Thursday, May 29, 2014
The concept has been used in the UK for half a century.
A simple explanation is this: they line up the ridings in order of strongest for major party A to weakest for major party A (and therefore strongest for major party B). They then compute the swing required for each seat to flip to the other party (half of the margin between the parties +1). They can therefore determine how many seats each party should win based on a particular swing in the popular vote.
Based on my seat model, the last election under the new boundaries would have resulted in 38 PCs and 11 Liberals. The PCs won the popular vote by 14.4 percentage points, and therefore a swing between the parties of 7.2 points in favour of the Liberals would result in a tie of the popular vote.
According to my calculations however, it would actually take a swing of 7.7 percentage points for the Liberals to win a majority government by taking Moncton South as the 25th and decisive seat.
A swing to the PCs of over 11.6 percentage points would be required for them to sweep every seat in the legislature. But a swing to the PCs of just over 1.7 percentage points would reduce the Liberals to 5 seats - showing just how close the last election was to a near wipe-out for the Liberals.
Conversely, the Liberals would need a swing of over 23.3 percentage points to take all of the seats.
The above is blind to the NDP. By design, the swingometer is a two-dimensional creature and can compare only two parties. However, the strength of the NDP changes the ordering slightly even if they're ignored for swingometer purposes.
This is what the swingometer looks like if we use the last CRA poll as a base. That poll had the Liberals at 43% and the PCs at 31% (the NDP was at 21%). That would indicate a result moving from PCs +14 at the 2010 election to PCs -12, a change of 26 percentage points and a swing of 13 percentage points. Using these numbers as a base, we would expect an election to yield 39 Liberals, 8 PCs and 2 NDPers.
As you can see, both of the NDP seats come at the expense of what would otherwise have been Liberal seats with this big of a swing. However, if we look at them in terms of road to majority government, the NDP is doing equal damage to both parties: taking an otherwise safe Liberal seat (Saint John Harbour) and an otherwise leans PC seat (Fredericton West-Hanwell).
In order to recover to a majority government from this poll number, the PCs need a swing of over 5.7 percentage points to win Southwest Miramichi-Bay du Vin and take 25 seats.
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
To win a majority government in the 2014 New Brunswick election, a party will need to take 25 seats. The question: which seat is most likely to be that 25th seat?
I am not as sophisticated as Nate Silver. My analysis was relatively simple. I took all of the ridings and sorted them by the expected PC margin of victory/defeat and then did the same for the Liberals and for the NDP. This ranks the ridings from strongest to weakest for each party. In theory, the 25th strongest seat for the PCs would be their tipping point. I did this with two sets of data, one a simple average of results across the past several elections along the new boundaries, and a second with this data adjusted for incumbency and leadership factors as described here.
Because this data is imprecise and local factors may skew close ridings in one direction or the other, I initially focused on a range of 10 tipping point ridings. Some ridings showed up on all four lists, while others were wishy-washy as to whether or not they could be the tipping point.
A total of 7 ridings fall on all four of the lists between the two major parties, these being the PC and Liberal adjusted and non-adjusted lists of seats in the range of 20-30th best. According to the data, it is in these 7 ridings that the election is most likely to be decided:
- Saint John Portland
- Kent South
- Moncton South
- Southwest Miramichi-Bay du Vin
- Miramichi Bay-Neguac
Other contenders for PC-Liberal tipping point seats are:
- Rothesay (appeared on 3 lists)
- Fredericton West-Hanwell (appeared on 3 lists)
- Moncton East (appeared on 2 lists)
- Charlotte-Campobello (appeared on 2 lists
- Saint John Lancaster (appeared on 1 list)
- Carleton-Victoria (appeared on 1 list)
Based on the reality of the past several years some of these seats seem misplaced, but that is less so the case when you consider the following fact. Something occurred to me while I was working on this list that I guess I knew but which I hadn't quite realized. The Liberals have not won the popular vote in an election in New Brunswick since 1995.
Ridings like Saint John Portland and Rothesay which are held by senior cabinet ministers and have been PC since 1999 would not seem on their face to be tipping point seats. But they were both won very narrowly in the close elections of 2003 and 2006. It is no surprise to see Quispamsis on this list, it (and its predecssor Kings West) has a perfect record of voting with the winning party going back to the establishment of single member ridings in 1974.
