Some More Confidence Intervals

The following is a table of the proportions of delegates received as of 2:10AM ET on Sunday morning.(235/467 meetings reported)

Ignatieff	30.80%		Dion	17.30%
95% lower=	0.277884		95% lower=	0.148326
95% upper=	0.338116		95% upper=	0.197674

Kennedy	16.30%		Rae	19.30%
95% lower=	0.138905		95% lower=	0.167256
95% upper=	0.187095		95% upper=	0.218744

These numbers have changed quite a bit from yesterday, but so far, no one is outside their 95% range from yesterday. Rae is pretty near the edge, as he made a dramatic climb today.

In any event, as always, these statistics should be interpreted with caution. They only make sense if it's truly a random set of DSMs that have happened, and this clearly isn't the case, as certain regions tend to vote more on certain days.

But anyways, those are the results, as if it were random.

I am now quite ready to say that Lobster Thermidor's prediction that Ignatieff would end up at 24% is complete lunacy.

If Rae stays roughly where he is, i.e. about 2 points above Dion, I think that makes it an Ignatieff-Rae race, where Dion and Kennedy serve as joint kingmakers. Kennedy may gain some momentum tomorrow, however, as several additional GTA ridings return results.

We're getting further, but it still isn't the end yet.

As for me, I've made my appearance at my local DSM. I won't comment on how my race went, but I was planning on being at the convention as either a delegate or an observer, and that hasn't changed.

Some More Confidence Intervals

The following is a table of the proportions of delegates received as of 2:10AM ET on Sunday morning.(235/467 meetings reported)

Ignatieff	30.80%		Dion	17.30%
95% lower=	0.277884		95% lower=	0.148326
95% upper=	0.338116		95% upper=	0.197674

Kennedy	16.30%		Rae	19.30%
95% lower=	0.138905		95% lower=	0.167256
95% upper=	0.187095		95% upper=	0.218744

These numbers have changed quite a bit from yesterday, but so far, no one is outside their 95% range from yesterday. Rae is pretty near the edge, as he made a dramatic climb today.

In any event, as always, these statistics should be interpreted with caution. They only make sense if it's truly a random set of DSMs that have happened, and this clearly isn't the case, as certain regions tend to vote more on certain days.

But anyways, those are the results, as if it were random.

I am now quite ready to say that Lobster Thermidor's prediction that Ignatieff would end up at 24% is complete lunacy.

If Rae stays roughly where he is, i.e. about 2 points above Dion, I think that makes it an Ignatieff-Rae race, where Dion and Kennedy serve as joint kingmakers. Kennedy may gain some momentum tomorrow, however, as several additional GTA ridings return results.

We're getting further, but it still isn't the end yet.

As for me, I've made my appearance at my local DSM. I won't comment on how my race went, but I was planning on being at the convention as either a delegate or an observer, and that hasn't changed.

Some More Confidence Intervals

The following is a table of the proportions of delegates received as of 2:10AM ET on Sunday morning.(235/467 meetings reported)

Ignatieff	30.80%		Dion	17.30%
95% lower=	0.277884		95% lower=	0.148326
95% upper=	0.338116		95% upper=	0.197674

Kennedy	16.30%		Rae	19.30%
95% lower=	0.138905		95% lower=	0.167256
95% upper=	0.187095		95% upper=	0.218744

These numbers have changed quite a bit from yesterday, but so far, no one is outside their 95% range from yesterday. Rae is pretty near the edge, as he made a dramatic climb today.

In any event, as always, these statistics should be interpreted with caution. They only make sense if it's truly a random set of DSMs that have happened, and this clearly isn't the case, as certain regions tend to vote more on certain days.

But anyways, those are the results, as if it were random.

I am now quite ready to say that Lobster Thermidor's prediction that Ignatieff would end up at 24% is complete lunacy.

If Rae stays roughly where he is, i.e. about 2 points above Dion, I think that makes it an Ignatieff-Rae race, where Dion and Kennedy serve as joint kingmakers. Kennedy may gain some momentum tomorrow, however, as several additional GTA ridings return results.

We're getting further, but it still isn't the end yet.

As for me, I've made my appearance at my local DSM. I won't comment on how my race went, but I was planning on being at the convention as either a delegate or an observer, and that hasn't changed.

Some obvious but interesting observations about the DSMs thus far...

The following is a table of the proportions of delegates received as of 1:00AM ET on Saturday morning.

Ignatieff	31.90%		Dion	15.20%						15%
95% lower=	0.261189		95% lower=	0.107469						0.105711
95% upper=	0.376811		95% upper=	0.196531						0.194289

Kennedy	15%		Rae	15%
95% lower=	0.105711		95% lower=	0.105711
95% upper=	0.194289		95% upper=	0.194289

Assuming there is no systematic bias in the DSMs that have reported thus far, these numbers show a few things.

First, it is extremely unlikely that Ignatieff will fall below 25%. Second, it is extremely unlikely that any of the main contenders to Ignatieff will rise above 20%. Finally, there is no statistically significant difference yet between Dion, Rae, and Kennedy.

It's going to be a long night...

But thanks to the Liberal Party for their Election Results Ticker. It gives diehards like us a chance to analyze the hell out of irrelevant results.

Stats anyone?

With 47 of 465 meetings having reported, we now see that just over 10% of the results have come in. At the present time, two there are two interesting things of note.

First, Ignatieff is still comfortably over 30% (32.1%). Second, Rae is in a comfortable 4th with 12.9%, almost 2.5% back from the third place Dion.

Once again, the results are preliminary, and they may be skewed towards certain parts of the country which favour Ignatieff. But so far, these results are extremely encouraging.

Anonymous Liberal

Eleven-thiry, and all is well

As of writing at this time, 34 of 465 meetings (7%) have reported, and the numbers are starting to look basically like what people have predicted. Ignatieff has a substantial lead (32.7%), with Kennedy in second (15%) and Rae, Dion, and Brison all near behind (11-12%). Dryden is weaker than expected, but no results are in from Manitoba yet, but he should win there by a landslide.

