Talk:Opinion polling for the 2006 Canadian federal election

message: This probably should not be included, I actually run a website with seat predictions and using the H&K predictor provides very unreliable results due to it simply assuming that all factors are equal to the last election.  For instance, the predictions posted on this page always shown an independent (Chuck Cadman) winning which is obviously impossible as Mr. Cadman has passed away.  It also shows one instance in which there are two independents: Mr. Cadman and one of either Jim Pankiw or Grant Devine both of which ran as independents in 2004 but are not running this time. - Jord 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seat predictions 

message: Hi!  Would there be any value in having a single unified graph depicting poll trends?  While general trends can be surmised from the many current graphs and polls/firms, a single one would allow for a ready comparison throughout (and I don't think an erroneous one, given the multiple polls/firms).  In case of multiple polls on any given day, I'd use the poll figures with the largest sample size.  Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 10:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds a good plan to me... though I would say with multiple polls on a given day, why not use the average percentages, possibly weighted by number of people polled. Also, don't ask whether to do it - be bold and do it! Tompw 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  A unified graph perhaps weighted by polling number should be fine (and hopefully not border on original research); my initial suggestion was for simplicity ... as the discussion regarding predictors may reveal, simplicity is not always preferred. :)  Give me a few days.  As well, I didn't want to undertake what could be a time-consuming venture if there wasn't support for it or if it might be erroneous or not helpful.  To paraphrase (regarding typefaces and editing): I'm fine with being bold, but I also don't want to be a 'spastic' colon ... :)  Thanks again!  E Pluribus Anthony 03:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unified graph? 

message: There is some debate as to whether or not seat projections should be included on this page.  Currently, a Wikipedian plugs the numbers from a given poll into the Hill & Knowlton election predictor which simply applies the national margin of change in the given poll to each riding.  For example: the Liberals received 36.7% of the vote in 2004, if a poll shows them at 38% then it will increase every Liberal candidate's share of the vote by 1.3%.
The fundamental flaws with such a model are that this does not account for the many ridings in which there was a predominant issue in the last campaign that does not exist in this one (or vice versa) or the presence of a strong candidate in the last campaign that does not exist in this one (or vice versa).
An additional flaw is that, beyond the 4 main parties, all other votes are bunched together as "Other".  If the Green Party were to get a surge in the polls, the results might show a bunch of "Others" getting elected but, in fact, what may be projected, even on this flawed system, is that the combined vote of the Greens and other minor parties and independents in a riding was greater than another party but no one of those other parties in fact won.
Finally, there is a serious problem in its projection of three particular races: Surrey North, Souris—Moose Mountain and Saskatoon—Humboldt -- all had high profile independents, none of which are reoffering.  It is not uncommon for a projection with a high Green vote to show these independents winning because their vote totals + those of other parties are all counted as "Other".
Several websites, particularly democraticSPACE.com and jord.ca, do similar projections to plugging the data into the H&K projector but do the swings on a regional basis and take into account the different scenarios of the individual races.
The above seat projections are both flawed in different ways.  Raw data from the Hill & Knowlton projector ignores regional and local factors.  The two websites are prone to human error.  Neither of them are scientific.  Nonetheless, some Wikipedians argue that the projections should be included because popular vote in a poll is not a good indicator of what the result will be, especially in a close race.  For instance, in the 1979 election Joe Clark won, and nearly got a majority government, despite losing the popular vote by over 4%.
===Voting===
The object of this straw poll is to try to ascertain where the consensus leans in terms of what should be included.
*Option A is using numbers obtained from the H&K predictor
*Option B is using numbers from either or both of the websites (or other sites doing similar work)
*Option C is to not include seat projections unless they are provided by the pollster (some pollsters will do this as the campaign progresses if we assume they'll operate in the same fashion as previous campaigns
Please list your first then second choice in the table.
User              	1st	2nd
Jord              	C  	B
arctic gnome      	B  	A
E Pluribus Anthony	B *	C
tompw             	B *	A
nfitz             	C  	B *
                  	   	
====Comments====
** only if consensus can agree on which, with proviso; if not ... E Pluribus Anthony 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here Tompw 15:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It looks like everyone who has commented here before has voted, and the most popular option seems to be to use the numbers from one of those other sites.  So can anyone recomend which to use?  -Arctic.gnome 03:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personaly, I like democraticspace.com, but the other one is okay.  Alternatively we could use something like electionprediction.org, which only reports "safe" seats, and calls the rest "too close", but I think that kind of defeats the point of seat projections.  -Arctic.gnome 04:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!  I, too, prefer democraticspace.com (or/then jord.ca), then (distantly) the one currently in place.  One of the 'features' of Canadian electoral politics is regionalism, or moreso in recent times, and predictions better embracing that may be less erroneous than currently.  Anything else defeats the purpose, in which case we should only provide links to all of them (methinks).  E Pluribus Anthony 11:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed, both of the above sites use regional data as the rightly should, a national results of 36-29 (as seen in the last election) has proved to give a completely different result in terms of seats on several occassions when polls have had the same numbers as a result of the regional numbers changing radically but the national average of such changes staying the same.  Electionprediction.org does not use polls at all but is based on the guts of its readers and, in the end, its editors.  It is even less scientific than the seat projections, though conceivably more accurate.  I say that as a person who works on electionprediction.org as well ;) Jord 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Straw poll]] on seat projections 

message: The object of this straw poll is to try to ascertain where the consensus leans in terms of what should be included.
*Option A is using numbers obtained from the H&K predictor
*Option B is using numbers from either or both of the websites (or other sites doing similar work)
*Option C is to not include seat projections unless they are provided by the pollster (some pollsters will do this as the campaign progresses if we assume they'll operate in the same fashion as previous campaigns
Please list your first then second choice in the table.
User              	1st	2nd
Jord              	C  	B
arctic gnome      	B  	A
E Pluribus Anthony	B *	C
tompw             	B *	A
nfitz             	C  	B *
                  	   	
====Comments====
** only if consensus can agree on which, with proviso; if not ... E Pluribus Anthony 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here Tompw 15:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It looks like everyone who has commented here before has voted, and the most popular option seems to be to use the numbers from one of those other sites.  So can anyone recomend which to use?  -Arctic.gnome 03:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personaly, I like democraticspace.com, but the other one is okay.  Alternatively we could use something like electionprediction.org, which only reports "safe" seats, and calls the rest "too close", but I think that kind of defeats the point of seat projections.  -Arctic.gnome 04:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!  I, too, prefer democraticspace.com (or/then jord.ca), then (distantly) the one currently in place.  One of the 'features' of Canadian electoral politics is regionalism, or moreso in recent times, and predictions better embracing that may be less erroneous than currently.  Anything else defeats the purpose, in which case we should only provide links to all of them (methinks).  E Pluribus Anthony 11:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed, both of the above sites use regional data as the rightly should, a national results of 36-29 (as seen in the last election) has proved to give a completely different result in terms of seats on several occassions when polls have had the same numbers as a result of the regional numbers changing radically but the national average of such changes staying the same.  Electionprediction.org does not use polls at all but is based on the guts of its readers and, in the end, its editors.  It is even less scientific than the seat projections, though conceivably more accurate.  I say that as a person who works on electionprediction.org as well ;) Jord 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: ** only if consensus can agree on which, with proviso; if not ... E Pluribus Anthony 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here Tompw 15:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It looks like everyone who has commented here before has voted, and the most popular option seems to be to use the numbers from one of those other sites.  So can anyone recomend which to use?  -Arctic.gnome 03:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personaly, I like democraticspace.com, but the other one is okay.  Alternatively we could use something like electionprediction.org, which only reports "safe" seats, and calls the rest "too close", but I think that kind of defeats the point of seat projections.  -Arctic.gnome 04:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi!  I, too, prefer democraticspace.com (or/then jord.ca), then (distantly) the one currently in place.  One of the 'features' of Canadian electoral politics is regionalism, or moreso in recent times, and predictions better embracing that may be less erroneous than currently.  Anything else defeats the purpose, in which case we should only provide links to all of them (methinks).  E Pluribus Anthony 11:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed, both of the above sites use regional data as the rightly should, a national results of 36-29 (as seen in the last election) has proved to give a completely different result in terms of seats on several occassions when polls have had the same numbers as a result of the regional numbers changing radically but the national average of such changes staying the same.  Electionprediction.org does not use polls at all but is based on the guts of its readers and, in the end, its editors.  It is even less scientific than the seat projections, though conceivably more accurate.  I say that as a person who works on electionprediction.org as well ;) Jord 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I just deleted the December 9, Strategic Counsel predictions.  There was no December 9 result!  Also, I've fixed some of the numbers in the polling table for other Strategic Counsel results, so if people have used the results in the table for the seat predicitons, they will have to fix them! Not sure where people are getting these bad Strategic Counsel results from ... but I wish people would put in links when they add them ... all the results are on the Strategic Counsel website. Nfitz 18:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seat Predictions Using Bad Data 

message: I changed the intro to the topic to reflect that the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada are in a dead heat in the Opinion polling. SFrank85 02:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberals and Conservatives in a dead heat 

message: I removed the charts on the left as they havn't been updated since the start of the election. If someone would care to update them and put them back that would be cool.
:Sorry about that. I will update them tonight! -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charts on the left hand side 

message: Ekos is now doing one-day polling that they themselves note "we do not consider a single night of tracking to be scientifically credible. These nightly releases are intended only to respond to curiosity
about day-to-day movements."  I'm pondering if we want to add these or not ...  Nfitz 15:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If something as unscientific as the seat projections deserve to be on the page, I certainly think one day polling should qualify. - Otter Escaping North 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ekos Research Associates|Ekos]] one-day polling 

message: Should we be looking at removing the seat projections?  I don't know why all the ones we are showing come from a single generator ... shouldn't we be just putting those in reported in the media, rather than generating our own Nfitz 19:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nfitz, see above - it was agreed that they should be removed and replaced with ones from an external source but no one has taken the initiative to do so, if you are up to, please do!! - Jord 19:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, forgot about that!  I was gone for Christmas when it was all concluded.  Maybe on Sunday .... any takers before then? Nfitz 23:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Seat Projections? 

message: The Green party logo looks kind of funny.  Why is it grey and not yellow?  --JGGardiner 02:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the actual shade of green they use. Snickerdo 18:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh thanks.  I've never seen the grey version.  I know the yellow one, which is their offical logo registered with Elections Canada and I've seen it in green also but not in grey.  Or whatever that colour is.  Hard to tell on such a small picture.  --JGGardiner 20:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They used that logo last election, although they may have switched back to the yellow one this election. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greens

message: Will this article still be considered relevant enough to be on Wikipedia after the election?  I'm not saying it should be done either way, I just don't commonly see articles with such a specific nature in wikipedia - usually it would be "opinion polling in canadian elections" - and it would include provincial, federal, and (or so its looking) senatorial elections.--68.73.55.59 19:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance? 

message: The current URL for this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2006
is difficult to pass on. URLs with commas are not often made correctly clickable in forums, and in email. I am talking about those that make all URLs clickable.
Also, in forums the URL is too wide for many people using 15-inch notebook PCs. Especially those people who use a larger text size to read more easily. URLs without dashes will not wrap to 2 lines in many forums. So the URL stays on one line, and that forces the forum message text to extend too far to the right. 
Most forums have one or more side columns. So that side column width eats into the forum message space width. People then have to scroll each and every line of message text in that forum thread. It effectively is a thread killer. The moderators often don't have the time to put the URL into an HTML link where one does not see the URL. 
So many people stop passing on the URL for this article. --Timeshifter 13:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please use shorter URLs without commas for this article. 

message: I'm not quite sure how this works - but if the conservatives win 154 seats, then do they hold a minority or a majority?  Mainly, I'm asking who's going to be the next speaker.  If the conservatives win, do they nominate one of their own to be the speaker, or would it remain peter milliken's?  If it remains peter milliken's, they have a majority, if not, then 154 gives them a minority.--68.73.53.71 16:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A new one is chosen with each parliment. Now, the Conservatives could try to get Peter Milliken to retake the position, but if it really did come out to 154 Conservatives, then he'd probably reject and force the Conservatives to promote one of their own. -- VederJuda 17:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With 308 seats in the half, they don't have a majority.  So by definition, I'd say they would have a minority.  Here's an interesting case.  In the 1921 election the Liberals won 118 of the 235 seats, which is 50.2% of the seats.  However it is referred to as a minority government.  There's not that much detail listed, but I'm guessing that after the speaker was elected, that the Liberals only had 117 of the 234 votes (given that by tradition the Speaker doesn't necessarily vote with the government).  In the 2006 election, they would need 155 seats to give them a majority of the 154 of 307 voting seats. Nfitz 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's not the case, it became a minority at one point due to by-elections but then returned to a majority due to subsequent by-elections. - Jord 21:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone in the know should tidy up those articles ... Nfitz 22:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After the 2003 Assembly election in Wales, the Labour party faced the same problem of having half the seats. The final result was Lab 30 Plaid 12 Cons 9 LD 6 Oth 1. The Assembly settled this by reelecting the previous speaker, a Plaid Cymru member. This gave Labour a working majority of one seat, which was later lost when a Labour member was expelled. See Peter Law and Welsh Assembly election, 2003 for more details. In the 2000 U.S. Senate election, The Republicans and the Democrats were tied with 50 seats apiece. Bill Clinton was still President when the Senate first met. That gave the Democrats a working majority of 50 seats + the Vice President (Al Gore), who is the Senate's Presiding Officer. George W. Bush took office later in Jan. 2001. This gave the Republicans a working majority of 50 seats + the Vice President (Dick Cheney). This majority lasted until June 2001, when a Republican Senator became an Independent, giving the Democrats a working majority of 51 (50 Dems + 1 Ind). This proves that things like what Harper could face have happened before. - Thanks, Hoshie |  08:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority or Minority? 

message: I noticed that an IP has been rearranging polls of the same date to have a specific result on top.  It's no a big deal, just annoying me, mostly cus it keeps screwing up the notes. --galneweinhaw 06:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To maintain impartiality, I'd arrange them according to date (as per prior discussion) and on the same date by release time (if available).  If release times are unavailable, they should be arranged alphabetically by firm. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Over the course of a day, that's what tends to happen.  New ones at the top.  In any given day, Ekos goes first think in the morning, SES comes out about 2 pm, and SC comes out around 10-11 pm.  The others, it's hard to tell ... sometimes we don't hear about it until days later. Nfitz 17:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know; I only reiterate this for those who may try to use Wp for impolitic or do so contrary to what should be a neutral (chronological) ordering scheme. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reordered the last few days by the general release time.  Hmm, seems there's been some kind of push to put the SES results at the top of the page.  Both IPs seems to be the same individual, as they also keep rounding the latest SES result to 0 decimal places, despite SES uncharacteristically doing them as 1 place.  Oh well, they'll be happy soon, as the daily SES release will be out shortly! Nfitz 18:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manipulation of the Order of Polls? 

message: I added a note yesterday about the recent Strategic Counsel polls that both CTV and the Globe and Mail have been playing down in their news.  Feel free to remove it whenever appropriate.--galneweinhaw 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, on CTV's online polling thingy (yesterday anyway) here: http://www.ctv.ca/mini/election2006/static/interactives/poll_trkr/index.html their statement for the 18 Jan poll is pretty funny when you look at their graph =)  On the news they have been mentioning it only briefly (where you'd think these numbers would be the leading story).  They didn't even discuss the results in an interview with their pollster! --galneweinhaw 23:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the G&M, When you have numbers showing one party at the highest they've ever been and the contender at the lowest they've ever been, That should be front page stuff.  I find it quite odd, especially since they've had similar result 2 days in a row.  I guess we'll see tonight. - --galneweinhaw 23:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the results are more in line with the other pollsters now ... you know how they say the results are good within a few percent, 19 times out of 20 ... well I think those were our 1 out of 20 results ... I guess that days's polling has fallen off the poll now. I'll remove that note, as I see it's served it's purpose.Nfitz 13:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Strategic Counsel Oddity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060907084725/http://www6.pinnaclesports.com:80/guestcontestLines.asp?redirected=yes&ContestType=Politics&contestType2=100*%20Canadian%20General%20Election to http://www12.pinnaclesports.com/guestcontestLines.asp?redirected=yes&ContestType=Politics&contestType2=100*%20Canadian%20General%20Election
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified