A New Way To Analyze Riding Results
So long as I've been involved in politics, we've always measured performance by "percent of the vote", aka "vote share", which is the candidate's or party's number of votes expressed as a percentage of the valid ballots cast.
We say that a party's vote share went up or down, or that party X lost a certain percent of the vote to party Y; and define the gap between first and second place (the "percent margin") as a percentage of the valid ballots cast as well.
The unspoken assumptions behind this analytic shorthand were two-fold: that turnout was reasonably constant, and that in any event the party leanings of those who didn't vote for whatever reason in a certain election were insignificantly different from those who did.
I'm no expert in turnout, although André Blais and Peter Loewen who are have just published a working paper estimating it, available through the Elections Canada website if you missed the citation at Aaron Wherry's blog the other day; they are also the same two who've written about youth engagement for Elections Canada here.
But I think anyone who's active in politics these days can agree that turnout levels are dropping, and there's good reason to suspect that voters and non-voters are now diverging in a number of ways. We would probably also draw a distinction between long-term non-voters and temporarily discouraged voters, in order to round out the picture.
Karl Rove originated the strategy in the United States of finding wedge issues to motivate targeted groups of hitherto unlikely voters to support his candidate, while employing other (primarily "air-war") tactics to discourage the supporters of his candidate's opponents in the hopes that they'd "stay home" (i.e., not go out to vote). As I've written before, there are two paths to winning: one by increasing your own share of the vote, whether from non-voters or former supporters of your opponent; and one by causing your opponents to stay home. In response to the Rove-ian approach, David Plouffe and David Axelrod advocated a different strategy for their candidate's campaign, where they sought to increase vote-share from long-term non-voters by promoting voter registration and running fully-funded ground campaigns in all 50 states, rather than just targetted efforts in swing states as had been the usual practice in the past.
As you've no doubt figured out by now, the usual metric of "vote share" is just not up to the task of measuring or properly describing these movements. In a situation where no other votes change, but party A's votes stay home, using percentage of the vote as the indicator can make it look as though party A's supporters switched to party B and C, when they did no such thing.
This is why I've added "percent of the electorate" (aka "% Elec") to the riding profile pages here, and will be slowly adding it elsewhere in the database as well. For greater clarity: a candidate's or party's "percent of the electorate" is their number of votes expressed as a percentage of the eligible voters, rather than the valid ballots cast. Then the number of non-voters (NV) can also expressed as a percentage (plus it also works out to 100% - the turnout rate), and added to the bottom of the list. In a typical riding profile these days, the NVs are winning, but their numbers do vary from election to election. I show all the % Elec calculations in an italic font, so it's easier on the eyes to distinguish them from the "percent of the vote" column.
So, with this new metric available, what new insights can we get into some of the pivotal strategic questions of the next campaign? Let's take a second look at some of the seats that changed hands in earlier campaigns, and see if we can find out why:
It's *particularly* important when various schemes are multiplying in the commentariat and blogosphere about how parties could or should combine their efforts or step aside in favour of others, whether from my old Carleton poli sci prof Reg Whitaker and his colleague Philip Resnick, writing in TheTyee.ca about how to defeat the government, or L. Ian MacDonald writing in the weekend's Montreal Gazette about how to block the Bloc in Quebec.
What I hope I've demonstrated is that just looking at changes in a party's vote-share from one election to the next, and comparing it to changes in another party's share, can lead to some erroneous conclusions, and cause you to miss other movements which actually occurred ... with potentially serious strategic consequences.
Most of the examples above come from Ontario, because I've been working on Ontario ridings for another reason the past few days, but the same reasoning when applied to seats in British Columbia will allow you to see more clearly how votes shifted over the past few elections.
Next time: a new tool to examine regional party vote swings in comparison with one another.
We say that a party's vote share went up or down, or that party X lost a certain percent of the vote to party Y; and define the gap between first and second place (the "percent margin") as a percentage of the valid ballots cast as well.
The unspoken assumptions behind this analytic shorthand were two-fold: that turnout was reasonably constant, and that in any event the party leanings of those who didn't vote for whatever reason in a certain election were insignificantly different from those who did.
I'm no expert in turnout, although André Blais and Peter Loewen who are have just published a working paper estimating it, available through the Elections Canada website if you missed the citation at Aaron Wherry's blog the other day; they are also the same two who've written about youth engagement for Elections Canada here.
But I think anyone who's active in politics these days can agree that turnout levels are dropping, and there's good reason to suspect that voters and non-voters are now diverging in a number of ways. We would probably also draw a distinction between long-term non-voters and temporarily discouraged voters, in order to round out the picture.
Karl Rove originated the strategy in the United States of finding wedge issues to motivate targeted groups of hitherto unlikely voters to support his candidate, while employing other (primarily "air-war") tactics to discourage the supporters of his candidate's opponents in the hopes that they'd "stay home" (i.e., not go out to vote). As I've written before, there are two paths to winning: one by increasing your own share of the vote, whether from non-voters or former supporters of your opponent; and one by causing your opponents to stay home. In response to the Rove-ian approach, David Plouffe and David Axelrod advocated a different strategy for their candidate's campaign, where they sought to increase vote-share from long-term non-voters by promoting voter registration and running fully-funded ground campaigns in all 50 states, rather than just targetted efforts in swing states as had been the usual practice in the past.
As you've no doubt figured out by now, the usual metric of "vote share" is just not up to the task of measuring or properly describing these movements. In a situation where no other votes change, but party A's votes stay home, using percentage of the vote as the indicator can make it look as though party A's supporters switched to party B and C, when they did no such thing.
This is why I've added "percent of the electorate" (aka "% Elec") to the riding profile pages here, and will be slowly adding it elsewhere in the database as well. For greater clarity: a candidate's or party's "percent of the electorate" is their number of votes expressed as a percentage of the eligible voters, rather than the valid ballots cast. Then the number of non-voters (NV) can also expressed as a percentage (plus it also works out to 100% - the turnout rate), and added to the bottom of the list. In a typical riding profile these days, the NVs are winning, but their numbers do vary from election to election. I show all the % Elec calculations in an italic font, so it's easier on the eyes to distinguish them from the "percent of the vote" column.
So, with this new metric available, what new insights can we get into some of the pivotal strategic questions of the next campaign? Let's take a second look at some of the seats that changed hands in earlier campaigns, and see if we can find out why:
- Welland, ON and Sudbury, ON - These two seats switched from the Liberals to the NDP last time. If you take a look at the results expressed as a percent of the electorate: the Conservative vote stayed constant, the NDP vote (surprisingly) declined very slightly by a single point in both case, but the Liberal vote dropped substantially (by 7 and 10 points respectively), ALL of it switching to the non-voting (NV) camp. Suddenly it becomes very clear that the NDP strategy to keep the seats must involve increasing their vote from longer-term non-voters, while the Liberal strategy will be focused on re-motivating their earlier supporters to return to the polls in the hopes of regaining their former seats. Going back one more election in both ridings, the NDP vote did increase in 2006 from the ranks of previous non-voters, but it did not increase further between 2006 and 2008.
- Kitchener Centre, ON - In this case, the NDP and Green vote stayed constant from 2004 to 2008, while the Conservative vote increased between 2004 and 2006, but stayed put in 2008. The difference in 2008 is that the Liberal vote dropped by 7.5 points, all of it switching to the non-voting camp. This was enough to cause the seat to change hands by 339 votes, just 1.6 per poll. That's 0.8 percent of the vote, and 0.4% of the electorate. So, turnout dropped from 64.7% to 57.0%, all at the expense of the Liberal incumbent.
- Toronto – Danforth, ON in 2004, and Trinity – Spadina, ON in 2006 - In both these races, the NDP won the seats away from the Liberals in a different way than the first case: Jack Layton won in 2004 by picking up votes from previous non-voters, a feat not achieved by his wife Olivia Chow until 2006 in her riding. A similar pattern can be seen in Timmins – James Bay, ON in 2004. Here the other parties' votes held constant, or else the Liberals declined slightly, while the NDP posted big gains as turnout fell. In subsequent elections, with the incumbency tables turned, the Liberal vote continued to fall, with some of it switching to the Conservatives and Greens as well as staying home, leaving Layton and Chow with increased margins, and a more divided opposition, even as their own vote abated somewhat.
- Saint Boniface, MB - Of course, not every riding that changed hands fit one of the above patterns, as in this case where turnout did not change too much and it appears that votes actually moved from the Liberals to the Conservatives.
It's *particularly* important when various schemes are multiplying in the commentariat and blogosphere about how parties could or should combine their efforts or step aside in favour of others, whether from my old Carleton poli sci prof Reg Whitaker and his colleague Philip Resnick, writing in TheTyee.ca about how to defeat the government, or L. Ian MacDonald writing in the weekend's Montreal Gazette about how to block the Bloc in Quebec.
