2013 British Columbia General Election Thread

[notahomer]

Well my bet was wrong. I said NDP win by five seats and Falcon rides back in to save the day (unless Clark wins a majority-which somehow She/Liberals were able to do). So, Falcons probably staying retired (from politics) for now.

As the results rolled in I was stunned. I know, I know, both Clark and Dix said repeatedly throughout the campaign "THE ONLY POLL THAT MATTERS IS THE ONE THE VOTERS DO ON ELECTION DAY". They were right. I was just as surprised as most of the media pundits because polling usually does seem to have the voters pulse nailed.

There still is a lot of fallout/dust to settle during this post election. Will Clark even win her seat? Eby is leading at this moment with advance polls to come. Election nights are always weird, IMO but this one moreso than usual. ALL parties have some bittersweet stories where long term candidates go down to a surprise challenger. One area the NDP did really well is Vancouver-proper (picking up perhaps two liberal seats but those seats are so close they may pick up none). But BC is not Vancouver proper and the BC Liberals picked up seats elsewhere.

I agree with the voter turnout complaints. I wanted to vote ever since I was five years old so I have never missed an election (municipal, provincial or federal). The BC Liberals certainly have a mandate to do what they said they will do, now. It will be interesting, IMO, to see how tonights results get re-hashed once the next election rolls around........

[KnowItAll]

Hey all,

Yeah....that was umm....the Alberta election replayed.

My riding was a safe NDP seat, so I cast a protest vote for the Conservatives first thing this morning (the was no Green in my riding). I'm kinda glad the Liberals won --but man --if you thought Christie Clark was insufferable before, it is gonna be a shrill four years.

Wouldn't it be nice to have politicians you could happily vote for in BC, as opposed to voting against politicians/parties in election after election?

Voter turnout was really, really low. They're talking about mid 40% range. It looks like 250k fewer people voted in this election than in 2009. Sad. I've never been one for mandatory voter schemes, but I'm starting to think not voting should be a 500 dollar fine, or maybe even steeper. Call it a self-centered tax. Use the money to fight the debt. Lemme see: 1.8 million eligible voters that didn't bother, times 500.oo.....that's just shy of a billion.

Cheers,

James

most of the people who dont vote dont have a clue who to vote for anyhow. Mostly likley they would just screw things up and we would always wind up with very minority govts.

[TheLionKing]

Who says politics is boring ? Down 20 points when the writ was dropped, the Liberals capped a miraculous comeback to win another majority government. Thank goodness I don't have to watch Dix hand clapping for another 4 years.

[Sir Purrcival]

Well, you could have knocked me over with a feather after this one. Didn't see ti coming at all but there are some real concerns.

Voter Turnout. 48%. Various media and politicians keep talking about need to get young voters involved but is that why the vote is so low? Personally, I am leaning more to the theory of across the board voter disenfranchisement. The feeling that all politicians are the same and that the process as a whole is flawed and bound to result in disappointment regardless of who is in. I hate to say it but maybe it is time to re: visit the notion of voting inducements, a provincial tax credit for example.

I don't think I have ever seen an election where 3 out 4 party leaders failed to win their own seat. I'm not sure what that says but does anyone think that Jane Sterk might have had a much better chance if she wasn't running against Carole James? She was a solid second in that race. Strategically, I think the Greens blew it with that choice.

Another opportunity missed? This election has again redrawn the left - right schism that seems to exist in this province. While the Greens did take a seat, they still only got 8% of the vote which is exactly what they got last election. Is there a middle ground in this province and can any political party come along that can straddle it?

As for the NDP, they have some real soul searching to do. This result is just short of disaster considering they had most of the Aces going in. Was it just a rejection of the personalities in this race or does it have larger ramifications for the core values of the party? It will be interesting to see if Mr. Dix stays on as leader. It is a role he doesn't really seem to wear with any great comfort and considering the result, he may just decide to let someone else have a go.

It is also disturbing at some level that the Liberals with all their scandals, misdeeds, and half truths still manage to be rewarded for some less than stellar performances. I hope Ms. Clarke finally sweeps away the remainder of the Campbell machine and roots out those who where prepared to give her the heave ho, the moment the election was "lost". Further I hope that the Liberals can return to more ethical ways. Please lets see an end to the political misconduct and shady backroom deals to reward those who supported them. Let them tell it like it is, not just what they want us to hear. If you really are a different leader, then demonstrate that by making conduct and integrity the cornerstones of your new mandate. She gave a good speech tonight about representing all BC'rs. Back it up in practise as well.

