Alberta’s turnout was among the lowest in the country, fourth from the bottom, with the Northwest Territories (48.6%), Nunavut (49.4%) and Newfoundland & Labrador (48.1%) the only provinces or territories lower.

In the case of Alberta … that 94.6% virtual seat sweep was courtesy of 34.2% of the Alberta electorate. The other 65.8% of Alberta voters either stayed home or voted other than Conservative.

Now consider Newfoundland and Labrador…. Reports were common of demoralized Conservatives and the CPoC’s struggles to find people willing to run as candidates against the moneyed avalanche which was the ABC campaign.

Should progressives be pleased with the demoralization of the CPoC’s supporters in the province?

No, not if they hold that democracy should be inclusive of and for everyone, not just those with whose views they can agree.

I feel as bad for the disenfranchised Conservatives in NL as I do for the 65.8% disenfranchised Albertans who either voted differently or didn’t vote at all.

The numbers are telling. No matter which political ideology you hold, surely you can see that forcing a multi-party democracy into a two-party voting system is unfair to the electorate, undemocratic and horribly wrong….

Full article goes on to respond to a Toronto Star item on proportional representation. Predictably, The Star once again employs scare tactics in its endless argument against reforming our electoral system.

The “natural governing party” was the only party in Tuesday’s election to see its votes and support plummet, with Toronto being the last remaining holdout still beholden to the former Big Red Machine. Under Mr. Dion’s leadership the party moved to the far left and ignored the crucial centre ground. As Canada’s national newspaper The Globe and Mail puts it, “Liberals need to revive that nearly extinct animal, the blue Liberal.”

Blue Liberal, Red Tory – six of one and half a dozen of another. In the increasingly splintered political landscape today, the only way to obtain a majority, or a strong minority, leads right through the centre, the middle ground occupied by Blue Liberals and Red Tories. Red Liberals and Blue Tories really do not stand a chance in Canada, as either one is anathema to the vast majority of Canadian voters.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has therefore gone the route of incrementalism, moving from a once-deep-blue Tory to a pinkish-looking Tory – going by his liberal spending habits. Mr. Dion, by contrast, went in the opposite direction, painting himself as a crimson-red Liberal. This is why Mr. Harper is back on the job, while Mr. Dion is facing calls from his own party to resign.

Mr. Dion is known for his stubbornness, which will make it difficult to remove him from the helm of the party. In fact, the very act of removing him, with his arms and legs spread out so as to avoid being pushed out the door and leaving deep scratch marks in the door jamb, will probably add to the party’s unending string of embarrassments.

But go he must, as most Liberals agree, and so the process of recruiting a new leader must begin. Their search will most likely start with the “leftovers” of the previous leadership contest: Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Martha Hall-Findlay and Gerard Kennedy. Since election night, the names of John Manley and Frank McKenna have also been added to the list.

There is no doubt about Mr. Ignatieff’s Liberal credentials. But apart from being perfectly bilingual and generally quite coherent, he would merely be a slightly improved upgrade from Mr. Dion. Both are Ivory Tower shut-ins with an underdeveloped sense of reality. As was true of Mr. Dion, so it must also be assumed that Mr. Ignatieff would view his position as prime minister as a social experiment, with Canadians acting as his lab rats, which would provide ample material for a new political science paper or book years later. This academic approach to active politics and government is usually quite dangerous and should be discouraged at all cost.

Mr. Rae is still haunted by his time as Ontario premier and the economic havoc wrought under his government. In addition, too many Liberals still eye him with suspicion, because they do not really believe that he has left his NDP past (and ideology) entirely behind him. Like Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Rae, too, is seen as “damaged goods”, because he failed to win the leadership the last time. After the ordeal Liberals have just been through with Mr. Dion, the party will probably want to play it safe with fresh blood, rather than warming up last night’s dinner.

The “king-maker” of the last leadership vote, Mr. Kennedy, is no longer the star he was two years ago. Since conceding to Mr. Dion too early on in the leadership election, he has kept an extremely low profile both in and outside the party. What is more, many Liberals hold him personally responsible for the disaster that was Mr. Dion’s leadership, and if there is one thing people know about the Liberal Party, it is that Liberals can bear a grudge like no other.