What I hope I've demonstrated is that just looking at changes in a party's vote-share from one election to the next, and comparing it to changes in another party's share, can lead to some erroneous conclusions, and cause you to miss other movements which actually occurred ... with potentially serious strategic consequences.
Most of the examples above come from Ontario, because I've been working on Ontario ridings for another reason the past few days, but the same reasoning when applied to seats in British Columbia will allow you to see more clearly how votes shifted over the past few elections.
Next time: a new tool to examine regional party vote swings in comparison with one another.
Labels: Percent of the Electorate, Turnout
posted by The Pundits' Guide at
9:09 PM
30 Comments:
Just one caveat.
You seem to be making the assumption that the same pool of voters who support a party remains constant.
Look at the Welland and Sudbury examples.
How do you know the Liberal vote switched into the NV camp ?
The Liberals lost votes and the NV camp gained votes but it doesn't follow that the votes came from the Liberal as you seem to be suggesting when you say the Liberal strategy should be "re-motivating their earlier supporters to return to the polls".
Here's a possible scenario. It was actually a large chunk of Conservative voters who stayed home but they made up for it by swaying a large chunk of Liberal voters their way.
Conservative vote remains constant, Liberal votes decrease, and NV increases giving the illusion that Liberal voters stayed home.
This could actually happen fairly often, depending on whether a blue or red Tory was nominated.
A moderate Dipper could also cause NDP voters to stay home while making up for it by Liberals switching, again giving the illusion that Liberals stayed home.
Just something to keep in mind when strategizing !
Agreed, completely, and that is indeed the other form of shorthand. But using it here is no worse than using it with percent of the vote, and will at least be less inaccurate.
A better picture would emerge from looking at vote swings at a lower level of granularity ... the poll-by-poll results. But again, that will entail a certain amount of the same kind of shorthand.
The other way to validate those assumptions is by reference to the Canadian Election Study's exit survey data. It's not in the most accessible format right now, to be sure, but it is available on their website.
I think, all other things being equal, that it's reasonable to assume it was Liberals for the most part staying home in those ridings, in that election, however. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the Liberal Party's own interpretation as well.
Thank you for taking the time to comment, Shadow.
The alternative scenarios you pose are plausible. But they have a couple major things going against them.
The biggest being that we know that in 2008 there was a widespread phenomena of Liberal raw vote drop-off. Not everywhere and to the same degree, but a clear trend.
Another is that we know from Canadian Election Studies that look at voters decisions, that the scenario you propose would take some shifts that are highly atypical on the scale required.
Lastly, with some very notable and visible exceptions, the local candidate does not have the degree of effect required to account for the shifts you posit. The kind of candidates differences you propose- like 'more moderate NDP' are not even known/visible to most voters.
These are of course in the end ad hoc arguments in favour of what PG has suggested. Hence, not categorically different than the arguments you are making.
But they could be precursors to statistical tests of consistency.
But even without those kind of tests, it will help having the data on effects of non-voting consistently tabulated.
.
Thanks for the wonderful site and all the data compiled for analysis.
I am also not in agreement of several theories around strategic voting being successful for many reasons.
I am not convinced in "Sales Pitch" in the last few campaigns to be successful for several parties.
The largest drop in support in 2008 was experienced by a single party.Was the largest drop related to an ineffective leader, bad policy or a combination of events including slower deteriotion of the other parties voter turnout?
The McGill study cited several factors and I have taken into account the long term shift.
Branding Liberal
Dalton is using his majority to move his agenda. Time will tell how it reflects in an Ontario wide election.
For a majority of Ontario voters Dalton appears safe in his Metro ridings and his polling has NOT taken a sustantial hit. The safe seats have seen their gap shrink but not to an extent they were in play.
Democrats Brand
In the US, somewhat different with OBAMA under very high expectations and his super majority, reduced to a majority is losing support in his base who feel he is not moving fast enough or with independents who may have not been satisfied with the results to date. Was Repulbican Tom Brown's victory in a safe seat held by a democrat for over 30 years a one off?
In 2008 several ridings around GTA and 416 have seen their substantial gap being reduced as Liberal strongholds with many in play. Long held ridings labelled as a "bellweather" have moved to the CPC.
Nik Nano Post Analysis noted a big swing to the CPC around the thankgiving table. Our own Election law limits Polling information from being released the day of the vote.
Is it a combination of a strong candidate being visible and active well before the writ is dropped, an effective dedicated local, regional national organization in getting their message, their vote out early?
One of the difficulties with the proposals of deals between parties that entail stepping aside in specific ridings- is the proponents simply ignore the increased effects of non-voting.
IE, if there is no Liberal candidate in a riding, a significant number of Liberal supporters will simply not vote.
The tricky thing in building a statistical case is that we can at best hope to capture some particularly strong movements to non-voting from motivational factors such as the weakness of the 2008 national Liberal campaign.
But how do you go from that to trying to model the effects of the much more dramatic simple removal from the ballot of parties?
[Not to mention the propensity for example of NDP or Liberal supporters to switch to a Conservative candidate it their party is taken off the ballot by a deal between the Liberals and NDP. And the dynamic between thes switchers and those who switch to non-voting.]
.
This is an important discussion, and has serious implications for the health of our polity. While it is clear that Rovian,(and yes, pre-Rove), strategies to suppress turnout have enjoyed some success, the data to really explore this topic in depth only exists within the Databases of our political Party's. Many answers will be forthcoming IFF one or more Party's share data on individuals, and how their voting intentions have varied over time, and in response to which messages. There aren't any real incentives for the Party's to share this data with any 'outside' researchers, so our Country is likely to go on being subjected to something we really don't like, which is harmful to our long-term well being, but to which we respond, and reward the 'perpetrators' of these negative tactics. Still, I appreciate that somebody, (PG), understands the relevance, and is trying to dig down to the truth. I wish you the best.
Hi pundits',
I agree that if you look at demographic changes in exit polling and look at which groups typically support which parties you can extrapolate who's voters stayed home.
Or look at the regional level to see shifts, one would expect things to even out there.
Still we could see weird vote shifts that don't fit the general pattern of '08.
Another scenario one could imagine is a riding with a large minority population. Say the CPC ran a white candidate last time but this time fielded someone from the minority population who engaged in aggressive outreach to the community while neglecting traditional CPC voters. Traditional CPC voters stayed home and Liberal voters were poached.
I think its important to keep plausible alternative scenarios in mind. More often then not the general trend should apply but quirky stuff happens from time to time!
Indeed, and other cases that could be expected to produce anomalies would be those like Gatineau, Halton or CCMV where the incumbents or former incumbent were now running for a different party. How much is a personal vote, and how much a party vote? It would take some experience and on the ground knowledge, and/or expensive opinion research to tell for sure.
Again, to stress, this blog is not written for introductory readers. Shadow, I'm sure you bring your considerable experience to bear on the interpretation of any numbers you're presented with, and one thing I've learned in doing this website is that skilled and knowledgeable people will still look at the same set of numbers sometimes and draw totally different conclusions.
Still, as Ken alludes to, if we start by applying Occam's Razor (that, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation has the highest probability of being the correct one), the inference that it was mainly Liberals who stayed home last time is reasonably safe.
Clearly there were cases where that did not happen, such as Parkdale--High Park and Papineau. And as I reexamine Central Nova, fewer folks stayed home than I might have expected.
Is that a fair characterization, overall, would you say?
By the way, you're making an even stronger case for the importance of drawing on local knowledge, before falling into simplistic national formulae that add vote shares together, than I have been able to make myself to this point. Thank you.
Hi pundits',
I definetly agree with your analysis. My caveats weren't meant to take issue with any specific conclusions you had drawn about ridings or about '08, I was positing alternative scenarios as something for people to keep in mind for analysis of other ridings or future elections.
And this is a very useful tool, thank you for making it available.
As you say, using it along with drawing upon local knowledge and other tools should give us a more sophisticated understanding of what is really happening out there then just looking at % of the vote.
I just looove this stuff! It's so important that this type of work be done to illustrate in mathematical/statistical terms what seemed, as you put it, the most obvious inference of the raw vote data from 2008: of the 1,000,000+ decrease in number of people who voted in 2008 from 2006, the Liberal Party's overall number of votes (therefore people who voted) decreased the most - about 850,000 fewer people voted for them in 2008 than 2006 if my recollection is correct.
I think it was pegged around 750,000
Could be; it was still a massive number and a very significant portion of the decrease in "voter turnout". Nonetheless, was the first indication and leads credence to the use and effectiveness of Rovian voter suppression tactics of the first Conservative government.
