By KPK on 05.04.07 6:30 pm

Uh-huh, and Garth’s “booting” from the Conservatives is living proof of what happens when your rep tries to represent you and your best interests.

Note that you will still have a rep under the Mixed Member Proportional system, elected based purely on their own merits. Hence, higher quality MPs.

The remaining 30% percent that are elected by the Party list ensure that highly valued candidates become MPs regardless if they lost in their riding by one vote.

For example, I honestly believe that Peter McKay is a competent, intelligent, worthy MP who’s values perfectly mesh with the new Conservatives. I also Believe Elizabeth May is competent, intelligent, worthy of becoming an MP, and who’s values perfectly mesh with the Greens. Only one of these individuals, though both are deserving, will go to Ottawa under our current system.

Under our current system, many voters across the country vote for a preferred party, and not the individual. Incompetent party line towing MPs are elected, and quality effective candidates are left unutilized.

Don’t “knee-jerk” react to Proportional Representation. Do some genuine research. You’ll be surprised to find that your initial reasons for not wanting PR will actually be better valued and strengthened under PR.

First, my apologies for not responding sooner to some of the comments directed at or toward me above. I was “unplugged” for the weekend at our cottage. Here goes:

TO: JACKIE CHAN’S LEFT HAND ON 05.04.07 1:00 PM:

I disagree that “Polling is an inexact pseudo science that no one really has a handle on.” Some have a much better handle on the science than others, that is true. But to say that “no one” really has a handle on it is factually incorrect. Consumers of the science would do well to choose wisely based on many-many factors including especially he/she who demonstrates the best handle.

I said from the start, the purpose of the main question we highlighted was NOT to show “voter intention” but rather the voter perception of the ideal seat distribution between the major parties. We also asked the standard vote intention question (that’s how we were able to cross-tab the findings by party affiliation) and the results were identical to the Decima number published earlier in the week. Identical.

Your mini-dissertation on best polling practices is not inaccurate, although I don’t see the relevance of your listing some of the points you raise. Our poll was an N=1,000, with the usual margin of +/-3.1% …etc. As stated, we were in field April 26 to April 30 (5 days) not overnight, and like you I am not a fan of adding the lean vote to the decided vote and claiming they are the same.

As for voters changing their impressions, you will scarcely find a pollster who agrees with you more on this point. If you read anything I have written, you will note I am one of the strongest polling and strategy advocates that recognizes just how fast things change today compared to say 20, or even just 10 years ago.

I also agree polls need to be taken with a grain, not a pound, of salt. The margin-of-error does what it is supposed to do. But it is also up to the researcher to design his/her surveys with integrity. It’s far too easy to bias a questionnaire with wording or even just the positioning of a question within a survey. There are sampling and a host of other issues too. I try, like crazy, to account for these influences, not use them to deliberately skew a story. I leave that game for others.

TO: GDL ON 05.04.07 1:55 PM

To alleviate your fears about methodology here it is:

Interviewing

Data collection is conducted via CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) from dialling facilities in Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa. Approximately 65 CATI stations, in total, are used to facilitate timely completion.

Data collection for this study was conducted April 26h through April 30th 2007.

Quotas

Each month a random sample is generated and the quotas for each region are disproportionately allocated as follows:

Atlantic 100 +/- 9.8%

Quebec 250 +/- 6.2%

Ontario 325 +/- 5.4%

Man/Sask 100 +/- 9.8%

Alberta 100 +/- 9.8%

BC 125 +/- 8.8%

Canada 1000 +/- 3.1%

Within the regional quotas assigned for Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, CMA (Census Metropolitan Area) quotas are instilled to maintain an adequate number of completed interviews in Canada’s three largest markets; Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. The data is weighted in tabulation to replicate actual population distribution by age and sex within region according to the 2001 Census data.

Respondent Qualification

Interviewers must adhere to quotas to ensure that an accurate representation of male and female respondents, 18 years of age or older, are obtained within each region.

All interviewing across the country is conducted by fully bilingual interviewers. The language of interview is “as it falls” on a national basis, which means that the respondent has the opportunity to complete the interview in either English or French, which ever they prefer.

Sampling Techniques

The survey uses the most up-to-date and accurate sample available on the market. Every Canadian household that has a telephone number has an equal chance of being selected for the study. New exchanges are added monthly.