Ms. Hall-Findlay’s chances are possibly the best of all the former leadership candidates. Having seen Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency in the United States, Liberals may find it “cool” to replicate the experiment of putting a woman in charge of the party. However, Ms. Hall-Findlay was the first contender to be eliminated from the leadership vote at the Montréal convention, which leaves considerable doubt as to the potential support she may be able to obtain as party leader.

This is where John Manley and Frank McKenna come in. Both are brilliant politicians, who also happen to have a keen sense for all things financial and economic. Both are Blue Liberals who could help the party regain the all-important political centre.

Mr. Manley, a former finance minister, wrote an article for the Globe and Mail over a year ago that proved that he understands how the economy works – or should work. In it he chastened the manufacturing sector of Ontario for its lack of productivity and innovation. According to Mr. Manley, the entire sector had been relying for their profits solely on a low Canadian dollar, instead of building up their strength for the future. He concluded his piece by saying that, with the Canadian dollar reaching par with the U.S. dollar, Ontario manufacturers should not cry him a river and ask for government assistance when they had squandered plenty of opportunities to become more innovative and productive.

A former, long-serving provincial premier, Mr. McKenna enjoys great popularity in Liberal circles and across the country. Currently heading up one of Canada’s main banks, he also acted as ambassador to the United States. With him leading the Liberal Party, it is believed, the party could, indeed, become the Big Red Machine all over again.

Interestingly enough, both Mr. Manley and Mr. McKenna were asked to run in the 2006 leadership race, but declined. Within the first 24 hours of the Liberal defeat on Tuesday, however, both gentlemen intimated that, this time, they may be available to give it a go. The Liberals had better hope that this is true, because from the current short list, only these two stand a chance of rebuilding the party and making it electable again outside the Toronto city limits.

This can be credited to a few things:

1) The strong Abrams Campaign: Abrams’ campaign was strong right out of the gate and had been active since January getting his name out there and attending events. I had the chance to see him on two occasions during this election, and it’s clear he is also quite impressive in person. He had a strong presence by winning the sign war, a billboard and radio campaign, and occasional media coverage (though some was pretty harsh as well).

2) The demographics of Kingston: Although Kingston has leaned Liberal for quite some time, there are demographics that trend towards the Conservatives. Lots of protestant suburban voters, seniors, military voters, rural voters and high-net-worth retirees all trend towards the Conservatives, especially in this election. This should account for much of the switch from Liberal to CPC.

3) Milliken himself: Milliken has taken quite a beating in the media, and more importantly in the coffeeshops, with his musings about not serving a full term if not given the speaker’s position again. He has claimed in the media that it was “misinformation”, but in my humble opinion, Milliken was given every opportunity to say outright “I WILL serve a full term” and never said it outright. This appears to have been a factor.

So what does the future hold for this riding? I can’t imagine Milliken will be the Speaker again. He was given the Speaker’s position because the CPC numbers in the 120’s made them concerned about losing the one vote and still being able to pass legislation with the support of the NDP. With 143 seats, this won’t be a factor anymore, and if the Conservatives are intent on governing with a stronger mandate (and one day a majority), they’ll need a Conservative member as Speaker. This will put the heat on Milliken and test whether he really was after only the Speaker’s chair or not.

As for Abrams, his strong showing positions him very well for another run. Whether it will be a byelection when Milliken retires, or as part of another likely election in the next couple of years, he will most certainly be a candidate again and must be considered a likely frontrunner if Milliken isn’t on the Grit ticket.

After 20 years, Kingston politics may have just entered the ‘exciting’ category once again.

PS – full disclosure, I voted for the Greens’ Eric Walton.