I'm not sure its been yet demonstrated that vote suppression is effective.
There were those Conservatives ads marking Dion- but I think to attribute the vote dropoff to deliberate actions will require seeing that it works under a lot of conditions. Dion was wearing a bullseye on his back.
The voter suppression theory and hidden agenda is old and tired.
The first is the "vast right-wing conspiracy," a narrative made famous by Hillary Rodham Clinton but hardly limited to her. This vision maintains that conservatives win elections and policy debates not because they triumph in the open battle of ideas but because they deploy brilliant and sinister campaign tactics. A dense network of professional political strategists such as Karl Rove, think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and industry groups allegedly manipulate information and mislead the public. Democratic strategist Rob Stein crafted a celebrated PowerPoint presentation during George W. Bush's presidency that traced conservative success to such organizational factors
We'll definitely have to disagree on that one CS.
And just because some Dems may have overblown notions of how directed this is- doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Just for one item among many- how would you explain the nearly 50 state strategy of Republicans and Republican funded groups challenging voter registrations wholesale?
At any rate- at the level of observation in Canada, it doesn't matter whether and how much voter drop-off is deliberately fostered or 'just happens' because parties are inept at times, etc.
Ken,
I don't expect us to agree. We have very different views on many political events.
I have included in my own opinion the McGill study on the Anatomy of The Liberal Defeat.
I recommend you give it a read on how key groups (voting blocks) have left the Liberals for other parties.
Ken there's a big problem with illegals and criminals (who can't vote in some states) voting in the US which is why its nessecary to check registration.
And being a super power if they had open elections you'd probably see streams of Europeans and Canadians try to go vote to elect a Democrat.
If you've followed the rules properly I don't see why it should be a problem.
As for why the Liberal vote fell in '08, didn't it go UP in Quebec ?
Perhaps it had more to do with Dion's poor outreach to English Canada then Karl Rove.
This is getting to be quite a diversion from the topic.
But it is harder to be a registered voter in the US. Black people and poor people in general are less likely to be registered voters. supporters of the Republican party are more likely to be registered than are Democrats, so the Democratic Party puts a lot of energy into registering voters.
And over the last decade plus Republicans have used every pretext imaginable to do wholesale challenges to voter registration. Its the epitomy of cynicism- nothing to do with genuine concerns of who is legitimately registered- simply a matter of how many people you can get off the rolls.
Ken we'll have to agree to disagree because the flip side of that is double registration and groups like ACORN filing out false registration forms.
It would be accurate to say there are campaigns on both sides, one that perhaps registers those who shouldn't vote and one that perhaps unfairly targets those that rightfully could.
"one that perhaps registers those who shouldn't vote and one that perhaps unfairly targets those that rightfully could."
Your two "perhaps" in there are presented as if they are practically equal.
Its true that ACORN and others do register some voters that do not meet criteria. In fact, its not even 'perhaps'... if you are going to register people to vote, some of them WILL be people who do not meet the criteria. In other words, its going to happen as a by-product of registration drives.
The Republicans on the other hand, it is all about how many of the targeted types of people [ie, black, poor, etc] you can get off the rolls of registered voters. There are a myriad of ways that can be done through procedural means and wholesale numbers, and where the burden of appeal is on the persons de-registered.
The perpetrators don't care a bit who is legitimate and who is not. Its all about disqualifying the maximum number possible... both from the register rolls, and in the most heavily Democratic polls, disqualifying as many ballots as possible. The 'hanging chads' of Florida in 2000 were just the tip of the iceberg.
THAT SAID, at least so far, such tactics do not appear to be even emergent in Canada.
In Canada we are talking at most, about an 'air war' to discourage another parties supporters from voting.
And while we can question the ethics of that, and that this is over the longer term poisoning the well for all of us, 'negative attacks' are legitimate tactics in the final analysis.
Ken,
each political party is playing politics games. They always will.
Blaming "one" party is fun but not supportable with evidence readily available to refute your assertion.
The Liberals were very good at the game, but the CPC have been able to attract a large financial donor base to provide a rebuttal.
The eliminatin from large donations from corporations, unions to a taxpayer funded subsidy has NOT provided a level playing field as intended.
Ken I agree that negative ads like "Harper has a hidden agenda" or "Harper will create a military dicatorship" might discourage voters from going to the polls out of fear/anxiety.
But I really take issues with your characterization that voter fraud doesn't exist and is only an accidental by-product of registration in the US.
Ever hear the phrase "vote early and vote often" ?
The US is very slow to deregister people that move. You can drive to your old residence and vote there too if you want.
And registration of illegals is deliberate and done knowingly.
This idea that one side is saints (Democrats) and the other sinners (Republicans) is not objective analysis.
Its a partisan worldview.
Your view only presumes to be 'objective' and 'non-partisan'.
And I didn't label, nor think of the Dems as saints.
I won't argue the substance further as long as its not understand that is acceptance of what you offered.
How about we just end and declare it as even.
Ken i'm just attempting to paint a more nuanced picture of what's happening in the US.
For instance, cynical suppression of votes happens on the democratic side too.
Every election there's an attempt to disqualify the ballots of active duty military personal serving overseas.
CanadianSense is right on this one.
Its the same proffesional operatives, community activsts, lawyers, and lobbyists handling this on both sides trying to game the system in any way possible.
Its presumptive of you to imply you are being more nuanced.
Using more 'objective sounding' language that 'everyone does it' does not make you either more objective or more nuanced.
In fact, thats the line of Republicans to rationalize wholesale drives to remove as many people as possible from the voter rolls where polls are dominant Democrat- irregardless of whether they are legitimate or illegimate registrations.
But as long as you don't claim to be 'more objective' or more nuanced I'm willing to call it an inconclusive clash of opinions. :)
Ken I don't think its a clash of opinons, I don't nessecarily disagree with anything you're saying. I'm only adding more information to what I believe is an incomplete data set.
If you want to refute any of my claims you're free to do so. Otherwise it really does seem like you're engaging in a partisan analysis based on a double standard that Republicans are bad and Democrats are good.
I do think you're generalizing to an extent, "Republicans" are a pretty broad and diverse group.
I also think you're ignoring similiar behaviour on the Democrat side of things.
Trying to disqualify ballots you believe to be your opponents is common practice.
As I said the Democrats do it to military votes and in recounts they'll challenge votes in Republican areas.
Republicans do it too.
The proffesional lawyers who handle this sort of thing are mercenaries, not idealogues. They don't care about left and right.
Holy cow, the comments really multiplied on this post, which is great, because they all managed to stay reasonably socratic for the most part, and not terribly combative.
The lesson I'm learning from it all is that every party has suspicions about the motives and fair play of other parties in the matter of voter registration, and the American system certainly seems to exacerbate those.
Honestly, call me old-fashioned, but I still see the merit in a two-party enumeration team for areas of high mobility, even if we now use it as a supplement to the national list of electors. It offends my democratic instincts that any eligible person would be prevented from voting, whether due to legal barriers, poor enumeration, unavailable ID that meets more stringest criteria than are truly required, or hijinks by political parties. I never engaged in that kind of thing when I was in politics, and valued every vote whether for my candidate or not. Of course I wouldn't bend over to drive my opponents' supporters to the polls, but I bet I have unwittingly done so a couple times, and it's not the end of the world for me so long as all my folks get out to vote too.
I will say that the turnout strategies I had in mind when writing this were more the air-war kinds, than the wholesale de-registration of the poor and transient or of military voters. Because of course in the latter two cases, they would not be included in the number of "eligible voters" at all. So maybe what you're saying is that that number is underreported as well, kind of like with the labour market ... people leaving the labour force and thus not being counted in the unemployment numbers.
Food for thought for me. I always learn a lot from reading the comments here, anyways, so thanks so much everyone.
Hi Pundits don't know if you saw yet but Jim Abbot won't be running for the CPC next election in Kootenay – Columbia.
http://www.kbsradio.ca/news/565/1077442
With the 1993 members gaining their pensions now I wonder if we won't see a number of retirements announced this year ?
I didn't, Shadow, but I'm not at all surprised.
In fact I did a blogpost on MPs by year of first election a few months ago, in order to see who might be retiring next.
I'd also noticed that a lot of government money was going into that riding, whenever people were adding up the stimulus projects by riding. This made me think people were aware they'd have to be defending an open seat.
Jim Abbott was one of the original Reform MPs from 1993 and, at 67 years of age, he's the second-oldest of the 10 of them who were reelected in the last election, after John Cummins. However there are 3 older Conservative MPs who've been elected since then.
Thanks for the heads-up. That's bloggable for sure.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home