Quality Control

Interviews are conducted by experienced staff who are thoroughly briefed by supervisors to ensure a complete understanding of the questionnaire content and flow. Detailed interviewing instructions form the basis for all briefings and are strictly adhered to, guaranteeing quality and efficiency in results.

Detailed verification and validation procedures at each stage of the process ensure field and data accuracy.

Data Analysis and Delivery

The data is cross-tabulated against a standard set of demographic characteristics including the following:

- Region
- CMA/Non-CMA
- Language
- Household income
- Gender
- Education
- Age of the respondent • Marital status
- Employment status of the respondent • Household size

TO: OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER ON 05.04.07 3:14 PM

The two questions posed (not to be confused with methodology) are vastly different from each other. They measure completely different aspects of public perception. The fact the aggregate data (in percentage terms) between the two questions (vote intention and ideal seat distribution) are so close is what makes the conclusions reached so unquestionable, not questionable.

Our survey “specialized in figuring out what Canadians really want, not what politicians want Canadians to want” because it allowed respondents to pick a seat distribution they saw as ideal, not one that forced them into accepting the outcome of a first-past the post system. My comment was also party tongue and cheek. I agree, the question we posed was purely hypothetical, for now, given current leaders of the biggest parties are likely the least interested in some form of PR. But that does not make what Canadians think and want any less relevant, just more frustrating that some of their views seem to fall on deaf ears.

To Garth’s comment that I am “quite politically unaligned,” that statement is correct within the proper context of the professional work I do. In other words I don’t give flowery advice just because a client is paying me for my advice. I always tell it as I (or my research) sees it. If I could be “bought” politically, I’d still be the Green Parties chief strategist. That does not mean I have temper-tantrums and quit if my clients don’t listen and do everything I say, but I do aim for a 80:20 versus a 20:80 ration of listen to don’t listen.

TO: JACKIE CHAN’S LEFT HAND ON 05.04.07 5:09 PM

I’d never seen this line of questioning either, until I thought of it. I think that’s what makes it so unique and is giving people food for thought.

It is factually incorrect to say the line of questioning is flawed because “there is a likely bias against anyone forming a majority.” Not so. If we were in a period in which Canadians were adamant they wanted a Majority and our poll suggested otherwise, then you could possibly say there was a bias against reality. But the truth of the mater is Canadians are split on the Majority/Minority debate and our data could not be more accurate, and unbiased, in reflecting Canadians feelings on this particular topic.

Secondly, the data do not over represent the small parties. The fact the total Canada seat percentages are so close to the results of the “voter intention” results is proof the smaller parties are not over represented, they are simply not under-represented as some are in Parliament. But the question remains, at somewhere between 10% and 15% support, do Canadians really want roughly 40 Green seats? Personally I think not. And this only confirms that what we need in Canada is not PURE Proportional Representation, but rather SOME FORM OF Proportional Representation. In fact, personally, I would argue for some form of Disproportional Representation that does not put us in a stalled quagmire where nothing gets done, but that also does not completely ignore say 600,000 Greens.

TO: OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER ON 05.04.07 6:12 PM

The difference between measuring what Canadians “want” versus what they “think” is, in this particular case, semantics. By answering the question pertaining to the seat distribution they believe would be ideal, Canadians are expressing both what they think and want. Canadians THINK there are problems with the current system and they WANT that to change. If you think I am wrong and want to prove it, produce your own data that suggests Canadians are just peachy with the current system.

Finally and for what it’s worth, I didn’t see Garth’s response as PVL like. A few people here in the comments thread appear to be looking motives, especially ulterior motives, that simply don’t exist. I commissioned this research out of my own pocket and gifted it to the community for no other reason than as a point of interest and for discussion. Had there been a paying client behind it, then maybe you could ask if there was some lobby-like spin to the research. There wasn’t, so please just accept it as I intended it, as food for thought and as a tool some strategists might want to start thinking about. I sure as heck am.

Dan Baril,
May 7, 2007

STATS? Stats on a Sunday? No STATS on a Sunday! LMAO!

By Bill-Muskoka on 05.06.07 5:39 pm

Like: “Bodges ? Bodges ? we don’t need no stinkin’ bodges ! ”

LOL