While the election may have produced a result that is only slightly different from the last parliament, there have been some interesting developments at riding level. Trudeau scion Justin won his seat in Montréal under the Liberal banner, and is already being traded on the rumour mill as a potential leadership candidate to follow in his famous father’s footsteps. Garth Turner, a former Conservative, then Liberal, MP, has been defeated in his Ontario riding – too bad for his constituents, but certainly a boon for the fans of his blog, as Mr. Turner will now be a free agent who can speak his mind without any fetters imposed by party discipline.

Alberta, always considered a “Tory fortress” in the “stranglehold of Conservatives”, has made a bit of history of its own by electing an NDP candidate, Linda Duncan, in an Edmonton riding. It goes to show that Albertans, who are actually not conservatives, but either small-liberals or outright libertarians, can vote outside the Conservative box, as long as it involves a party other than the federal Liberals.

The opposition parties have been quick to laugh at Mr. Harper and his latest “failure” to obtain a majority government, but realistically, the Conservatives will have a de facto majority for at least two years. The Liberals are in disarray and abundantly discouraged. Instead of rushing headlong into another leadership race, which produced the current albatross of a leader, Stéphane Dion, inside sources are saying that this time they want to take their time to rebuild the party and recruit a real and effective leader.

Apart from the Liberals’ troubles, Mr. Harper’s position is further strengthened by the two independent MPs elected to the House of Commons, who are both conservatives and who will be voting with the Conservative government on 99.9% of all matters before the House, thus making them part of the Tory caucus.

In Mr. Harper’s own words, the last parliament had become “dysfunctional”, which prompted him to call for an election. In view of the composition of the next parliament, voters have reason to hope that it will produce good results for Canadians. As Mr. Layton put it, “No party has a mandate to implement an agenda without agreement from the other parties.” So, the next parliament could, indeed, come to be defined by compromise and consensus and thus achieve real results for Canadians. Coalition governments in several European countries have regularly worked quite well – including those between conservatives and social democrats – and there is no reason to suspect that such a co-operative approach to government could not work in Canada.

Whichever form the next legislature takes, the Liberals will play only a very diminished role in it, if any at all, for the next two years or so. Changing leaders will not be enough. The party will have to undergo a root-and-branch reform and rebuilding effort from the ground up. The Liberals must also face up to the new reality of Canada: the centre of gravity has moved to Western Canada, as pundit and journalist Andrew Coyne noted on CBC last night as well, with the westward shift fully under way, which the Liberals have ignored at their own peril.

As a quabecer, one thing is now very clear after yesterday’s election. It’s that nowadays, the “Distinct Society” doesn’t stand anymore in the hope of having Meech signed, neither in the hope of making the independance, but by the presence of the Bloc in Ottawa.

Let’s face it, there was no big issues like the independance or the liberal scandal this time. If there was one year where the Bloc should have fallen under 38 seats (its worst performance ever), it was this year. Still, the Bloc remains at 50 seats.

This means that in order to have a majority, a federal party doesn’t have to get 155 seats out of 308, but 155 out of 258. That’s not 50, but 60% of the seats available.

So either we choose to ignore the problem and let the Bloc for another 18 years in Ottawa, or we face reality and deal with the constitution once for all.

Charest wants to open it to include the “cultural soverainety” for Quebec and Harper’s statement about the nation. Make no mistake, THIS IS NOT MEECH.

In the french debate, Layton said that he was prepared to, at least, discuss it. If Harper does the same and succeeds, I can predict to you that it will be a major stepback for the Bloc, which means we could have more quebecers start voting again for the conservatives, the liberals, the NDP or even the green and make this country work again.

Now my question to my fellow canadians is this : Would this be acceptable to you?

Assessing our accuracy, of the 308 ridings, we made calls in 266, of which 258 (97%) were correct and eight (3%) were incorrect. We also had 42 ridings as “too close to call”, meaning there was an overlap in the projection range for more than one candidate, meaning either candidate was equally likely to win. All the model tells us is that it is going to be very close. To ensure we had a tally that added up to 308, however, in our average projection, we gave the riding to the candidate with the highest average projection, even though we did not make a call. Of these 42 ridings, the projection average correctly put the winning candidate ahead in 25 cases and put them behind in 17 cases, so a 60/40 split. So, indeed, these races were too close to call (although in some cases, the race was not nearly as close as we projected).

