May 3, 2011 by David
The election is over and that means that the media and the public can assess how well the pollsters did in predicting the election results.
Overall, I think the industry did quite well.
Most polls released during the last weekend of the campaign accurately captured the voting trends. While most underestimated the strength of the Conservative vote, almost all polls were within the margin of error.
Here at Abacus Data, this was our first big election in which we tracked voting intentions and offered our take on the election in the final days of the campaign. We finished poll Friday night and the results were fairly close to our findings.
It was a crowded field – there were lots of polls and a few new firms releasing numbers. We showed that online research is legitimate and accurate when done right. Public opinion researchers in Canada know what they are doing and are constantly finding ways to ensure that our work is sound, accurate, and representative.
Elections provide us pollsters with a chance to test whether the methods and strategies we use to measure public opinion are good and produce reliable and accurate results.
So here’s how Abacus Data did: Our final results were within the comparable margin of error for a survey of 1,007 Canadians.
April 27, 2011 by David
The NDP and Jack Layton are up in the polls. Multiple polls have confirmed it so we can now conclude it is real. The trend chart (averages 2 days of all polls released) below shows that while their support dipped early on in the campaign, the NDP quickly surpassed the Liberals and their growth continues (reaching 30% in Angus Reid’s recent poll).
Obviously there will be plenty of punditry on whether it will stick, whether the quality of candidates and local campaigns will mute the wave, and what impact the party’s growth in support will mean for the other parties and for the make up of Parliament when the election is over.
Instead of joining in that debate (I’m not a pundit and I don’t do seat projections), I thought I’d use some of our data to explain why I think the NDP has grown.
Voting behaviour is a complex decision that is driven by no one single factor. However, we know from academic research that on average, a Canadian’s decision about who to vote for is driven by their pre-existing partisanship (if they have any), their agreement with party issues, their affinity for the party leaders, and the influence of the local candidates. There are certainly other factors at play but let me focus for a moment on party identification or partisanship.
Although academic research has shown that the strength of partisanship in Canada has declined and Canadians seem to be more volatile in describing which party they feel “closer” to, I’m a firm believer that most voters (and I stress the word voters because non-voters are far less likely to be partisans) start off feeling closer to one party than an other. This is usually caused by family tradition or socialization effects (when a new Canadian immigrated to Canada or in the era in which an individual grew up). It has been shown that generally speaking, Canadians do identify with one particular party, but that the number of people who say they are “independent” has grown.
According to the results of the 2008 Canadian election study, party identification broke down like this:
Liberal – 24%
Conservative – 23%
NDP – 10%
BQ – 9%
Green – 2%
None – 24%
Don’t know – 4%
Refused – 3%
So in 2008, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party had a clear lead over the other parties but neither have any real advantage over the other. These numbers may have changed in the last two and half years, but not enough to fundamentally alter the starting point of this election campaign.
Ultimately, an election campaign is really focused on the 28% of Canadian voters who identify with no party or for soft partisans, those whose attachments are weak.
Partisanship or party identification does not explain all variation in voting behaviour – but it helps to give us a sense of where the teams are at the beginning of the season (to use a sports analogy). Voting behaviour is also formed out of habit and we know that a large percentage of voters are consistent in their vote choice from one election to the next. This is driven by national factors but also by local factors like the popularity of an incumbent MP (incumbents, on average, usually get a boast of about 5% thanks to incumbency).
So now to the main research question of this post: How does the NDP go from about a base of 10% (partisans) to the high-twenties in the polls?
The answer, I believe, is found in two factors:
1. Jack Layton’s personal popularity
2. The NDP’s rise in Quebec
1. Jack Layton’s personal popularity
Jack Layton is the most popular federal party leader in Canada. Not only does he lead the other leaders, but he is way ahead in terms of favourability.
An Abacus Data poll done last week found that 58% of respondents said they had a favourable impression of him, 20-percentage points higher than Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff. Although I’m a stickler for the local-side of politics, I can’t deny that affinity for a party’s leader will positively effect the probability of a vote cast for the leader’s party.
What’s more, Layton is extremely popular in Quebec – more than even Gilles Duceppe.
Quebec – Party Leader Favourability
Layton – 69%/7%
Duceppe – 46%/35%
Ignatieff – 28%/45%
Harper – 24%/63%
His personal appeal crosses party lines, age groups, gender, and regions and is FUNDAMENTAL to the NDP’s rise in the polls.
People have to like you before they will consider voting for you. Jack Layton has been able to replicate the positive feelings that Ed Broadbent was able to cultivate near the end of his tenure as leader. For both leaders, time allowed each to build a relationship with Canadians and it paid off at the polls (the NDP won 43 seats and 20% of the vote in 1988, Broadbent’s last election as leader).
2. The rise in Quebec
In the last Ekos poll, which found the NDP at 28% nationally, 36% of the NDP’s national number is a consequence of its strength in Quebec (at 38% in the Ekos poll). In contrast, the Conservative vote in Quebec only accounts for 12% of the Tories’ national numbers. So the NDP’s rise in the national polls is largely a function of their rise in Quebec. So what explains “the orange crush” in Quebec?
Politics does not operate in a vacuum and popularity is often relative. In the case of the NDP and Jack Layton, they are fortunate to be running against two national party leaders who are extremely polarizing and largely disliked in Quebec.
Although the Conservative Party has maintain support in the 33% to 40% range since being elected in 2006, it has not been able to rise about the 40% threshold and sustain it for long periods of time. This has happened despite a very positive economic performance coming out one of the worst global recessions since the great depression. The Conservatives have hit the “Harper Ceiling”. While the party and its performance on certain economic issues has been well received, Stephen Harper is disliked by a large percentage of Canadians and this is hurting the party’s chances at obtaining the majority they seek.
The Liberals on the other hand have selected two subsequent leaders who have failed to connect with Canadians and whose brands have been effectively destroyed by Conservative advertising. While Ignatieff’s personal favourability rating has improved over the course of the campaign, he still trails the Prime Minister and Jack Layton nationally and is only slightly ahead of Harper in Quebec. Add to this the fact that Canadians attribute very little policy strengths to the Liberal Party and what you have is a party whose leader is disliked and not trusted coupled with party policy that seems incoherent to a large portion of the electorate.
In Quebec, the situation for the Liberals is compounded by the continuing harm the sponsorship scandal has done to the party’s brand. In a recent Abacus Data poll, 53% of Quebec respondents agreed that they haven’t yet forgiven the Liberals for their past scandals while only 25% disagreed. Only Alberta was less forgiving and we know how well the Liberals do there.
Finally, there’s the BQ. Gilles Duceppe remains relatively popular in Quebec. But, a majority of BQ voters identify the NDP as their second choice so there is a clear opportunity for the NDP. Moreover, in the same Abacus Data poll mentioned in the previous paragraph, we asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed that it doesn’t make sense to vote NDP because they cannot form government. Quebec respondents were the least likely to agree (31%) and this was asked before the party’s sudden surge in the polls. Let’s remember, many Quebec voters are used to voting for candidates and parties who have no chance of forming government.
So Quebec seems, at least in the underlying data, a ripe opportunity for NDP growth.
But here’s an additional layer to my theory: Has all the talk about coalitions at the start of the campaign actually laid a foundation for NDP growth in Quebec?
The BQ has clearly stated it won’t join in a formal coalition with any other parties. And no party has said it would want BQ members in cabinet. Perhaps Quebec voters have decided that although the BQ has done a good job at representing Quebec in the past, it really can’t prevent a Stephen Harper majority. In fact, voters may have figured out that by electing NDP MPs they can actually prevent a Harper minority – by giving the NDP enough seats in Quebec to form a working arrangement with the Liberals elected outside of Quebec.
Fewer BQ seats in Parliament means that the math becomes more palatable for Canadians because the real problem with coalitions was not the principle of a coalition but the idea of separatists holding a government hostage.
The Liberals are not a reasonable alternative to the BQ because the shadow of scandal still hangs over the party. So the NDP is the only real alternative.
We asked people what outcome they would most prefer (we did not release the results). We prefaced the question by saying that the BQ would definitely not join a coalition.
We found that in Quebec, when given the choice between a Conservative minority government and a coalition or agreement between the Liberals and NDP, 57% of Quebec respondents preferred a coalition while 29% preferred a Conservative minority. 14% were unsure.
An Angus Reid poll released today found that 61% of Quebec respondents believed that “The Conservative government has performed poorly, and does not deserve to form a government after the next election” – the highest percentage in Canada.
So what we may be seeing in Quebec, and the data backs up this argument, is that Quebecers have realized that they can prevent another Conservative government not by voting BQ, but by voting NDP. If this is true, what we could be witnessing is a collective decision to vote strategically from a large part of a provincial electorate.
Conclusion
The shift in voting preferences in Quebec explains much of the NDP’s rise in the national polls. But a few questions will be asked as we head towards election day next Monday:
1. Will voters actually show up and vote NDP despite inexperienced and unknown candidates and weak local campaign machines in many constituencies in Quebec and elsewhere?
2. Will the NDP’s surge in Quebec have ripple effects across Canada? I have said this many times before – if the opposition parties were able to coordinate voters who are opposed to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, they could threaten his lead. Are we starting to see that coordination, even from an unlikely catalyst?
Who said this election was going to be about nothing? It could turn out to be the most important since 1993.
March 24, 2011 by David
Last month, a new book edited by my PhD supervisor, Lisa Young, and another great Canadian political scientist, Harold Janson, was released by UBC Press.
Money, Politics, and Democracy: Canada’s Party Finance Reforms takes a comprehensive look at the origins of the 2003 election finance reforms and the impact they have had on elections, political party organization, and the relationship between parties and Canadian society.
With Prime Minister Harper promising to eliminate the quarterly allowances parties if re-elected, the reemergence of the “in and out scandal”, and the continued attention by the media to the subject (here, here, and here), this book is required reading for anyone interested in the story behind the reforms and how we can understand their impact. Apart from my clear self-interest in this title (I co-authored a chapter) being well read, the contributions in this volume tackle some of the critical questions that surround party finance in Canada.
- Why did the 2003 reforms emerge in the first place?
- How has state funding of political parties affected their organization, relationship with stakeholders, and the competitiveness of Canada’s political system?
- Is minority government related to public funding?
- Can political parties self-regulate their leadership campaigns?
My chapter, co-authored with Munroe Eagles from SUNY Buffalo, looks at how the reforms have affected local party organizations.
From the backcover:
In 2004, Jean Chrétien’s Liberals banned corporations and unions from funding political parties. In 2008, opposition leaders were prepared to defeat the Conservative government over its proposal to eliminate public subsidies to political parties.
In Money, Politics, and Democracy, Lisa Young and Harold Jansen lead a distinguished group of political scientists in exploring the issues that led to the dramatic showdown. Are publicly funded parties compatible with the basic tenets of democracy? What effect have party finance reforms had on the balance of power between parties and donors, on the relationship between national parties and local organizations, on electoral competition? This timely volume reveals that the financial centre of gravity for political parties is shifting between national and local organizations as individual donors replace unions and corporations. To ensure their financial survival, parties must now maximize their numbers of seats and votes.
The first comprehensive study of modern campaign finance reforms in Canada, Money, Politics, and Democracy suggests that campaign finance reforms have shaped party organization and electoral competition, contributing to successive minority governments.
I recommend getting yourself a copy. If the Conservatives are re-elected, you can be sure they will introduce reforms to eliminate the public subsidies.
March 15, 2011 by Alex
As warmer weather and sunshine starts teasing us with spring, it’s time to start thinking about putting away the skis and getting back on the bicycle.
With the ProTour making two stops in Quebec (Montreal and Quebec City) this year, it’s an exciting time to be a cyclist in Canada. Essentially the ‘world cup’ of professional road cycling, the ProTour draws many of the same teams and riders as the Tour de France and the two other Grand Tours, the Giro d’Italia and the Vuelta a Espana, though its races are much shorter and often more intense than the multi-stage Grand Tours.
2011 will be just the second time Canada has hosted the ProTour, and will be an exciting opportunity for Canadian cycling fans to go and see the most elite athletes in cycling compete close up. But how many fans of professional cycling can there be in Canada? It turns out that despite being stereotyped as a European sport, professional cycling enjoys a sizable loyal fan base in Canada.
Being fans of cycling ourselves, Abacus Data conducted a national survey of Canadian cyclists as an internal exercise. Overall, about 57% of Canadians own a bicycle; closer to 70% for those under 45. Also, about 7% of Canadians admit to being fans of professional cycling. As a percentage this is a fairly small number, but it represents about 2.2 million people, most of them in Ontario and Western Canada.
More interestingly, when people were made aware of the size and significance of the event, nearly 10% of Canadians suggested they would consider attending, meaning it has the potential to be an enormous event.
Cycling (be it road or mountain) isn’t just something to do on a nice afternoon; it’s an engaging, accessible, group or individual sport with a huge international network of professional athletes and organizations – and now it’s at our doorstep in Canada.
For more information about the ProTour events in Quebec, click here, or follow us on Twitter.
February 24, 2011 by David
Mark Healy’s column in the Globe and Mail this week raises thoughtful questions about how employers need to change in order to satisfy the millennial generation. As he notes, how to “manage” generational changes and the approaching challenge that my generation presents to business and government is a topic of deep thought and debate.
He writes, “The conversations focused mainly on the differences in consumer behaviours between younger and older buyers, and in work and career orientation between millennials and those in senior management.”
These two fundamentals of business – consumer behaviour and human resource recruitment and retention – are in transition as the millennial generation emerges as a powerful force in consumer and public affairs. While it is true that retiring boomers will place certain demands on consumers, from retirement and health services, millennials are demanding that companies and their associated brands act differently.
Healy points out that “Millennials discover music they like and download it immediately. They process three or more simultaneous, continuous streams of information and communication – conducting history research while BBMing friends and updating Facebook. The idea of a store isn’t necessarily relevant. Nor is the idea of investing, or putting in time. So they don’t wait to communicate, even one-to-many, they don’t wait to accumulate and process mass amounts of information, and they don’t wait to purchase and consume.”
That description nicely sums up my own behaviour – I rarely “window shop” anymore, instead using eCoupons to purchase things I want and need online. Hear a song I like? I use Shazam to find out what it is and instantly buy it on iTunes. And I find myself shopping more and more with foreign retailers – especially for my cycling obsession.
The best line in his whole article is this: “Whatever you call this generation, running a successful business demands understanding its views.”
There is a change coming. Business needs to adapt and evolve as the market changes. The most important step in making the right changes is to understand the market, listen to what it wants, and to assess what you hear. Finding a research and strategy partner who is in touch with the generation, and more importantly is of the generation, is why Abacus Data is focusing so much of its practice on helping connect business and decision makers with millennials.
What Canadians 30 and older said about millennials when asked about them.