What about the NDP?
It is unlikely that the NDP will win the election. Really, they are looking to ensure they win seats in the legislature for the first time since the 2003 election. So, I've looked at their first 10 seats.
Nine seats show up on both the adjusted and non-adjusted list for the NDP:
- Fredericton West-Hanwell
- Saint John Harbour
- Fredericton South
- Saint John East
- Saint John Portland
- Kings Centre
Thursday, March 06, 2014
The idea behind a seat model is to try to convert the popular vote estimates from an opinion poll into a seat count as the latter is far more relevant to our politics.
The fact that Richard Hatfield lost the popular vote in 1974, did not prevent him from being premier of a majority government for four years before winning the popular vote in 1978 and 1982. The fact that 40% of New Brunswickers voted for non-Liberal candidates in 1987, did not get any of them elected. More recently, Shawn Graham also won a majority government while losing the popular vote in 2006.
To summarize: the popular vote doesn't tell the whole story in our system of government. It is the seats that count.
There are two general approaches that one can take in a seat model. Uniform swing or proportional swing.
Uniform swing has been used for years in Britain and Australia.
It means that all parties take the same arithemetic benefit or loss from their change of support throughout the jurisdiction. So if the Labour vote is down by 10 percentage points from 40 to 30, it drops by 10 percentage points in every riding. In riding X, their support drops from 50% to 40% (which means they've lost 20% of their base votes), in riding Y it drops from 15% to 5% (which means they've lost 67% of their base votes).
The alternative is proportional swing. This is what is generally used by election projectionists in North America, including the site ThreeHundredEight.com which has projected a lot of Canadian elections from polls. Calgary Grit and FiveThirtyEight use seat models which are built on a base of proportional swing, with many other fancy features.
It means that parties move in support relative to their base. So if the Labour vote is down by 10 percentage points from 40 to 30, it drops by 25% in every riding, meaning they take a relatively bigger hit in ridings were they had more votes to lose. In riding X, their support drops from 50% to 37.5% (25% of 50% is 12.5 percentage points), in riding Y it drops from 15% to 11.25% (25% of 15% is 3.75 percentage points).
The teaser seat modelling I have done on Twitter has been based on a proportional swing method.
I have spent the past several weeks improving and testing the model in anticipation for the main event in September.
One of the things I tested was each of the past 5 elections' popular vote versus the actual results in seats.
Interestingly, I found that proprtional swing does a better job producing the overall provincewide seat total. However, it does this while making many errors at the local seat level which tend to cancel each other out. While the uniform swing doesn't do quite as will with the final overall result, it does do a better job at the local seat level (its errors tend to be in one direction rather than both, so its overall numbers are worse).
I played around with a number of "half-way" alternatives. The most simple of these, taking the result under uniform swing and under proportional swing and simply averaging them proved to work the best. On average it tied the uniform swing for accuracy at the local level, and proportional swing for accuracy at the provincial level. I will be using this hybrid model going forward.
This model uses results of the 1995-2010 general elections as a base. I have transposed the 1995-2003 ridings and the 2006-2010 ridings onto the new boundaries to be used for the 2014 election. The 1995-2003 are weighted half as much as the two more recent 2006 and 2010 elections to create an "average" election result from which the model builds its projection based on change in the popular vote from that hypothetical election to what the opinion polls are saying. For the Greens and PANB, their 2010 results are used as a base as that is the only election they have contested. Votes for defunct parties and independents are ignored by the model.
This model is not as fancy as the models used by Calgary Grit and FiveThirtyEight, which model thousands of iterations based on the margins of error, etc and generate a percentage liklihood of each parties' chance of winning a particular riding. I do run about a dozen scenarios through the model pushing each party to the upper and lower range of the margin of error to generate seat ranges.
Adjustments: A Hand Up for the Leader
Another measure that I have incorporated into the model is a "leader bounce".