So, to sum, where we made a call, we were 97% correct. Including all too close to call ridings in the tally, we were correct in 283 ridings and incorrect in 25 (17 that were too close to call, and 8 genuine surprises), for an overall success rate of 92%. Interestingly, this is exactly the same result we had in 2006 (283 right, 92%), even though the average seat projection was closer to the results in 2006. So at least we’re consistent if nothing else…

Je terminerai en disant que le résultat aurait été tout autre si ce n’était de la bonne performance de Brigitte Legault. Elle a su tirer son épingle du jeu avec brio. Sa prestance et son aisance devant un auditoire (voir les débats locaux) lui a bien servi. Il est clair que le fédéralisme selon le parti Libéral rejoint encore bon nombre de citoyens de Vaudreuil-Soulanges. Probablement que les anglophones de la région ne sont pas séduit tant que ça par les politiques plutôt à droite des Conservateurs.

En conclusion, il est clair que tant que les gens et organismes de Vaudreuil-Soulanges sentiront qu’ils sont bien servi à Ottawa, Meili Faille restera.

There are, of course, many others for both lists. What was most and least surprising to you?

Did vote swapping or strategic voting work? Not on your life. And the lowest voter turnout ever suggests that it helped achieve the opposite of what their proponents had wanted.

It’s an irony of politics that his remarks came in a concession speech. Had he been able to carry his message as effectively during the campaign, the results might have been less disastrous for the Liberal party.

“We will work with the government to ensure that Canadians are protected from the economic storm. My top priority will be the economy,” Dion said.

As it is, Dion has led his party to its worst defeat since Confederation — 76 seats of 308 and just 26.2 per cent of the popular vote. His future as leader seems limited to months, if not weeks.

How Dion Got There

Dion was chosen by Liberal delegates who were tired of being dictated to by the the top brass of the party. They couldn’t stomach the other choices they were given: a man who’d been the NDP premier of Ontario (Bob Rae), or a guy who’d been out of the country for 30 years and had supported the Iraq war (Michael Ignatieff).

Whenever the Liberals gather to choose a new leader, these two figures will likely be there again. Ignatieff has earned grudging respect for having twice won Etobicoke Lakeshore, and having been an effective party spokesman. Same for Rae, in Toronto Centre.

While they’ll be the leading contenders, don’t overlook other possibilities: John Manley, Frank McKenna, Gerard Kennedy, and of course Martha Hall Findlay who distinguished herself in the last leadership race.

The main features of the election are fairly clear: the Liberal stumble with Dion’s failure to sell his Green Shift; Conservative blundering on culture and youth punishment that cost them Quebec support and in the end, Harper his majority; failure of the NDP to bulk up outside of Ontario and B.C., despite winning one seat in each of Alberta, Quebec and Newfoundland; and the disappointing finish for Elizabeth May and the Green party.

The saddest part of the election was the poor turn-out: just 59 percent, the lowest on record. It means Mr. Harper is Prime Minister on the votes of not many more than one in five adult Canadians. His 143 seats give him a stronger minority, but not his much sought after majority.

The results present another good reason to dump the first-past-the-post electoral system, in favor of some form of proportional representation. It’s not acceptable that one party gets 50 seats with 10 percent of the vote (the Bloc) and the Greens get none with 7 per cent.

Maybe that low vote was due to two things: First, there was no real reason for Harper to call the election. In doing so, he violated the principle of his own law for fixed election dates. Second, none of the party leaders effectively addressed the very real global economic crisis that Canada now finds itself a part of. If our leaders don’t offer up solutions, how can people vote for them?