While we're by no means at the end, and this has the potential to be a hugely skewed sample, this bodes well for Ignatieff. If he performs better than expected and manages to sustain numbers above 30%, he's going to have a lot of momentum going into the convention. Of course, I'm not necessarily expecting this to happen, especially as results come in from Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where Dryden and Rae respectively are especially strong, as well as the other Western provinces more generally, but I'm optimistic at this point that Ignatieff will emerge a clear leader in the minds of the delegates.

Michael Ignatieff by a landslide!

According to the Liberal "Super Weekend Unofficial Delegate Election Results Ticker", if the trend continues as at present, Michael Ignatieff will win the convention with a landslide!

That's right, as of 9:30PM ET on Friday, Michael Ignatieff has 75% of the delegates! Forget thoughts of 30%, the Ignatieff campaign must be delighted with this overwhelming show of support by Canadians!

...of course, I should probably mention that that means the Ignatieff camp has gotten 3 of the 4 delegates reported...and there may be just a smidgen of variation from the actual results...but hey, it's a start. :)

Heading into the DSMs Anything Can Happen

...almost anything, at least.

This weekend will be an interesting one. It will give some camps additional rhetoric, and it will virtually sink others. In any event, a couple of things will be clear very soon.

First, it will be clear whether it's a two-horse race or a many-horse race. If Rae manages to defy expectations and come in second after the DSMs, people will continue to mobilize around him as a front-runner, and it will come down to him and Ignatieff. If, on the other hand, Kennedy comes in second by a solid margin and Rae is stuck in 3rd or 4th, that will hurt Rae substantially, and Kennedy (if his media team can handle it this time) might be able to capitalize on his success and make it a race between and Ignatieff.

As is more likely, however, Kennedy will come in second by only a narrow margin, with Dion and Rae nipping at his heels. That will still make it anyone's race.

Second, there's the question of Dryden and Brison. If they have a respectable showing, they might stay in the race in order to exercise major influence at the Convention. As is likely, however, given their limited organization on the ground, they will command limited supported, and they may decide to drop out now. They may stay in the race, but if they are far enough behind, they may throw in the towel.

Third, there's the question of whether this will make Volpe finally get it. Everyone knows he should drop out, except for maybe him. Hopefully there isn't some last minute surge of support for him...that would be a solid way to wreck the Liberal Party.

Finally, there's the Ignatieff question. There are certain margins of victory that will make it all but certain that Ignatieff will be the next leader. If he breaks 30%, for example, with the next closest contender at 16-17%, it seems almost impossible that he will not win. Of the 70% who did not vote for Ignatieff on the first ballot, less than a third (20% of the total) would have to come to him.

If, on the other hand, Ignatieff falls below about 20% or within 2-3% of the next closest contender, that may spell disaster for him. His campaign will lose momenum, and he will be hurt substantially. Given, however, Ignatieff's commanding lead in ex officio support and the massive support network that the Ignatieff campaign has across the country, I find it very hard to imagine any scenario where Ignatieff is lower than about 23-24% and his next closest rival is less than 6-7% lower.

Remember, while Rae might have gotten Bevilacqua and Bennett, Ignatieff got virtually all their ex officio supporters. Bevilacqua and Bennett might add legitimacy to Rae's campaign, but it's the MPs, riding association presidents, youth co-ordinators, and other influential Liberals who can actually bring out the vote.

So, then, what will happen? It will be probably a race between Ignatieff and one of Dion, Rae, or Kennedy; exactly which of those three it will be will should become clear by late October or early November. At that point, the muddy waters will start to clarify, and at the very least, we will probably know who the final two will be on the last ballot.

For now, however, anything can happen. And you'd better believe that when the numbers come out, the blogosphere is going to be full of different interpretations of those numbers, showing how any given candidate can emerge victorious.

Take a Step Back and Breathe

Once again, people have gotten too hyped up about things. I think people got too hyped up at Dion for what (originally) seemed like an honest failure to cite. I think people got too hyped up at Brison, Dryden, and Dion over the poll issues. And now, I think people are getting to hyped up at Volpe (and more recently and minorly, Ignatieff) over a few individuals improperly signed up.

In the first instance, I think that all of these mistakes are very minor, and I don't think that any of them derived or intended to derive major advantages from having done what happened.

Moreover, I think that all of these mistakes were caused by people on their various campaign teams, not the candidates themselves. In situations where leadership candidates themselves commit minor but morally questionable errors, I am quite willing to judge. In situations where leadership candidates' campaigns commit minor errors, probably unintentionally, I think it is absolutely ludicrous to fault the candidate himself. It does no good to anyone, turns this leadership race into a mud-slinging fest, and weakens the institutional credibility of the Liberal Party itself.

Let's save our mud-slinging for active and intentional attempts by the leadership candidates to undertake actions which substantially have the effect of weakinging the Liberal Party. Like Bob Rae and his continued support for the NDP.

Fry Goes to Rae: Whoop-di-do

This morning, Hedy Fry announced that she was dropping out of the race for the Liberal leadership, and that she was supporting Bob Rae.

That she dropped out of the Liberal leadership race should not be surprising. She has no funding, no caucus support, and virtually no ex officio support. She has been widely expected to gain fewer delegates than MHF, despite the fact that the latter has held no elected position and no opportunity to build the political relationships necessary to have a strong campaign. This is, of course, as much a testament to MHF's strong character, intelligence, and political savvy as it is to Fry's disastrous candidacy, but it remains that Fry has been in the House for a number of years, and her gaffe-prone past has not been ameliorated through impressive political contributions.

So if it's not surprising that she dropped out, how much of a gain is it for Rae? When Bevilacqua dropped out, Rae got a boost of right-wing legitimacy, which helped, despite the fact that most of Bevilacqua's supporters and ex officios went to Ignatieff. When Bennett dropped out, he got a prominent Ontairo liberal from the opposite end of the spectrum, and that will probably help him pick up a few extra delegates.

But what does Rae get with Fry? Fry not only has no funding, delegates, or significant ex officio support to contribute, she is also seen by the general population as being a little odd. She isn't exactly an MP, as was Carolyn Bennett, who commands a lot of respect. She might be an intelligent woman, but the public perception of her is that she's a radical wild card without positive and substantive political thoughts.

One need look no further than today's media to see how little support Fry commands. Take the EKOS poll, which Linda Diebel discusses in the Toronto Star today. Of over 1,000 people surveyed, each of whom had the opportunity to pick Fry as their first, second, or third choice, not a single person ranked her in their top three. Not a single one out of over 3,000 opportunities. That is a major signal that she commands little support.

To that end, while there are certainly other reasons for viewing Rae as the primary challenger to Ignatieff, I wouldn't consider Fry's support to be any help in this one. Virtually all of Ignatieff's caucus members--as well as Rae's caucus supporters--command more support and will yield more delegates than will Fry.

A Tale of Two Parties

Earlier in the year, there was a story about how of the (then) eleven candidates, only three did not donate to the Federal Liberal Party last year. They were Michael Ignatieff, Gerard Kennedy, and Bob Rae.

While it's unfortunate that they hadn't given, there are reasons to believe the commitments of the first two. Michael Ignatieff has been a Liberal (and helped on Liberal political campaigns) since the 60s and is a Liberal MP. Gerard Kennedy has been a provincial Liberal MP for almost 10 years. Say whatever what you will about those two (and indeed, I have said quite a lot about the two), they are both committed Liberals who have been intensely committed to the Liberal project.

Now Bob Rae, as we all know, has been elected to office eight times, each as a member of the NDP. He was the NDP premier of Ontario. So now, he decides to make a switch to the Liberals, because they're, from what I gather from hearing him speak, he believes that they're a slightly more centrist and more pragmatic NDP with a capability to actually govern (instead of being a party of protest).

To that, I respond, fair enough. I think that it's quite legitimate for people to change political parties. I don't think they should run for leader a few weeks after getting their membership card, and I think they should show slightly more commitment to a party before running, but fair enough. If Rae has really, in recent years, decided he supports the Liberal project, then good for him. If he has ditched his NDP roots, then good for him.

But then, why did he give to two NDP candidates last year? Giving another party funding the year before you decide to run for the leadership of a party, now that doesn't seem right. If you want to prove your credentials, that is precisely not the way to do it. That's a way to alienate hard core Liberals, alienate moderate/right of centre Liberals, and alienate everyone who believes that you're actually committed to the Liberal project, instead of just being an incredibly opportunistic politician. I've called Rae opportunistic before, and this has just confirmed by suspicions.

Now, Rae might respond that he was just giving to two very certain candidates who he was helping to win, not giving to the party as a whole. Fine. But a) there were plenty of Liberal candidates in very close money who could have used that money, b) he gave to a party who helped to defeat the Liberals.

Why the hell should we believe that Rae is seriously committed to the Liberal party when less than 12 months ago Rae actively tried to help two NDP candidates defeat Liberal candidates? We shouldn't.

If you're a moderate/right of centre Liberal supporting Rae, go to Ignatieff.

If you're a moderate/left of centre Liberal supporting Rae, go to Kennedy.

If you're a moderate/left of centre Liberal in Quebec supporting Rae, go to Dion.

If you're part of the Red Tory wing of the Liberal Party supporting Rae, go to Brison.

Whoever you are and whatever your political preferences, if you're currently supporting Rae, get away. Go to someone else.

Libnews' Editorializing is Very Much Appreciated Right Now

"Finally, we apologize for the lengthy and editorializing post, but the misuse and abuse of statistics is near the top of our list of pet peeves, right up there with cyclists who don’t stop at red lights, people who toss their dog droppings in our garbage and the new Transport Canada regulations that consider bottled water to be dangerous."

That quote came from Libnews.ca, and while they might have apologize a little for it, I couldn't be happier with their gigantic and brilliant post. I concur wholeheartedly with Libnews: I hate the misinterpretation of statistics. To be more technical and more specific, I hate it when individuals analyze point estimates without any understanding of the properties of the estimators. I hate it when individuals analyze only the first moment of a set of data, not the higher moments.

But at the same time, I have to admit, it's kind of fun to make conclusions from data. I do it all the time, and it's wrong, but darn it, it's just so much fun.

Anyways, I think libnews for their comprehensive list of arguments for and against every candidate. It saves the Liberal blogosphere from having realistically 20-odd--and potentially several dozen--comparisons, as the debate over the polls' findings is replayed between supporters of every potential pair of candidates candidates (much as Lobster Thermidor and I have already done in one instance.)

In any event, while it's usually the case that libnews reports on our blogs, I wanted to reverse that for a moment and throw my kudos out to libnews for their brilliant post.

I do, however, apologize in advance for the inevitable future when I continue to apply Coase's maxim. As is evident from my blog, I have an unhealthy obsession with torturing data, as I try to draw out whatever analysis I can, using whatever assumptions are necessary along the way.

I can only hope that, while I might get the information I want from the torturing, I make it painfully clear that that information is of limited use and quality and that not terribly much ought to be inferred from it.

And that's the problem with torture. You might get the information you need out of it, and you might be dead on, but you'll never know; you've had to torture so much that you don't know whether it's actually giving up the information or whether it's giving it up because it's had enough of the torture.

My solution is not to avoid torture. My solution is to act cautiously on the information that torture provides.

For those of us who love to over-analyze numbers...

...we've reached an important milestone recently.

Nationally, we've reached the point that, in terms of caucus support, Michael Ignatieff is gauranteed to retain a plurality of support, no matter what happens with the rest of the MPs.

By my count, nationally, Ignatieff has 38 MPs. His closest opponent, Gerard Kennedy, currently has 14 MPs. Even if Gerard were able to attract every remaining MP--including all of the ones who have declared themselves neutral--he would still be below Michael.

The exact same scenario is occuring in the West, where Ignatieff holds a commanding lead, and in the East, where Ignatieff has nearly three times the MPs that his next closest opponent, Scott Brison, has.

In Ontario and Quebec, Ignatieff is not quite in this position. If Kennedy received the support of every remaining undeclared caucus member in Ontario save one, he would swoop in front of Ignatieff. In Quebec, Dion needs every remaining caucus member. But, Ignatieff only needs a few more MPs (2 and 1 respectively) to reach this same position of a gauranteed plurality. And, once all the neutral MPs are included, Ignatieff easily has gauranteed pluralities in all regions of the country.

While this may not attract any media attention, this is a symbolic victory, as it makes absolutely certain that Ignatieff is the candidate who has the largest support among the caucus right through to the convention. Other candidates may be able to rally additional MPs to their side, but Ignatieff will, at least in terms of caucus support, always retain the front runner position.

Moreoever, Ignatieff is the only candidate with a truly nationally representative caucus. While Kennedy may be putting up a good fight in Ontario, he only has 1 MP from each of the West, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada. Similarly, Dion's Quebec support is strong, and he has a noticeable portion of the Ontario caucus, but in the West and the East he has no caucus support.

Now, I admit that, once again, this is simply an analytical game. It involes creating an excel sheet and manipulating certain numbers, and there is no certainty that these numbers will link up with anything. MPs are often able to deliver a substantial number of delegates in their riding, campaign nationally for a candidate, and show a broad base of support, but there are a great many more factors which are relevant.

After all, Bob Rae has picked up two former leadership contenders, and that bodes well for him. He also has the strongest fundraising machine, and his ex officio support is second only to Ignatieff's. For those Liberals who don't mind that he got his party membership half a year ago, he could indeed be the focal point of a movement for those opposed to Ignatieff.

But, despite all that, we shouldn't downplay caucus support. Come convention time, MPs are going to be extremely influential on the floor, and the significant caucus support that Ignatieff enjoys might mitigate the effects of a few additional candidates supporting Rae after they drop off.

But, like I've said before, it's still anybody's race--except for maybe Volpe or Fry's...

Bennett Supporting Rae

Wonderful. The nice people finally decided that my blog was not a spam one and have unlocked it. A lot has gone on this week that I've been out of the loop on, and rather than attempt to catch up, I'm simply going to start from here.

So, once again, Rae has picked up a drop-out. While this doesn't impact the front-runner (Ignatieff) significantly--as Bennett's delegates and support are only minor--it does seem to indicate that the race has, for the time being, effectively dropped down to a two-party race.

For the last two months, I've viewed the race as a three and a half-horse race: Dion, Ignatieff, Rae, and maybe Kennedy. Ignatieff is unquestionably in the lead with his ex officio support and delegate numbers, and he has been receiving more press than any other candidate. Everyone else has been attacking him, trying to dislodge him.

But the general idea was that there were three other candidates close behind. But Kennedy has been receiving little attention in the press and has recently attract no new major supporters. Dion has received praise for his role in the debate, but he's also recently taken a lot flak from the auditor general for his environmental policies. He's gotten a lot of media attention, but he also hasn't picked up any major endorsements recently.

Bob Rae, however, seems to have pulled ahead of these two. He has attracted the support from both the hard-right (Bevilacqua) and the moderate left (Bennett), and he's been polling reasonably well lately. His fundraising numbers have been strong, and he has one of the highest profiles nationally (and certainly the highest in Ontario).

So good for Rae. We'll see what happens soon. Rae may pull further ahead of the other two and it will become a two-horse race, or it may be that the momentum of this will fade, with Rae failing to gain any additional endorsements or some of the other ones will gain some, e.g. if MHF or Brison were to drop out.

It's still an open race, but the murky waters may clear soon.

More on the Left/Right Debate

Let's assume that people like LT are most concerned with a progressive Canadian government, i.e. they want the Conservatives out of power. Let's also assume that, at least to some degree, a leftward lurch in the Liberal party will cause some right-wing voters to move to the Conservatives. It doesn't have to happen on a 1 to 1 basis, but let's suppose it happens at all.

What that means is, for every bit the Liberal Party moves to the left, it drives a voter away from a party with a progressive agenda over to one with a right-wing agenda. Why do we want that? I would put it that we don't. At all.

Let's look back at those charts from below. Just to debate the grounds on terms generous to LT instead of neutral grounds, we'll use the second scenario proposed below, where, for every 1% the party moves to the left, the party loses 0.5% of the vote to the right.

Scenario 2: Leftward Gain Twice as Fast as Rightward Loss
Liberal Deviation	Liberal Seats	Conservative Seats	NDP Seats
-10	102	117	14
-9	101	116	16
-8	101	116	16
-7	100	116	17
-6	100	116	17
-5	98	116	19
-4	97	116	20
-3	93	115	24
-2	93	115	25
-1	91	115	27
0	90	114	29
1	90	114	29
2	89	114	30
3	87	114	32
4	83	112	38
5	82	111	40
6	82	106	45
7	79	102	52
8	79	100	53
9	78	100	55
10	77	96	56

If what you want to do is prevent a government from pushing through a right-wing agenda, ought the goal not be to maximize the number of progressive legislators? Moving the Liberal party to the left will not help this.

Currently, the progressive parties (the Liberals and the NDP) have 119 seats between them (as always, in ROC). Suppose the Liberals move the equivalent of 5% to the left. This will increase the number of seats the Liberals have, but it will hurt the NDP so much that they will only have 117 seats between them. Moreover, the number of Conservative seats will have jumped from 114 to 116 in that case.

Suppose, on the other hand, the Liberals move to the right, primarily by continuing to advocate a progressive social agenda which at the same time being the party of fiscal restraint and thus attracting more support from business groups. Suppose the Liberals move 5% to the right. Then, in this restrictive scenario, even though the Liberals lose a few seats, progressive parties on the whole jump up to 122 seats, while the Conservatives fall to 111. Parties with a progressive social agenda will then have more seats than those without.

And that's just in this situation favourable to LT. I'm convinced that the situation is much closer to 1 to 1, and one needs only look at scenario 1 below to see how much better that situation is for progressive parties.

Some might respond, well sure, there will be more progressive parties in parliament, but the Conservatives might still be the single largest party. First of all, I don't think that that will always be the case, and it simply isn't in the 1 to 1 scenario. Moreover, having more progressive MPs, be they Liberal or NDP, means that those social initiatives which truly offend progressive sensibilities will be blocked. It might mean the Conservatives hold the government, but they will hold a government which is powerless to undertake the very actions which Lobster Thermidor and others fear it will.