I've looked at the result of the leader in his or her riding in those elections he or she contested, and that of his or her party in that riding in the elections immediately before and after his or her leadership tenure. This allows one to assume how a generic candidate of the leader's party might have done in that riding so that it can be compared to the leader's result.
For instance, Robert Higgins led the Liberal Party in the 1974 election. He ran in the riding of Saint John Park. He received 14.6 percentage points more of the popular vote in his riding than the Liberal Party did provincewide. We cannot look at the previous election as Saint John Park was part of the 4-member Saint John Centre riding at that time. We therefore look at the two succeeding elections. In 1978, the Liberals beat their provincewide showing in Saint John Park as well, but only by 2.6 percentage points. In 1982, the Liberals did 4.6 percentage points better in Saint John Park than they did provincewide. The average of these two comparable elections is a 3.6 percentage point lean to the Liberals, while the riding leaned 14.6 percentage points to the Liberals when Higgins was leader. We therefore calculate Higgins' leader bounce as 11.0 percentage points.
The analysis finds that 15 of the 17 men and women who have led one of the three major political parties into an election since 1974, have had a bounce on average. If we single out each election contest, of the 10 elections since 1974*, the 3 major party leaders have had a bounce 25 of 30 times. The two exceptions are Richard Hatfield, who underperformed what we assume a generic Tory would have done in Carleton Centre in 1978, 1982 and 1987 and Shawn Graham, who underperformed what we assume a generic Liberal (actually, not that generic as the comparator is his father) would have done in 2003 and 2006. Hatfield exceeded expectations in 1974, while Graham exceeded expectations in 2010. All other leaders have exceeded expectations versus their provincewide popular vote every time they've led their party to the polls.
So, it is clear to say that there is a leader bounce. Unpacking the numbers a bit, a few other potential conclusions can be observed:
- Liberal leaders tend to get smaller bounces than Conservative and NDP leaders. My conjecture on this is that because all 6 Liberal leaders since 1974 have run in ridings that lean Liberal to begin with, their potential voter pool is already somewhat saturated. Conservative leaders Dennis Cochrane and Bernard Lord ran in ridings that were then somewhat less Conservative-leaning than the province as a whole, as did NDP leaders John LaBossiere and Roger Duguay.
- Liberal and Conservative leaders tend to get their biggest bounce in their first election as leader, while NDP leaders tend to see their bounce grow over time.
- While Liberal leaders tend to have the same-sized bounce whether they win or lose the election, Conservative leaders actually do better in their home riding relative to the provincewide performance of their party when losing the election than when they win. Thus, it is more likely for a Liberal leader to lose his or her seat when being swept out of office than a Conservative, though this has not happened in recent history.
These conclusions should all be taken with a grain of salt. The whole analysis is based on 30 cases, which is a very small sample size. The three observations above are drawn from subsets of that already small sample. However, I believe that there is a compelling enough case to adjust for the presence of the leader. I have applied an "anti-leader bounce" to past ridings in elections where a leader was a candidate, and have in turn applied an appropriate leader bounce to the five ridings being contested to the party leaders in 2014.
*I thought I would explain why I only went back to 1974 for those who were interested, but it was too long a tangent to include in the main body of the post. Prior to that, analysis is difficult if not impossible as multi-member ridings were in place and calculating voting trends is very difficult. New Brunswick used the block voting system prior to 1974 in most ridings. Under this system, many ridings returned more than one member and each voter had as many voters as his riding had members. For instance, a voter in Gloucester County could cast 5 votes, while a voter in Campbellton could cast only 1. Thus, it is impossible with the data available to calculate the popular vote (that could only be done by examining every individual ballot). Moreover, as voters were not required to cast all of their votes (our Gloucester voter could have chosen to vote for 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 candidates) and they could split their ballot (that is to say our Gloucester voter might have case 2 ballots for Liberals, 2 ballots for Conservatives and 1 for an NDPer). Due to this additional complication, it is impossible attempt to accurately transform the votes into a form that could compare with the popular votes in single member ridings after 1974.