Less importantly, whoever dreamt up that bizarre studio set the CBC used last night? It made Peter Mansbridge look like the condemned man seeking mercy from his Lord High Executioners, all ensconced in their elevated thrones. And over on CTV, all I could see whenever I checked in there was Lloyd Robertson’s tired face. Did Canadians really have to suffer all that and Harper too?

www.wildaboutwriting.com

Some people might notice that our final projections differ slightly from the final polling numbers. That’s because we make adjustments to our final weighted polling average to account for ballot box shifts (due to differences in GOTV operations, strategic voting, or simply last-minute changes of heart). While there has been much talk of strategic voting this election, the overall impact of strategic voting on the popular vote is typically fairly small (although a few votes in specific ridings can have a disproportionate impact on the number of seats won). While we have taken into account strategic voting in some cases, in most cases, we expect it’s overall impact will be limited to a handful of key ridings.

These ballot box shifts are not as mysterious as we might first think, but in making these adjustments we are relying upon past evidence. While the past is certainly no indicator of the future, we have identified some consistent patterns that tend to repeat themselves. Chief among those patterns is that people in different regions tend to fall back to what they know. In Ontario and Quebec, that typically means a ballot box bump for the Liberals (on the order of 4 points). In Quebec, some of that bump can be attributed to the unpopularity of publicly declaring support for a federalist party. In B.C. and Alberta, the Conservatives tend to see a bump. On the Prairies and Atlantic Canada, the NDP and Liberals benefit, respectively.

Below is a list of the final weighted polling averages and the adjustments we made to them to arrive at our final projections.

Overall Changes from 2006
The Greens have increased their vote the most of any major party (both in absolute terms and in relative terms). Comparing our average projection with the 2006 results, the Conservatives have dropped 2 points (36.3 to 34.3%), the Liberals have dropped 1.7 points (30.3 to 28.6%) and the Bloc has dropped 3.3 points (42.1 to 38.8). Only the NDP and Greens have gained: the NDP by 1.1 points (17.5 to 18.6%) and the Greens by 3.7 points (4.5 to 8.2%). So the Greens have the biggest absolute gain, but a 3.7 point increase represents a whopping 82% increase over 2006, versus a 6% increase for the NDP, a 6% drop for both the Conservatives and Liberals and an 8% drop for the Bloc.

Conservatives
Of the 126-seat average projection for the Conservatives, 108 are solid. There are another 38 ridings where the Conservatives could win (where the projected vote overlaps with another candidate). That means if all the stars line up for the Conservatives (i.e. they win every single riding where they are competitive), the maximum they could win is 146 ridings. That’s highly unlikely, and even still, they remain 9 seats short of a majority. Of the 38 Conservative battlegrounds, the average projection (126) gives them 18, about half (this is by chance, but it does illustrate how our average projection is indeed the highest probability outcome). If they lose every single battleground, which is highly unlikely, they still end up with 108 seats. So in absolute terms, the maximum range for the Conservatives is 108 to 146, but this includes every possible outcome. The probability at either end of the margin is very very low (less than 5% chance). So you can see our average of 126 falls roughly mid-way between the extremes.

Liberals
Of the 92-seat average projection for the Liberals, 74 are solid. There are another 36 ridings where the Liberals could win. That means if all the stars line up for the Liberals (i.e. they win every single riding where they are competitive), the maximum they could win is 110 seats. That’s highly unlikely. Even still, as you can see that’s only 2 seats more than the Conservatives absolute worst-case scenario of 108 seats. The probability of the Liberals winning every single one of their close races and the Conservatives loses every single one of their close races is so small, we are confident in saying the we’re looking at a Conservative minority government. Of the 36 Liberal battlegrounds, the average projection (92) gives them 18, exactly half (and again, this is by chance). So in absolute terms, the maximum range for the Liberals is 74 to 110, but this includes every possible outcome (less than 5% chance). So you can see our average of 92 falls roughly mid-way between the extremes.

NDP
Of the 36-seat average projection for the NDP, 27 are solid. There are another 21 ridings where the NDP could win. So if all the stars line up for the NDP, the maximum they could win is 48 seats. That’s highly unlikely. Of the 27 NDP battlegrounds, the average projection (36) gives them 9, or about 43%. If they win half (the highest probability outcome), they might win another 1 or 2 seats (37-38 total). The maximum range for the NDP is therefore 27 to 48 seats, thus our average of 36 is about half-way between the extremes.

