- Con Close Race Conversions in Upcoming Federal Election - Solution: Con-solidation

http://2closetocall.blogspot.com/2011/02/close-races-do-they-really-not-matter.html
Close races: really not important?
Published by Bryan Breguet
8 Feb.'11

I think that the dynamics occurring in 'close races' is far too complex to simply look at the conversions in past elections to predict conversions in an upcoming election.

For example, if the support for the two parties has solidified in a riding and are essentially equal, with the other party(ies) not in play, then a conversion may be indicative of good organization and good financing.

This kind of situation can be identified since 'close race' should be fairly easily predicted in advance (obviously since the support is solidified and essentially equal)

If this is a common thread then, it may be indicative of a better chance of conversion, but in such circumstances.

It is something like predicting the outcomes of a play-off series in hockey between equally matched teams - if one has greater stamina over the span of the series, or play better at home, etc., then it may be they are favoured.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

continued . . .


. . . continued

Another situation where the support of two parties is solidified and equal a third party 'going up the middle' to win. This type of race has a tendency to be close if for no other reason than the votes are spread around to at least three parties.

The third party here is an underdog. Presumably the two leaders were equal in all regards and battled to a draw.

In this case it is not clear that the third party's win can be attributed to anything the third party did except be a viable third party. It may also be that the conversion rate is fairly constant from one election to another or even independent of party.

The big thing here is not predicting the conversion rate but predicting the number of ridings fitting into this scenario, which may be dependent on the overall picture at election time - e.g. the degree of polarization generally, and willingness of supporters to compromise and consolidate.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

continued . . .


. . . continued

On the other hand, if the riding turned out to be a 'close race' but support was not solidified and equal to start with, then there must have been some factor/issue in the election generally or the riding in particular that caused a significant shift. That this shift would end up in essentially the same number of votes for both parties seems to be to a considerable extent a co-incidence. In other words, it was really not a 'close race' conversion at all.

Of course, the parties would want to study just exactly what caused that shift and what to do about it, but it can not be classified as a 'close race' conversion.

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html

continued . . .


. . . continued

A good example of this is the by-election in Vaughan, although it was just outside 'close race'. In this the Con vote, in absolute terms, stayed pretty much the same, but the Lib vote decreased by 10,000*, this resulted in a Con victory, which could very well have been a 'close race' except for happenstance.


This is not an anomaly that can be waved off as just one of those things. In the '08 election the Lib's vote decreased by 800,000 - 900,000*. Many attribute it to the Dion factor, including his Green policy. I strongly suspect that a number of close races in BC fell into this category.

It is my impression that the above model is supported by a lot of the various Parties strategies both before and during an election.

(*these numbers are based on my recollection and the reader can confirm for themselves, but I think they are fairly good, especially for the purposes to which they are being employed here).

Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html