Adjustments: A Hand Up for Incumbents
I've also done some research on whether or not the "incumbency factor" exists in New Brunswick elections. I looked at the 1978, 1982, 1987, 1991, 1999, 2003 amd 2010 elections (all elections where the previous election was fought under the same boundaries). In those elections, it showed that on average incumbents did about 6 points better than non-incumbents controlling for the regular partisan advantage within their ridings. This worked out to be virtually the same for Liberals and Conservatives. I also looked at the 1995 and 2006 elections to determine whether or not this holds true when the incumbent is running in a riding with significant portions that he or she has not previously represented. In these cases it looks like incumbents do on average 4 points better. I have applied a five point "bonus" to incumbents, including in cases where there are two incumbents in the same riding (meaning they have no relative advantage over each other, but they do over minor parties).
Effectiveness: How Would Have it Worked?
I plugged the popular vote results for the last 5 elections into the model as a test. It called the overall seat total correctly in the 2006 election, missed by no more than 1-2 seats per party in 1999 and 2003, and no more than 3 seats per party in 1995 and 2010. The incubmency factor was not in play in these tests and may have improved the results. In any event, if the polls are correct (always a big if), it seems this model should come fairly close to the seat totals as the election approaches.
I will begin using this seat model with the CRA poll to be released later today.
Monday, February 24, 2014
This is my latest assessment of where the five parties stand a good chance of winning in 2014. First, I assessed the general leanings of each of the new 49 ridings for the two main parties, then I looked at the NDP's best shots, and then the Greens. Now I turn to the People's Alliance.
In some ways, the People's Alliance provides the most difficult task for objective analysis. The NDP has been on the ballot for decades, so it is easy to look for trends and consistent pockets of strength. For the Greens, though they too have only fought one election, there are at least federal election results where the Greens have had consistent campaigns and trends going back to 2004.
The People's Alliance has no federal counterpart and has no provincial electoral history. And even in 2010, they only contested 14 of 55 ridings. How might they have done in the other 41 ridings had they been on the ballot? It is nearly impossible to say.
However, there is one other dataset at which we can look. That is the results for the Confederation of Regions party in the 1991 and 1995 elections. The People's Alliance does not seem to welcome comparisons to CoR. However, they are both populist parties made up principally of right-of-centre individuals with a skepticism towards at least some aspects of official bilingualism. Even if PANB is not a successor to CoR, they would seem to compete for the same universe of voters.
It is not likely a coincidence that the leader and deputy leader of the party both hail from areas where CoR won seats in 1991.
It is easy to write off the People's Alliance as a fringe party after they got only 1.2% of the vote in 2010. However, that does not tell the whole story. The People's Alliance only contested a small subset of ridings, PANB got 4.9% of the vote in the 14 ridings where they actually ran candidates.
Compare this to the Greens who took 5.0% in the 49 ridings they contested. When one looks at the potential for these two parties, they must be treated at least as equals. Indeed, the Alliance vote was more "efficient" in that their best riding saw their candidate take almost 50% more of the vote share than in the Greens' best riding.
Curiously, the People's Alliance ran in only 2 of the 9 ridings in Central New Brunswick which had been CoR's strongest region in 1991. This suggests there was untapped potential for the party in 2010. Indeed, with the PCs almost certain to lose some of their vote from 2010 (when they scored their second highest popular vote in modern history), the PANB is well positioned to capture right-of-centre voters who would not consider the Liberals, NDP or Greens.
Taking a look back to CoR's 1991 results, they won 8 ridings. I'll lay them out here and explain how they relate to current ridings:
- Fredericton North: The current Fredericton North falls completely within the boundaries of this old riding, but significant portions of the old Fredericton North can also be found in Fredericton-York and Fredericton-Grand Lake
- York North: This old riding is distributed almost evenly between Fredericton-York and York
- York South: Most of this old riding can be found in York and Fredericton-Hanwell, small portions of it can be found in New Maryland-Sunbury and Charlotte-Campobello
- Sunbury: This riding is split roughly in three between Fredericton-Grand Lake, Oromocto-Lincoln and New Maryland-Sunbury
- Oromocto: This riding is wholly contained in the new riding of Oromocto-Lincoln
- Southwest Miramichi: This riding is almost wholly contained in the new riding of Southwest Miramichi-Bay du Vin, small pieces of it are in Miramichi Bay-Neguac
- Riverview: Most of this riding is still found in the modern riding of Riverview, with pieces of it in Albert
- Albert: This riding is almost wholly contained within the new, larger Albert riding; a small piece of it can be found in Sussex-Fundy-St. Martins
One of the advantages that CoR had in 1991 which they won't in 2014, is that there were no PC incumbents. Right-of-centre voters had no sitting MLAs where they were naturally aligned. This probably allowed them to get higher vote totals than they might have otherwise. For this reason, PANB may want to target opportunities where there is no PC incumbent, such as New Maryland-Sunbury.