Bloc Quebecois
Of the 52-seat average projection for the Bloc, fully 48 are solid. This reflects the fact that many Bloc seats are in rural Quebec, where they are winning comfortably (except for the Chaudiere, Appalaches and Outaouais regions). There are another 6 ridings where the Bloc could win, making the absolute maximum for the Bloc 54 seats. Of the 6 Bloc battlegrounds, we have them winning 4. A perfect split of the 6 would yield 51 for the Bloc. So the maximum range for the Bloc is 48 to 54 seats, and our average of 52 is roughly in the middle of the extremes.

Greens
We project no seats for the Greens. If the NDP vote coalesces around Elizabeth May in Central Nova (and we project she is in second ahead of the NDP), she might pull off an upset. Other strong Green seats (> 15% of the vote) include Guelph, Vancouver Centre, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast, and Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, but we don’t expect they can yet win these ridings, since their support is more evenly-distributed (rather than concentrated into particular ridings) than other parties. That will change as the Greens begin investing heavily in ridings such as these.

1 Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing: This will be one of the closest races in the region. Carol Hughes of the NDP by a nose.

2 Nickel Belt: Another close race but the NDP’s Claude Gravelle will take it at the end of a long night.

3 Nipissing-Timiskaming:  An easy win for Anthony Rota with Conservative Sinicrope a relatively distant second.

4 Parry Sound-Muskoka:  The closest race in the country last time should see Conservative Tony Clement waltz to victory.

5 Sault Ste. Marie:  Tony Martin of the NDP appears to be a shoe-in in the Sault although not without a challenge.

6 Sudbury:  Diane Marleau of the Liberals is likely to hold this seat but it will be a lot tighter than an incumbent should have to face.

7 Timmins-James Bay:  An easy win for Charlie Angus who appears to be making this into an NDP stronghold.

Totals:  CPC: 1 seat; LPC: 2 seats; NDP: 4 seats; GPC: 0 seats

All I am asking is that the rest of us … appreciate how those most informed on this critical issue are so conflicted in our allegiances… Let’s hope that in the next government … we begin the process of moving to a new electoral system where people no longer have to make such undemocratic decisions at the ballot box. [my emphasis]

My response.

The first one is Calgary Northeast. This riding, which used to belong to Art Hanger, who is retiring from politics, is the scene of conservative infighting between the official Conservative candidate, Devinder Shory, and an independent conservative contender, Roger Richard. The battle between them has been anything but benign, with injunctions and other legal threats being traded liberally.

This could result in the same split of the vote on the right in this riding that was also instrumental in allowing the Liberals three majority governments under Jean Chrétien when the right was divided into Tories and Reform.

It’s a story as old as time: when two are engaged in battle like this, it is usually a third that comes up the middle and takes the prize – in this case, Liberal candidate Sanam Kang, for example. But the riding may also go to the Green Party candidate or the NDP. The only thing that the two conservative candidates have going for them is that the candidates of the other parties don’t seem too capable or promising, which may limit voters’ choices to Shory and Richard.

The other riding that warrants close attention is Edmonton-Strathcona. Here, the Tory incumbent is facing off against a strong NDP candidate, Linda Duncan. Duncan has enjoyed great momentum, as documented by Liberals4Linda, a blog of Liberals who have decided to endorse and vote for Duncan.

There is no real threat to Conservatives in any of the other 26 ridings, which will be won by the Conservatives by five-digit margins – as usual – including, unfortunately, Calgary West, where the always-absent and abrasive Conservative incumbent should have been removed from office a long time ago. So, in Calgary West, people’s hopes are that Jennifer Pollock can pull it off and restore democracy in the riding at long last.

After each question, the studio audience votes on who they thought answered the question most expertly and truthfully. The results are revealed before the next round starts. At the end, the audience is asked to vote on the final winner based on his or her performance throughout the entire townhall meeting.

In the Vancouver edition, for example, Adriane Carr, of the Green Party, was declared the debate’s winner, at around 40%, with the Conservative candidate coming in second place. The NDP and Liberal candidates finished last.

What is most remarkable about this format is summed up by the host: “This is about keeping an open mind and listening to what the various parties have to say about their platforms. This is to demonstrate how democracy should work, where people with preconceived ideas are willing to listen and be swayed by facts and information alone, rather than voting for the same party that one has always voted for.”

Indeed, this is how democracy should work. People who engage in “generational” voting – because parents and grandparents have voted the same way too – or “strategic” voting – with the democratic process being corrupted – are not helping democracy along at all. If a person’s vote is determined by how “grandpa” voted fifty years ago, it is hardly an informed decision. Similarly, when groups urge voters to vote strategically, it becomes a vote against, instead of for, something or someone, and this is not a healthy approach to democracy either.

The CBC program X-Challenge demonstrated beautifully how voters’ views can be changed if politicians and voters are given a fair opportunity to listen to one another. About forty per cent of the studio audience did actually change their minds by the end of the debate.

What is more, the candidates participating in the debate were humanized – unlike the leaders’ debates, where the prime minister and opposition leaders sat around a table and verbally assaulted each other with mostly non-facts, the candidates in this debate format were able to show more of their personal side and engage each other, as well as the audience members, in an overall more pleasant, congenial and open manner than was possible in the televised leaders’ debates. As a matter of fact, it worked so well that as a viewer one could not help but like, and root for, all the candidates.

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, who represented his party in the Vancouver edition of the program, did finish in third place, but of all the Liberals across the country, including Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, he was the first Liberal to explain the Green Shift plan with true, heartfelt, and infectious, passion – and in a way that (almost) made sense. Maybe Mr. Dosanjh should be tapped as a potential leadership candidate after the October 14 election.

X-Challenge is a great example of democracy at work and should serve as a wakeup call and role model for all voters on how to arrive at that crucial decision in the voting booth: people should forget how their grandparents voted and ignore calls for “strategic” voting. Instead, they should listen, keep an open mind, and educate themselves on the issues and party platforms.

In future, too, the Canadian TV networks would do well to change the leaders’ debates to the X-Challenge format. Seeing the political leaders debate each other in such an engaging and captivating setting may even prompt more voters to head out to the polls on election day and, thus, boost turnout.

Battleford-Llyodminster:
Winner: Gerry Ritz (CON)

Blackstrap:
Winner: Lynne Yelich (CON)

Cypress Hills-Grassland:
Winner: David Anderson (CON)

Desnethe-Missinippi-Churchill River:
Winner: Rob Clarke (CON)

Palliser:
Winner: Ray Boughen (CON)

Prince Albert:
Winner: Randy Hoback (CON)

Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre:
Winner: Tom Lukiwski (CON)

Regina-Qu’Appelle:
Winner: Janice Bernier (NDP)

Saskatoon-Humboldt:
Winner: Brad Trost (CON)

Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar:
Winner: Nettie Wiebe (NDP)

Saskatoon-Wanuskewin:
Winner: Maurice Vellacott (CON)

Souris-Moose Mountain:
Winner: Ed Komarnicki (CON)

Wascana:
Winner: Ralph Goodale (LIB)

Yorkton-Melville:
Winner: Garry Breitkreuz (CON)

The squeakers will be in Palliser, Regina-Qu’Appelle, and Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar. Given the strength of the New Democrat candidates in all three ridings (all of whom have been on the hustings since early 2007) and the upswing in NDP support province-wide, I don’t think I’m going out on too far of a limb in calling for victories in 2 of the 3 ridings.

Goodale will easily retain his seat in Wascana, but I just don’t see Orchard pulling it out up in DMCR.

The NDP will finish a strong second in Palliser, Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, Saskatoon-Humboldt, Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, Blackstrap, and Prince Albert, putting some distance between themselves and the Liberal candidates.

The Conservative support is rock solid outside of the main urban centres, and while they might see a slight drop in their overall percentages, they will still win handily over their competitors.