An Anonymous Response to a Lobster's Thoughts on a Leftward Lurch

My new-found blogging opponent, Lobster Thermidor, has posted a lengthy analysis about how the Liberal Party ought to move to the left, not the right. While I disagree with these thoughts in general, his attack is targetted particularly at me, and he has called for a cordial flame war. Well, I always enjoy a cordial flame war, so here goes.

LT's first objection is to my assumption that a one percentage point move to the right in the Liberal party necessitates a one percentage loss of support on the left. He writes that, if this were the case, the Liberal Party would be forever condemned to 30% support.

I very much object to that objection. The methodology used above was one that implicitly said ceteris paribus. This methodology never assumed that Liberal Party support would remain constant. It assumed, however, that in the short term, it would remain constant, and that movements along the political spectrum would maintain constant support for the Liberals.

There is, within this framework, a modification that can be made to allow for not only shifts in the Liberal party along this spectrum, but also a widening of the Liberal support base. In fact, I have updated the model so that it can include variations of this type.

Thus, I do not presume that the Liberal Party is condemned to 30% forever, as I believe that it can expand its support base by attracting both Conservative and NDP voters without major shifts in policy doctrine along the political spectrum.

Now, as LT has rightly pointed out, it may be the case that the a shift in policy of a certain direction may not net neutral for the Liberals. Maybe right-wing voters are unlikely to jump ship if the Liberal party moves to the left. Maybe. I don't think this is the case now, especially as a lot of Red Tories--those fiscal conservatives but social liberals who have continued to vote Liberal because of continued fears of the Tory social agenda--have partially had their fears quelled by limited Tory movement on the social front. Thus, I don't agree with that analysis, but I'm willing to engage it. So, let's use that same model to do so.

Below is presented the the table from my first blog, for reference. For a full explanation of the methodology, read the original post.

Scenario 1: Uniform Distribution

Liberal Deviation	Liberal Seats	Conservative Seats	NDP Seats
-10	66	156	11
-9	67	152	14
-8	72	147	14
-7	75	140	18
-6	77	137	19
-5	80	131	22
-4	81	128	24
-3	85	124	24
-2	86	121	26
-1	89	117	27
0	90	114	29
1	95	109	29
2	94	106	31
3	98	101	34
4	97	97	38
5	97	90	45
6	99	85	48
7	98	82	52
8	99	81	53
9	99	78	54
10	98	75	59
15	96	58	78
20	82	36	115

Now, we'll specifically analyze what LT calls for. Let's assume that when the Liberals move to the left, its right-wing voters are still relatively reluctant to jump ship. Specifically, let's assume that for every 1% shift to the left, the Liberals gain 1% of the vote from the NDP, but they only lose 0.5% to the Conservatives. Thus, they gain a total of 0.5% of voters for every shift to the left.

Scenario 2: Leftward Gain Twice as Fast as Rightward Loss
Liberal Deviation	Liberal Seats	Conservative Seats	NDP Seats
-10	102	117	14
-9	101	116	16
-8	101	116	16
-7	100	116	17
-6	100	116	17
-5	98	116	19
-4	97	116	20
-3	93	115	24
-2	93	115	25
-1	91	115	27
0	90	114	29
1	90	114	29
2	89	114	30
3	87	114	32
4	83	112	38
5	82	111	40
6	82	106	45
7	79	102	52
8	79	100	53
9	78	100	55
10	77	96	56

Under these circumstances, I've made assumptions extremely generous to LT's proposition, assumptions which I believe to be false. Even in these circumstances, the Liberals don't begin to come close to forming a government. Even compared with a rightward shift under this hypothetical situation--it should be noted that using these assumptions, the Liberals have 10% fewer of total voters under the +10 scenario compared to the -10% scenario--the Liberals are almost no closer to being the dominant party. Under a 10% to the right scenario, the Liberals are 19 seats shy of being the largest party, while under the 10% to the left scenario, the Liberals are still 15 seats shy of being the largest party. I grant that these are all restrictive assumptions and such analysis should of course be taken with a grain of salt, but even using LT assumptions, his theory is not confirmed.

Let's be even more generous to the Lobster and assume that for every 1% that the Liberals move to the left, they only lose 0.33% of rightist Liberals--i.e. they gain 2/3 of voters with every 1% move leftward. I find these assumptions to be crazy, but I'll present the results anyways.

Liberal Deviation	Liberal Seats	Conservative Seats	NDP Seats
-10	115	105	13
-9	113	105	15
-8	109	108	16
-7	109	108	16
-6	106	108	17
-5	104	111	18
-4	102	110	21
-3	100	110	23
-2	97	111	25
-1	93	113	27
0	90	114	29

So, with these assumptions, and a large enough movement to the left, the Liberals will form the minority government. But this has taken some pretty dramatic assumptions, which I think are completely untenable.

LT has suggested that there a lot of fronts where the Liberals could gain votes from the left without losing votes to the right. I think this is probably true, and wherever this can be done, it ought to be. I also think there are certain fronts where the Liberals could gain votes from the right without losing votes to the left. That should be done too. But what we're talking about isn't that. It's what direction we ought to move in general.

And as for LT's note that the elections in which the NDP have done best are those elections where Conservatives triumph, sure. That's not because of Liberal shifts, but rather because of the size of the Liberal base (i.e. the other type of change I was talking about earlier which LT completely ignored).

Finally, LT writes:

"A vast majority of NDP votes are spent in ridings they lose, but if all 17.5% of NDP support were to shift to the Liberal Party (absurd, I know, but hypothetically), then making use of my shmancy election predictor, the Liberals would win 184 seats, the Conservatives 81 and the Bloc 43. In fact, the NDP penalises us least in the ridings they win; the real sting of the NDP is in those 17 ridings in Ontario which the Liberals lost to the Conservatives by less than 1000 votes, while the NDP received more than the difference."

Sure, I grant that that's where the NDP penalized the Liberals most, and if the Liberals had those NDP votes, they might have won a bunch of ridings. I also think they could have done that by just trying to get back those Conservative voters. The Liberals were the party of fiscal responsibility in the mid 90s, but as long as there was a Red Tory party (i.e. the PCs), Red Tories were split between the Liberals and the PCs; even then, that moderate right-wing fiscal policy worked out well. Now, there exists no Red Tory party, but there are a lot of Red Tories out there. Those are all there for the Liberals' taking without much work.

Anyways, this all comes down to the question of where party support is the most flexible. I probably won't believe LT's assertion that right-wing Liberals won't ditch the Liberals if they move to the left, and he probably won't believe my counter assertion. But I have showed that, even if we make assumptiosn which are supportive to LT's position, the Liberals still won't be able to win back power.

If we made a similar assumptions favourable to my position, the Liberals would win a landslide with a shift to the right. If we stay neutral as before, the Liberals only chance of winning is with a shift to the right. If we make assumptions amenable to LT's position, a shift to the right won't help, but neither will a shift to the left.

The Liberal Leadership Debate in Quebec City

All in all, not a bad debate. They've certainly gotten a hang of a format that doesn't make it completely painful to watch.

I have a variety of thoughts from this debate, and I'll sprinkle a few here.

On the Constitution:

First, I wasn't a fan of either Dion or Rae's comments on the Constitution. Dion noted that Germany and Switzerland are fine with their constitutional troubles. Rae indicated that "we musn't overestimate the importance of the Constitution."

Maybe I'm a silly Ontarian who cares about the overwhelming importance of the rule of law. Maybe I'm a silly Ontarian who thinks that a proper democratic society necessitates formal and substantive consent to the governance regime of the governed. Maybe I'm a silly Ontarian who thinks that there's still a little injustice and a lot of imperfections in the Constitution as it stands now. I might be silly, but I'm still disappointed with their responses.

I'm especially disappointed in Rae, who I've watched say, when directly questioned on it, that he would certainly consider further constitutional changes. His performance today seems to indicate that he doesn't.

And I certainly agree with the idea that other things are important. Practical, day to day concerns are something we should be dealing with. And constitutional discussions would be very hard.

But I don't think that we can't address both, and I don't think we should shy away from something because it's difficult.

On Michael Ignatieff and International Trade:

"Il y a une question éthique ici. Il faut créer un monde où les petits agriculteurs africains ont le même accès au marché que nos agriculteurs."

In contrast to some of the more protectionist rhetoric from some of the other candidate, I very much appreciated this. Ignatieff's principled stand on this is something long overdue from anyone claiming to be a Liberal internationalist.

Many Liberals may deplore the war in Afghanistan for the deaths it has caused, but the number of people killed indirectly and the economic damage done as a result of farming subsidies is many orders of magnitude greater.

More later.

An Anonymous Response to a Lobster's Thoughts on the Decima Poll

In a well reasoned post, Lobster Thermidor critiqued my analysis of the the results of the Decima poll.

In certain aspects, I must admit that I was incorrect. For example, having gone back and crunched the numbers, it is clear that, from a statistical perspective, Rae does have a lead over Ignatieff in Ontario. The exact size of that lead could vary significantly, but, from a strictly mathematical perspective, I was incorrect. This is not the case, as both of us have noted, nationally, but in Ontario, there is a statistically significant difference. Thanks to him for noting this.

I also agree that Rae is somewhat higher than the 26% I originally noted. Fine. From that points onwards, however, we diverge. I still maintain that Rae is entirely unelectable in Ontario.

Why? It's informative now to note what the original article said.

Nationally, the potential voter pool sits at between 56% and 53% for all candidates. This potential voter pool includes three classes of people:
-people who will definitely vote Liberal
-people who will consider voting Liberal
-people who aren't sure

These numbers drop into the the 21-26% range that we're all quoting because the last category is dropped, i.e. the people who aren't sure. It's these people, the unsures, that the Liberal Party must be actively seeking. It is significantly larger than the other two categories combined, and it will necessary to win a large portion of these unsures in order to win the next election. It is these unsures in Ontario that I think Bob Rae would scare away. I grant that Rae has a stronger core lead in Ontario, but you can't win with just that core.

Moreover, I think that insofar as that lead does exist, it still exists because of, as I put in my last post, the name recognition that Mr. Rae enjoys compared to all the other candidates because of his stint as premier of Ontario. That is a huge advantage in this race, as there exists a massively crowded playing field, where few of the candidates had a massive profile among the Canadian population as a whole.

It speaks precisely to this phenomenon that the place where Rae seemingly enjoys the most support is Ontario! Ontario is where he was premier, and he has the highest polling in Ontario. Shocking? No. It's entirely name recognition. People are much more comfortable voting for a party run by somewhere they've heard of compared to someone they haven't heard of.

But here's the thing. Once we have a leader, that leader will begin to enjoy more name recognition across the board. Rae has more name recognition among ordinary Ontarians right now, but that difference would be minimized after the leadership race. Rae would gain more name recognition, but Ignatieff would gain even more than that. He would become much more of a household name then, because he would be THE leader, not one candidate out of ten.

In any event, that's the second half of my analysis. LT has successfully poked holes in bits of the first, for which I commend him. Unfortunately, he did not address the second, and more substantive, portion of the argumention.

Recent Poll Results: Do They Show Anything?

By now, most hardcore bloggers will have heard about the Decima poll, which supposedly shows us lots and lots of interesting things. To that, I simply say, hogwash. Let's take a look at some of the potential conclusions that some people might have reached from reading those results. (Note: this blog is partially a reproduction and expansion of comments made on libnews.ca)

1) Bob Rae is, at least in terms of popular support, the front runner in the leadership race.

This is a poll using a sample; it's an estimate of support among the population, not the actual value. Using standard hypothesis test values, there is no statistically significant difference between the results of Rae, Dion, and Ignatieff. If you tested them, you’d find that they’re exactly the same.

You can just take numbers from polls and believe that they’re the population values. If you do, you have no knowledge of statistics, and you shouldn’t be claiming to interpret documents of a statistical nature.

2) At least in Ontario, Rae is way ahead of Ignatieff.

11 points WOULD be statistically significant if the sample size were 1,000, but it’s a subset of the earlier, it’s it’s probably more in the 350-400 range. Once again, huge confidence intervals. A 400 person sample has the capacity for wide divergence from the population value, so you shouldn't overinterpret the results.

3) But Rae did poll ahead of Ignatieff. It's not a sure-fire sign that he's the leader, but it might be an indication that he has a lot of popular support.

Ok. Let’s assume that the difference was indeed bigger. Let’s assume that Bob Rae is way ahead in the race, at least as far as your average voter is concerned. What’s this based on? Is this based on a reasoned analysis of the issues or the candidates? No. This is entirely based on name recognition. So much of what happens in politics is based on name recognition, and certainly Bob Rae has that.

For most Canadians, the only political figures who are household names are the Prime Minister, their premier, and occasionally the leader of the largest opposition party.

If you look through poll results asking people to identify the names of prominent politicians, time and time again (over the span of the past decade), nearly 20% of Canadians can’t even identify the PM correctly, almost half can’t name the Finance Minister, and roughly the same number can’t correctly identify any cabinet minister.

And now some have asserted that one of 10 candidates in the race to become the head of the opposition party has somehow become a household name because of a few months of articles in the Globe and the National Post? Come on.

In political circles, Ignatieff has become widely known and somewhat popular. Among the general population, he has certainly gained ground in terms of recognition. But there are literally millions of people in Canada who have never heard of Michael Ignatieff. That may be an unfortunate sign of political disconnect among ordinary Canadians, but for the time being, it's a fact.

4) Fine. But it does show, at the very least, that Bob Rae isn't unelectable in Ontario, as some have previously claimed.

Even this is false. Let's suppose that Bob Rae had, instead of collecting 26% of support, managed to poll in the 55-60% range. At that point, I'm willing to concede that Bob Rae is not unelectable in Ontario. With only 26% support, however, I don't think it shows his electability at all.

Receiving only 26% support may make you the front-runner, but it will never win you an election. To win an election, you have to receive as much of the remaining 74% of voters as possible. That means getting the undecideds and the moderates. I think that while Bob Rae might be attractive to a certain group (some old guard Liberals, as well as leftist Liberals and NDPers who haven't realized he's not the same old Bob Rae from days of yore), he won't have the capacity to build significant support for himself in Ontario, especially not in the 905 ridings around Toronto--and to a lesser extent the 519 and 705 ridings to the south-west and north--which are absolutely necessary to Liberal victory.

I think that someone like Stéphane Dion or Michael Ignatieff, both of whom polled marginally lower than Bob Rae among people definitely voting Liberal and considering voting Liberal, would still do better once the undecideds are included back in the mix.

So, at the end of the day, I think this poll shows very, very little. People from all camps should refrain from overanalyzing it.

Dion's Academic Honesty More in Question

When the news first came out about the similarities between Dion's environmental platform and the materials produced by the Suzuki foundation, I gave Dion the benefit of the doubt. While there was some kind of an error made, it probably wasn't too big, at least in my opinion. But errors made more recently are.

Dion's people have stated that "The same people who worked on the two plans made the same proposals." Funnily enough, however, it turns out that only one person worked on the Suzuki Foundation's report, and he is not connected to the Dion campaign. Now that's a problem.

It's one thing to have made a simple mistake of some kind. It's entirely another one to have outright lied in such a transparent fashion. What on earth is going on with Dion's campaign team?

Admit a mistake. Or at least, if your a jaded cynic, try to spin something to seem like the mistake you made was pretty small. Don't try to cover your tracks by lying about it.

Ignatieff's Second "Gaffe": The "Civil War" Comment

Ignatieff referred to a "Civil War" in Canada, in certain situations of Quebec seperatism. *alarm bells alarm bells alarm bells* I admit, when I first heard that he had used those terms, I found myself wondering whether Ignatieff's blunders might be more of a problem than I had originally thought.

Then I read the full quote:

«Il faut avoir des règles dans cette affaire. Il faut avoir de la clarté. Pourquoi? Parce qu'on veut éviter la guerre civile et j'ai toute la confiance du monde qu'on va éviter cela»

Considering the man has spent a major portion of his life studying ethnic conflicts and nationalism, I started to wonder whether simply his use of the words "civil war" were really a problem. After all, he did not in any way suggest that we would be headed for one; one the contrary, he noted that he has "all the confidence in the world that we will avoid it."

Then, I went on to read some a synopsis of the entire discussion in the Montreal Gazette:

"It would be well, he said, to "normalize" Quebec's political choices; that without normal politics the country suffers a continual over-stimulation that is bad for public choice; as premier, Andre Boisclair could certainly call a referendum. However, he went on, Quebec's real problems cannot be solved through a referendum; Quebec already has all the powers it needs to solve its problems. It's up to Quebecers to deal with their debt. Would a referendum help solve the problem of an aging population? Productivity can't be improved by escaping into magic. As for 50 per cent plus one, everybody knows we need rules in this business. Clarity is essential. We're talking about splitting up a great country. We must have clarity and proceed under rules agreed to by both sides. Why? Because we want to avoid civil war, and we can avoid it because we're a very sophisticated society and we have an admirable political system. Quebec voters can do what they want. They have the right. But we need serenity above all because without it, we have a situation of extortion, of menace. We have to be very calm."

We live in a country in which the War Meausres Act was invoked to deal with seperatist terrorism in Quebec. We live in a country that drew up contingency plans for seizing Federal territory in Quebec in the event of a sovereigntist victory. We live in a country where the question of what to do with Quebeckers in the armed forces was a very real concern prior to the last election. We live in a country that was torn apart by the thinnest of margins, a tearing apart that, had only 1% of voters voted differently, would have been fiercely contested by many and fiercely defended by others.

Mr. Ignatieff is absolutely correct in that there has to be clarity about any decision to seperate on the part of Quebec. If such clarity does not exist, the results will be disastrous, and, while it is hardly likely that there will be outright Civil War, there will certainly be major political conflicts.

I originally thought that his comment was a political blunder. Having contextualized it and read some of the commentary on it, I have now completely changed my mind. Ignatieff's comment was frank and it honest, and it once again shows his ability to be an intellectually honest individual who isn't afraid to shy away from difficult issues.

Is Dion's campaign simply careless?

Steve Janke posted an excellent comparison between portions of Stephane Dion's Clean Air Plan and a Report by the David Suzuki foundation, releasted a week earlier.

Now, there are certainly major similarities in the content. On the one hand, this may not be too surprising. Both Dion and the Suzuki foundation may share similar positions, and both may be drawing their facts from the same sources. The similarities in content are quite remarkable, but this can easily be understood.

The similarities in language, however, are more remarkable. There appear a variety of situations where it looks like a 1st-year undergraduate simply copied the language from another text, then decided to change a few words so that it would seem "original". Could this be a coincidence? Maybe.

But to me, it appears as though there are two options. On the one hand, it could be that Dion's policy team has actually done the above and taken portions of the Suzuki Foundations's report, without citing that they have done so. It's quite alright to take someone's else's ideas and use them in your own document, but they must be cited, something which was not done in this case. And if this is the case--which I do not believe it to be, but let us suppose for the moment that it is--this is more than a simple academic error. This is an attempt by the Dion camp to claim as their own materials that were presented by the Suzuki foundation.

Now, like I said, I don't believe that to be the case. I think Dion's campaign is generally honest, and I do not believe that they would intentionally lift portions of the Suzuki Foundation report. Although the similarities would constitute a rather large coincidence, I am still willing to believe that it is simply a coincidence.

In that case, what would have happened is that the Dion camp wrote its policy document without knowledge or reference to the Suzuki Foundation's document, and there simply happened to be many similarities between the two.

Now, that is certainly less bad than plagiarism. But there's still a problem there.

One of Dion's three pillars is the environment, and, judging from his policy stances and speeches to date, it's his largest pillar. Dion has been touting his experience in this field, and he has positioned himself as the Liberal champion of environmentalism.

Now why, would the champion of environmentalism, not be aware of the publishing of the Suzuki Foundation's report? Presumably being a champion of a certain cause means that you keep abreast of the developments, and that your own policies are formulated through original ideas as well as reasoned analysis of previously proposed ideas. Why would one of his policy minions not have read and flagged that report?

Either way, I'm not all that impressed. Either there was intellectual dishonesty, or intellectual carelessness.

It's not a big gaffe, and I'm not really holding it against Dion. I just think it's kind of funny and kind of silly. On the other hand, if it somehow becomes clear that the Dion campaign was aware of the existence of the Suzuki paper and simply failed to recognize it in its own work, that would be a major problem. If that did prove to be the case, it would be ironic that it came out of the campaign of one of the two former university professors in the race.

Rising Tuition Rates: Such a Bad Thing?

There was much talk today of the rising tuition rates. Not future tuition hikes, but the fact that tuition has been rising. Now, I'll leave out the point that, when adjusted to real terms, the rise in tuition is insignificant. I'll leave out the point that, at current levels, even a 5% increase in tuition really only amounts to $200 per year--only half a week at minimum wage job.

Instead of squabbling over nuances, I'll address the core issue: are tuition increases a good thing or a bad thing?

The facile analysis is that tuition increases, ceteris paribus, both increase the quality of education and make it available to fewer people. The pursuit of excellence would seem to dictate that we increase tuition. A sense of social justice and fairness would seem to dictate that we freeze it or lower it. What are we to do?

I tend to think of myself as a progressive Liberal with a sense of social justice who also sees the value of the market. So my answer is this: raise tuition.

Now, that doesn't sound like something coming from the mouth of someone with a sense of social justice. It is. Because I also believe that, hand in hand with rising tuition, there must be greater resources available in the form of financial aid--primarily interest free loans, but also bursaries. Why?

Fact 1: The private rate of return to an undergraduate education is about 11-12%. It depends on what you're studying, and, having crunched the numbers myself, it ranges between 6 and 15%. The 11-12% is a more mainstream figure, computed in a report a few years ago by Stats Canada. That rate of return represents the ultimate additional income value of a) paying for your education and b) the lost working time due to educational studies.

So clearly, there's a massive benefit to receiving an undergraduate education. Given that the majority of that return is private, I think it's quite fair to expect the individuals who benefit from it, not society at large, to pay for it. The caveat here is that in cases where the social return is large and enough people are not entering the field in question, it may make sense to lower tuition--thereby increasing their private rate of return, drawing more people into the field--and thus capture the social return. This would be the case, for example, if not enough qualified people were choosing to enter certain professions (e.g. medecine, nursing, teaching, etc.).

In any event, insofar as individuals are the ones who capture most of the return of their education, they should be the ones primarily paying for it. Society may find it in its interest to subsidize their education somewhat, but unless this represents an increase in the actual number of students receiving that education--which it effectively can't, given the limited number of university spaces at the moment--it is money poorly spent. That money would certainly be better spent funding additional research, something which has a much higher social return.

But what about my sense of justice and equity? Won't this stratify education along class lines? It probably would, if the system of financial aid were kept as it is. Which is why, any increase in tuition must be accompanied by a corresponding increase in financial aid. I cannot in good conscience support the former without latter. With the latter, however, I am completely in favour of the former.

An increase in financial aid--primarily interest-free loans, but also bursaries--will make education accessible. Although bursaries are a better form of aid for students, interest-free loans will stretch much further. At current interest rates and tuition, $100,000 could either pay the full tuition of 20 people, or it could service the interest on the student loans of 400 people. In practice, a combination of both will be best.

Moreover, the increase of tuition combined with increases in financial aid is actually socially progressive. How? Assume for the moment that all the money raised from a tuition increase goes into financial aid, which is then dispersed according to individual's needs. This sytem will actually give more money to the poorest, while making the richest and most capable pay more.

Under the status quo, everyone attending university receives a subsidy, as an undergraduate education costs much more than $5,000 annually. If, however, a rich student were not given this subsidy, it could give a poorer student a much larger one.

Then, even if not all of the increase were devoted to financial aid--suppose only half was--it might still be possible that education is more accessible. The total amount paid by students would increase, but those students least able to pay would see their tuitions be frozen or even fall. This would be the best way of both increasing the quality of education and research in our universities while ensuring that it becomes increasingly meritocratic, i.e. that the best and the brightest are able to attend.

Only lack of marks, not lack of money, should be an impediment to attending unversity--and those universities should be providing better educations than they are today.