle-1-billion-infrastructure-fund/article1970238/

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 05, 2011 at 15:00:45

Reelection reels, north and south:

"Our Country"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rEkFG5MNTk

"It Begins With Us"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-VZLvVF1FQ

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 05, 2011 at 16:59:59

Reductio ad absurdum.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/05/election-2011-help-your-favourite-party-seize-control-with-geopollster-and-the-national-post/

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Briar Pipe (anonymous) | Posted April 07, 2011 at 08:57:16

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

RE: Declaration of Candidacy MEETING FOR MICHAEL BALDASARO
FRIDAY, APRIL 8TH, 2011 from 12 to 2 pm at HAMILTON CITY HALL


I am pleased to announce that the Marijuana Party has nominated me
to be their Candidate for the Riding of Hamilton-Centre in the 2011 Federal Election to be held May 2nd, 2011.

On Friday, April 8th, from 12 noon to 2 pm, I invite all interested electors, to meet with me, downstairs, at Hamilton City Hall, 71 Main Street, West, to sign my Nomination Papers. Anyone interested in signing before then please call me @ (905) 522-3247.

Note: The Canada Elections Act requires that I obtain 100 signatures from qualified electors residing within the boundaries of Hamilton-Centre in order to be officially nominated to run for office.

Elections Canada Boundary Map for Hamilton-Centre:
http://www.elections.ca/scripts/pss/PopUpWindows.asp?ED=35031

Thank you in advance for your help and participation in this Election.

Be Well and prosper,
In peace, bless us all!


Michael James Baldasaro
Marijuana Party Candidate, Hamilton Centre

4-19 Westinghouse Avenue
Hamilton, Ontario L8L 6E4
Voice: (905) 522-3247
eMail: michaelbaldasaro@live.ca

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Señor Advisor (anonymous) | Posted April 08, 2011 at 14:31:32

Está cercano a la medianoche que algo malvado está estando al acecho en la obscuridad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKRFf6_YF8

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 12, 2011 at 07:55:26

"A newly released Ipsos Reid poll indicates 46 per cent of Canadians see Harper (down one point) as someone who will get things done, while 28 per cent see NDP leader Jack Layton (up one point) that way. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff actually gained four points to 21 per cent, while Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe sits at 5 per cent see, a drop of three points.

In addition, the majority of Canadians (51 per cent) believe Harper is the best person to manage the economy in troubled times. Layton finished second (23 per cent) in this category, ahead of Ignatieff (22 per cent) and Duceppe (four per cent).

Harper has been accused, in many circles, of being cagey, but 42 per cent of Canadians believe he is trustworthy. Thirty-six per cent think Jack Layton is trustworthy, 17 per cent would give that attribute to Michael Ignatieff and 6 per cent would use that adjective to describe Gilles Duceppe.

Those results represent a two point increase since March for Layton and Ignatieff each, a three point drop for Duceppe and no change at all for Harper."

http://www.globalnews.ca/story.html?id=4596948

Permalink | Context

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 12, 2011 at 08:22:32 in reply to Comment 62082

Since results like these make it look like we're in for Conservative Minority III, it's interesting to look back at the polling trends (whose merit is mainly entertainment value) preceding the 2006 election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CombinedPollsVotes-39Cdnelxn.png

One month out – circa Chrétien's legal challenge of the Gomery report, final sponsorship scandal revelations (inquiry deadline was Dec 2005), Goodale's income-trusts/insider trading scandal, and the Jane Creba shooting on Boxing Day – was the inflection point.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 13, 2011 at 08:47:20

http://www.leadnow.ca/en/declaration

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 13, 2011 at 09:03:17

"Immediately following the English-language leaders’ debate, a flash poll of debate viewers conducted by Ipsos Reid has found that four in ten (42%) English-speaking viewers say Conservative Leader Stephen Harper won the debate, up from the 34% of Canadians who, prior to the debate, thought he would win.

The poll, conducted exclusively for Global National in the half-hour immediately following the debate, shows that Prime Minister Stephen Harper scored significantly higher than his nearest rival, NDP Leader Jack Layton, who also improved on his pre-debate expectations (+12 to 25%). Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, however, failed to improve upon his expectations with 23% of English-speaking Canadians saying he won the debate, unchanged from pre-debate expectations. Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe met his expectations, with 2% saying he won the debate (unchanged)."

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5201

Permalink | Context

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 13, 2011 at 09:31:11 in reply to Comment 62171

Nanos numbers (for 3 days ending April 12) suggest the gap is not as substantial but still puts the Tories on top. Will be interested to see what the next sample shows.

Conservative 39.9% (+0.2)
Liberal 30.4% (-0.8)
NDP 16.3% (-0.5)
BQ 9.1% (+1.3)
Green 3.8% (-0.2)

http://www.nanosresearch.com/main.asp

Permalink | Context

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 13, 2011 at 09:07:23 in reply to Comment 62171

"Stephen Harper's Conservatives have gained a massive 21-point lead over Michael Ignatieff's Liberals, according to a new COMPAS Research poll obtained exclusively by QMI Agency.

In Ontario, the Liberals trail their Conservative opponents in every area of the province except Toronto — although Harper leads in the city's suburbs.

The poll, the largest telephone survey of the campaign, also found that Ignatieff is trailing both the Conservatives and the NDP in Quebec, as NDP Leader Jack Layton shows some surprising strength in the province."

http://www.torontosun.com/news/decision2011/2011/04/12/17970681.html

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 14, 2011 at 09:09:07

Tories narrowly edging Liberals on Foursquare.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/geopollster/index.html

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 18, 2011 at 22:31:25

On a day when the New Democrats are riding high in national public-opinion polls, a new survey suggests that NDP Leader Jack Layton is entrenching himself as a viable leader in the minds of Canadians.

The survey of 400 Canadians conducted Sunday by Nanos Research as part of a daily rolling poll suggests voters’ appreciation for Mr. Layton’s leadership skills rose slightly from the day before to 58.1 on the polling company’s index.

t the same time, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s numbers took a dive from 51.9 to 40.5.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper remained significantly ahead of all of the other leaders, at 95.9. But incumbent prime ministers have an advantage in this type of poll because Canadians have had the opportunity to observe them in office and can envision them as a leader.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/laytons-leadership-edge-on-ignatieff-will-be-hard-to-lose-pollster-says/article1990056/

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted April 18, 2011 at 22:39:35

The Conservatives are hitting the home stretch with a 12-point lead over the Liberals, while the NDP enjoys a swell of national support, a new Ekos-iPolitics poll shows.

Pollster Frank Graves said the NDP is the only party that has improved its prospects during the campaign. The survey of 2,400 Canadians finds 37.4 per cent would vote Conservative, 24.9 per cent Liberal, and 20 per cent NDP. Another 8.4 per cent plan to vote for the Green Party and 7.8 per cent for the Bloc Québécois.


http://ipolitics.ca/2011/04/18/conservatives-in-lead-ndp-gain-steam-as-campaign-hits-home-stretch/

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds