So I'm mulling over the whole schtick about the Liberals 'dying', and the PC's 'dying', and the stupid electoral system that we use to award the minority a majority.
And I decided to do a wee little study, esp. in light of my recommendation last month, and the Frickin' Black Rod stealing my secret idea... idea. I figured I need to get scientific to one-up the folks at super-stylin' ville (way to go slipping back to bold city, eh?)
So lets do some quick math, ok?
Here are the official 2011 election results:
| NDP | 37 | 199,066 | 46.16% |
| PC | 19 | 188,528 | 43.71% |
| Lib. | 1 | 32,420 | 7.52% |
| CPC-M | 0 | 179 | 0.04% |
| GPM | 0 | 10,886 | 2.52% |
| Ind. | 0 | 215 | 0.05% |
Wow, who cares, right? I mean, the NDP get a smokin' majority of seats with the majority of votes lined up against them. So what, eh?
Exactly. So what. Its depressing when you look at it this way.
But.
Add 19 (PC) + 1 (Liberal) = 20
Subtract 20 from 37 = 17
Divide 17 by 2 (you lose = we win) = 9 (yes, I rounded up.)
Magic number for election victory? 9 seats.
Hmmm... so I wonder, how many seats would have changed hands through a 'united second party' strategy from the 2011 results alone...?
And, ummm... hmmm... would a united party actually get more votes in the next election?
(that's where I'm burning the midnight oil....)
So, guess what I am doing. Right. You guessed it. The whole shebang, in a series of posts, just for you, lovelies.
Stay tuned, folks. Its going to be very interesting.
Black Rod, you might be surprised at these results given your 'Liberal are irrelevant' routine of late. Or not, I guess. I still haven't found the dosh to spring for your secret recipe for success, so you might already know all this.
(If you do, don't frickin' publish it, ok?? I'm working hard over here.)
Cheers
Adding up the combined total to simulate a single entity is one approach but I think a single entity would be more than the sum of its parts as it would have no bad history and therefore be more attractive than just grabbing the existing voters.
ReplyDeleteFor example it might attract someone who voted NDP (not many) but more importantly it should attract the disenfranchised someones who did not vote at all. (lots)
Arrgh! Uncle Bob, you are dangerously close to stealing my thunder, dude.
ReplyDeleteBingo to you, sir. Of course simply adding the numbers from last election does not nearly predict next election (although it is bloody interesting, and I'm doing the math now.) You are pointing out one 'effect', of which there are several, each of which should reliably affect the seat allocation in the next election.
If we do a good job of presenting such rational analysis, then maybe your master plan from 4 years ago will need to be dusted off, eh?