First Tier TargetsThese are ridings where PANB has nominated candidates early, the candidate has some profile, and the riding has shown a sympathy for the party. All of these are key factors in a potential breakthrough.
Party leader Kris Austin will run here. He scored an impressive 20% of the vote in the old Grand Lake-Gagetown riding in 2010. Even though there was no People's Alliance candidate on the ballot in Fredericton-Fort Nashwaak in that election, the redistributed boundaries give Austin a starting base of 15%. This is because Austin took a whooping 30% of the vote within the Grand Lake-Gagetown polls that move into this new district.
This was the Alliance's second best seat in 2010, where St. Andrews mayor John Craig took nearly 7% of the vote. They have again nominated a candidate here with a high profile and by nominating her early that should give them an organizational edge. Working against them is the fact that this was not a strong area for CoR in 1991, when they placed third in both Charlotte West and St. Stephen-Milltown. However, this riding brings in polls from the McAdam area which gave CoR 54% of the vote in 1991. This is also a riding where the NDP has the potential to do well, so if the Alliance can make a good run here, it could become a four-way race which could be won with less than 30% of the vote.
Southwest Miramichi-Bay du Vin
CoR won the Southwest Miramichi part of this riding by a slim margin in 1991, while doing very poorly in the Bay du Vin portion of the riding. In 2010, Wes Gullison got 5% of the vote here - roughly mirroring the average PANB received in ridings where they stood candidates. Therefore, on paper this does not really look like a great riding for the People's Alliance. However, Gullison is already renominated and should have the advantage of an early start. This combined with his profile as deputy leader of the party, should give him a slight edge.
Second Tier TargetsThese are ridings where either COR did well in 1991 or the People's Alliance did well in 2010 and where there is either no incumbent, or where the incumbent running has not represented the majority of the new riding previously.
This would have been a very strong riding for CoR in 1991 and has the advantage of being one of the few ridings where the People's Alliance can realistically compete where there is no PC incumbent on the ballot. They would be wise to nominate a candidate here soon.
York North was the Alliance's third best riding in 2010, and it is from that riding that the new York draws most of its population. Carl Urquhart, PC incumbent from the old York riding, has prepsented less than 20% of this new territory. The PANB's 2010 candidate was former Nackawic mayor Steven Hawkes. He did very well despite being nominated late. Nackawic finds itself in the centre of this new riding, while it was on the outer-edge of York North with some of its closest neighbours, including Hawkes' hometown of Canterbury in another district. Were Hawkes to run again and be nominated early, the stars are fairly well aligned for him, relatively speaking.
CoR would have won or nearly won this riding in 1991. The PC incumbent from Grand Lake-Gagetown has represented a minority of the riding.
Third Tier Targets
These are ridings where CoR did well in 1991 or the People's Alliance did well in 2010, but are represented by strong PC incumbents.
MLA Kirk MacDonald has served since 1999 and has won all elections easily, except for 2003 when he won by only 101 votes. The new Fredericton-York riding draws just under 50% of its population from MacDonald's current York North riding, however when one takes territory he currently represents as well as territory from the old pre-2006 riding of Mactaquac, MacDonald has represented a solid majority of this area. While this riding would have gone for CoR in 1991, it would have done so against first-term incumbent Liberal backbenchers, far easier targets for a conservative-populist than a four-term Conservative.
Unlike Fredericton-York, this riding is in fact largely unchanged from when CoR won it in 1991 (it has added a bit of Riverview and the village of Salisbury). However, as with York North and Fredericton North (the 'ancestors' of Fredericton-York), then the CoR candidate defeated a one-term Liberal backbencher. Defeating a four-term Conservative like Wayne Steeves is a far taller order.
Fourth Tier Targets
These are ridings where CoR did well in 1991 but the People's Alliance did not contest in 2010. They are also ridings where demographic changes mean CoR would not likely have done as well today as they did 20 years ago and thus the Alliance is less likely to find them attractive targets.
- Fredericton West-Hanwell
- Fredericton North
The People's Alliance are likely longshots to win any seats if current polling trends hold. However, if they can manage to capture a significant slice of declining PC support and concentrate that in the Fredericton area as CoR did in 1991, it is not unrealistic for them to see a win. Kris Austin starts with a base of 30% in his home turf, if he can take 30% across the whole of his new riding then he would be very well positioned to win. It is not hard to imagine 35% of the vote being enough to carry Fredericton-Grand Lake in this election. I would say Austin's odds at winning are similar to the odds of Greens leader David Coon.
Overall, I would say that the People's Alliance are more likely to wind up as the fourth party in the legislature than the Greens. That, however, remains an unlikely scenario.
Monday, February 10, 2014
This post looks at places for a possible Green breakthrough, something that is far less likely than a breakthrough for the NDP. Next will come a look at potential breakthroughs for the People's Alliance.
Unlike the PCs, Liberals and NDP, the Greens (and PANB) have little electoral history to look at to judge where they might do well, as they have only contested one previous election. With only one dataset, it is impossible to know which areas of strength were due to a natural affection for the Green Party and its positions, and which were due to unique circumstances, like the strength of the local Green candidate, the weakness of other parties' candidates, a fleeting local issue, etc.
That being the case, this analysis should be taken with several grains of thoughts (even more than my usual observations).
The Greens seem to be stuck at sub-5% in the opinion polls. This would suggest that they are unlikely to win a seat under our first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system. However, it is not impossible. If their efforts are very specifically focused, they could succeed. One needs look no further than the example of federal Green leader Elizabeth May who won a seat in the last federal election with a nationwide popular vote of 3.9%. Other examples of success with this level of support would be the BC Progressive Democrats (1 seat on 5.7% in 1996), the Alberta Representative Party (2 seats on 5.1% in 1986), the Manitoba Liberals (1 seat on 7.5% in 2011), Quebec Solidaire (1 seat on 3.8% in 2008), the Quebec Action Democratique (1 seat on 6.5% in 1994), the PEI NDP (1 seat on 7.8% in 1996), and the Newfoundland NDP (1 seat on 4.5% in 1996).
When one looks at the data, the first thing that stands out is that the Green strength is found Moncton and southeastern New Brunswick. In 2010, 6 of the Greens' 8 best ridings were in the Moncton area; as were 10 of their 14 best. This aligns with the other data source we can consider: federal elections. Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe and Beauséjour have generally been the Greens best federal ridings since their breakthrough election of 2004.
In the 2010 election, under the new boundaries the Greens would have had 7 ridings where their vote more than doubled their provincewide popular vote. It is in these ridings that I'll focus my analysis.
This would have been the Greens' strongest riding, scoring nearly 14% of the vote - well over 3 times their provincewide popular vote. It is therefore no surprise that Green leader David Coon is running in this riding. Adding to Coon's chances here is not only the strong Green base, but also the fact that this is the only riding in the province likely to see a 4-way race, which means someone could conceivably win the seat with less than 30% of the vote.
This would have been the Greens' next best riding. In fact, under the old boundaries Tantramar was the best riding for the Greens in 2010. Boundary changes make this area a bit weaker and Fredericton South a bit stronger. Like Fredericton South, there is a chance of a four-way race here, though it is somewhat less likely. The Liberals and NDP have not shown major strength here since there was a three-way PC/Liberal/NDP race in a 1998 by-election with each taking more han 30% of the vote.
Moncton South, Fredericton North and Moncton Centre
The Green Party would have taken more than 10% of the vote in each of these ridings in 2010. But without a four-way race, or a huge surge in Green support it is difficult to imagine the Greens taking any of these ridings. Fredericton North may be an outlier in this group as much of the Green strength here can be attributed to then party leader Jack MacDougall who is not expected to reoffer.
Moncton East and Moncton Northwest
The Green Party would have taken more than 9% of the vote in both of these ridings in 2010, which is better than double their provincewide share. Again, there is not much chance of four-way races here which is really what the Greens need to breakthrough at their current levels of support. In Moncton Northwest, a Tory stronghold, there is an outside chance of a moral victory for the Greens as they could place a distant second here under the right circumstances. That is highly unlikely however if the Liberals maintain the strong standing they've seen in recent polls.
At 5% of the popular vote, it would be a reach for the Greens to win any seats. However, there are 2 unique opportunities for the Greens. In Fredericton South and Memramcook-Tantramar the Greens have ridings which are both areas where they have a support base on which to build and potential four-way races that could allow them to sneak up the middle. The Greens would be well served to focus all of their resources on these two seats.
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
I really can't shake the maps bug I caught a few days ago.
So here is another one I've been working on. Suppose Canada and the United States merged and each of the 10 provinces became states. The result would be a 60-state United States. There would now be 120 U.S. Senators (2 for each state) and the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives would have to be reapportioned among the 60 states. In presidential elections, each state would have the same number of electors as they have members of both houses of congress (so a minimum of 3, 2 senators + 1 congressman).
The territories, as is U.S. practice, would lose their representation in the Senate, get a non-voting delegate to the House and have no say in presidential elections.
Here is what the new U.S. electoral map would look like:
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan would all get the minimum 3 electoral votes in presidential elections, meaning that they would have one at-large congressman representing the entire
province state, but 2 senators, the same as big states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, Ontario, Illinois and Ohio.
American states have to sacrifice 44 seats in the House of Representatives to make room for the 10 new ex-Canadian states. And their relative share of representation in the Senate drops from two percent to one-and-two-thirds percent. Specifically, the following states would lose representation under the current U.S. congressional apportionment formula to make way for Canadian seats in the House of Representatives:
- California -6
- Texas -4
- Florida -3
- New York -3
- Georgia -2
- Illinois -2
- Michigan -2
- Pennsylvania -2
- Alabama -1
- Arizona -1
- Colorado -1
- Indiana -1
- Iowa -1
- Kentucky -1
- Maryland -1
- Massachusetts -1
- Minnesota -1
- Nebraska -1
- Nevada -1
- New Jersey -1
- North Carolina -1
- Rhode Island -1
- South Carolina -1
- Tennessee -1
- Virginia -1
- Washington -1
- West Virginia -1
- Wisconsin -1
To win a presidential election 280 electoral votes would be required (up from 270), due to the electoral college growing by 20 due to new senators.
It would be increasingly difficult for Republicans to win the presidency. Polls suggest Democrats would be the heavy favourites in all provinces in presidential elections, even winning Alberta by about 40 percentage points. If one is generous, we could say the provinces would become 9 blue states and 1 swing state.
This would mean the Democrat would start with 259 electoral votes in the bag, to 173 for the Republican, with 126 swing votes. If one gives Democrats credit for Pennsylvania, a state they've not lost since 1988, they start with 277 votes and the Republican would have to win every single swing state in order to carry the election.
I sure do love fun with maps.
Monday, February 03, 2014
On Saturday afternoon, the CBC's Dan McHardie tweeted out a cool map on Twitter. I went into fun-with-maps overdrive...
I haven't quite shaken the bug. Here are a couple more which I find highly interesting.First Canadian provinces as American states with comparable GDP (PEI and the territories have economies far smaller than any U.S. state so they're not labeled):
Then Canadian provinces as American states with comparable GDP-per-capita ratios. This one was fascinating. Six of the 13 provinces and territories are at about the same level or richer than Delaware, the richest American state (as measured by GDP-per-capita). Even Canada's "poor" provinces New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and PEI hold up pretty well. New Brunswick lines up with California. Nova Scotians and P.E. Islanders are on average richer than Texans.
Fun with maps is almost as fun as fun with numbers!
Here is a revised version of the first map, with an explanation of what it is in case it finds itself floating in the internet without its explanatory tweet: