Latest Recount Means New "Closest Riding"
The latest judicial recount, whose results were announced late this afternoon, has changed the rankings of the Closest Contests in the recent general election. The new "Closest Contest" (and most narrow upset, for that matter) in the 2008 General Election is now (drum roll):
It also represents less than 1 vote per poll (in fact, 17/265 = 0.064150943396226415094339622641509 votes per poll if you want it to that many decimal places).
Voter turnout in Kitchener – Waterloo also declined from 70.4% in 2006 to 64.5% in 2008.
If anyone needed any additional evidence to prove just how much difference a single vote can make ... in, let's be honest, a riding that not one national pundit had seriously suggested was in play ... let this one be a lesson to us all.
- Kitchener – Waterloo, ON, where Conservative candidate Peter Braid was confirmed to have defeated Liberal incumbent Andrew Telegdi by just 17 votes.
- Anecdotally the next narrowest is Vancouver South, BC, where incumbent Liberal M.P. Ujjal Dosanjh was reported earlier this week to be ahead of Conservative candidate Wai Young by just 22 votes after a partial recount (down from 33 in the validated results), although the presiding judge agreed to reexamine the count today, and no final result has been officially announced as yet. [UPDATE: ... because they hadn't finished yet, according to the Vancouver Sun Saturday morning. They'll go back at it on Monday.]
It also represents less than 1 vote per poll (in fact, 17/265 = 0.064150943396226415094339622641509 votes per poll if you want it to that many decimal places).
Voter turnout in Kitchener – Waterloo also declined from 70.4% in 2006 to 64.5% in 2008.
If anyone needed any additional evidence to prove just how much difference a single vote can make ... in, let's be honest, a riding that not one national pundit had seriously suggested was in play ... let this one be a lesson to us all.
Labels: 40th General Election, Close Margins, Recounts
posted by The Pundits' Guide at
4:33 PM
4 Comments:
I live in Kitchener-Waterloo. No one in the riding thought that the Liberals were at risk of losing and no one in the national strategic voting camp thought that it was in play (It was rated "Safe Liberal. Vote your conscience.").
Now, I'm not an advocate of strategic voting but, if I was, I'd sure be peaved that their estimates were so wrong. Kind of proves the futility of the whole exercise if you ask me.
Of course, the Liberals will blame the NDP, even though their vote fell from 18 to 15 per cent (while the Green vote went from 6 to 12 per cent), but they should really be blaming the Libertarians. It is a fair bet that well over 18 votes cast from the Libertarian candidate (who was second on the ballot) came from people who intended to vote for the Liberal incumbent (who was last on the ballot). Indeed, much of the margin that Mr. Telegdi made up (going from a gap of 48 votes to 17 votes) came from the inclusion of ballots that had crossed out marks beside the Libertarian candidate and then an X next to Telegdi's name.
And, more to the point, they should be blaming themselves -- for being too arrogant about their infallability and for failing to give voters a reason to get off the couch and vote for them.
My sister was a a Deputy Returning Officer in KW. I told her two days before the election get ready for a real close election, fights over the new proof of identity rules and make sure whatever you do can stand up to a scrutineer challenge and a recount.
Alas, I'm not a national pundit.
Maybe you should be!
Anonymous, that's an interesting story about the confusion between the Libertarian candidate and Liberal candidate on the ballots in Kitchener-Waterloo.
It is the rare piece of evidence that those folks at least were voting the party name, rather than the candidate name, even in an incumbent riding of that party.
Very interesting indeed.
As to your other point about the strategic voting sites' projections, you've provided some good evidence for an argument I have also made. Those sites were attempting to predict the future outcome of a riding based on its past margins (and using national polls to do so, even worse). But ridings that were close in the last election, are not always close in the next election. And, the strategic voting sites weren't the only guilty ones there.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home