The final tally: CON 11, NDP 2, LIB 1.

Nationally, I’ll deal in generalities:
- The Conservatives will win an increased minority government
- The Liberals will win seats numbering in the low 90s
- The New Democrats will break 40 seats increase their seat total (35-40)
- The BQ will take 1 or 2 of the existing Conservative seats in Quebec
- The Green Party will not win a seat
- All the leaders will win their seats, except Elizabeth May who will finish a close 3rd.

Greg Morrow’s latest forecast – 126 seats for theHarper Conservatives and 128 for the Liberals and NDP combined — sets up some interesting possibilities. Let’s suppose, as Greg predicdts, that the election gives the Liberals and the NDP more seats than the Tories.

First, Stephen Harper’s failure to significantly improve his party’s position would put his long-term leadership under a cloud. He almost quit in a hissy fit after the 2004 vote. The knives could be out — except that Harper’s kept such a tight grip on his erratic crew that he’s really got no rival at this point.

Second, all the pronouncements of a Liberal wipe-out will have proven vastly overstated. Ninety-two seats isn’t that far off the 95 the Liberals held when Parliament was dissolved. Dion’s performance in the last two weeks of the campaign will have earned him another shot at 24 Sussex.

Third, Jack Layton’s “I’m running for Prime Minister” is taking him down a long road, judging from the miniscule progress he’ll have made (six more seats according to Greg).

What effect will a combined Liberal-NDP edge over the Conservatives have on the next parliament? As I’ve written before, that’s all it took in Ontario in 1985 for David Peterson to oust the front-running Conservatives under Frank Miller.

The Liberals and the NDP also won more seats than the Tories in 2006. But with Paul Martin’s resignation, there was no taste for an accord with the NDP.

Now, with two-thirds of Canadians having voted for a candidate other than a Conservative, Dion and Layton will have a responsibility to consider how their two parties together could best serve Canada in this time of economic crisis.

Both will know full well that even with a free hand, the change in the economy means they’d not be in a position to fulfill their election commitments. This would force Layton to tone down his spending plans, and Dion to reflect on his Green Shift priorities. Factor in these considerations and you have two parties that could work together in a “Crisis Coalition.”

What other choice would Dion have? He cerrtainly wouldn’t want another election right away. How long could he survive by allowing Conservative legislation to go through unchallenged?

In a House of five parties (or four and maybe one Green and a couple of independents), a Liberal-NDP fusion, accord or call it what you want, would still be a minority.

There’s only one issue that greatly separates the Bloc from the Libs and the Dippers — separation. But even Duceppe admits that’s not on the table.

On culture, social justice, Afghanistan, healthcare, economic security — there’s very little difference. Gilles Duceppe wiill have no hunger for another election. He may well have run for the last time.

A Liberal-NDP “Crisis Coalition,” supported by a two-year commitment from the Bloc to let the pair govern, no longer looks as far-fetched as a couple of weeks ago.

What a difference a couple of seats might make!

www.wildaboutwriting.com

As always seems to be the case when I vote, my polling station was the busiest and the only one with a line-up. I didn’t mind waiting, but the person behind me was quite annoyed. She had an appointment at 10h00. Egads!

This made me think of what my girlfriend had told me about earlier. She had voted in the advanced voting in her riding of Ottawa-Orleans. While she was voting, she became moved at how simple, free, and easy it is to vote in Canada. She has a friend in Mexico who had a difficult time voting in the last election, having to wait hours to cast her ballot. I’m sure many of you recall the turmoil of the last Mexican election, with each party claiming victory and the eventual losers holding raucous rallies in the capital. And then there are third world countries where people don’t get to vote, are violently prevented from voting, or where elections are rigged and meaningless.

We are incredibly lucky to live in a country with free and fair elections. It is not only our privilege to vote but our duty. It only takes a few minutes and, even if you have an appointment at 10h00, be happy that your only voting obstacle is a busy schedule. It could be much worse.

Cross-posted to Sovereignty en Anglais.