[sj-roc]

"Did that just happen?"

[South Pender]

Actually, voter turnout was 52% according to one news source this morning. Not great, but not unusual either. Up 1% from 51% in 2009.

[TheLionKing]

"Did that just happen?"

A picture of a dejected, devastated man. He was almost in tears in his acceptance speech.

[sj-roc]

Actually, voter turnout was 52% according to one news source this morning. Not great, but not unusual either. Up 1% from 51% in 2009.

Voter turnout numbers should be interpreted properly as to whether they represent the percentage of eligible voters or registered voters. Not everyone eligible to vote is registered to do so; in fact, many aren't, which generally means EVs > RVs. This file (requires MS Excel) from Elections BC shows this can create a discrepancy that is not necessarily inconsiderable:

http://www3.elections.bc.ca/docs/stats/ ... 8-2009.xls

For 2009 the turnout was 55.14% of RVs, but only 50.99% of EVs. My recollection is that of these, the lower EV figure was more widely reported in 2009 — the better with which to outrage, after all. It should also be pointed out that the RV figure is exact since the RV pool can be counted but the EV figure is lower and less accurate because the number of EVs is not precisely known. Census figures can provide a good estimate but these become less accurate with time as EVs die or reach voting age, move in and out of jurisdiction, etc.

I'm not sure whether the figures getting bandied about for this election refer to RVs or EVs. Perhaps 52% and 48% refer to RVs and EVs respectively?

[sj-roc]

One might wonder if the successful HST referendum factored into the election. Did this opportunity allow voters to take out their frustration on the incumbent Liberals, an opportunity that they would otherwise have been denied until last night? Did the result of the referendum allow things to cool off by the time the election rolled around? Would the NDP have won had there been no referendum and the HST remained through the election as a visible reminder of voter frustration?

[sj-roc]

Blaming defeat on the referees is just as misguided in politics as it is in sports.

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2013/05/15/nd ... hting-back

Bill Tieleman and his fellow travellers betray a complete disregard for voter psychology. You can't implement your platform until you get a mandate from the people, and those are two different tasks. Until they understand that, results like we saw last night will continue.

[South Pender]

Actually, voter turnout was 52% according to one news source this morning. Not great, but not unusual either. Up 1% from 51% in 2009.

Voter turnout numbers should be interpreted properly as to whether they represent the percentage of eligible voters or registered voters. Not everyone eligible to vote is registered to do so; in fact, many aren't, which generally means EVs > RVs. This file (requires MS Excel) from Elections BC shows this can create a discrepancy that is not necessarily inconsiderable:

http://www3.elections.bc.ca/docs/stats/ ... 8-2009.xls

For 2009 the turnout was 55.14% of RVs, but only 50.99% of EVs. My recollection is that of these, the lower EV figure was more widely reported in 2009 — the better with which to outrage, after all. It should also be pointed out that the RV figure is exact since the RV pool can be counted but the EV figure is lower and less accurate because the number of EVs is not precisely known. Census figures can provide a good estimate but these become less accurate with time as EVs die or reach voting age, move in and out of jurisdiction, etc.

I'm not sure whether the figures getting bandied about for this election refer to RVs or EVs. Perhaps 52% and 48% refer to RVs and EVs respectively?

According to the CBC, the 52% is the percentage of eligible voters. This puts it into a comparable metric with the 51% in 2009. Thus, there was slightly higher voter turnout this time around.

[sj-roc]

Hey all,

Yeah....that was umm....the Alberta election replayed.

My riding was a safe NDP seat, so I cast a protest vote for the Conservatives first thing this morning (the was no Green in my riding). I'm kinda glad the Liberals won --but man --if you thought Christie Clark was insufferable before, it is gonna be a shrill four years.

Wouldn't it be nice to have politicians you could happily vote for in BC, as opposed to voting against politicians/parties in election after election?

Voter turnout was really, really low. They're talking about mid 40% range. It looks like 250k fewer people voted in this election than in 2009. Sad. I've never been one for mandatory voter schemes, but I'm starting to think not voting should be a 500 dollar fine, or maybe even steeper. Call it a self-centered tax. Use the money to fight the debt. Lemme see: 1.8 million eligible voters that didn't bother, times 500.oo.....that's just shy of a billion.

Cheers,

James

Most political devotees are familiar with Australia's mandatory voting laws; according to wikipedia the no-show rate is typically around 5% and the fine is about $20.

[South Pender]

As someone who predicted--without my usual caution--a complete wipe-out of the provincial Liberals not two months or so ago (and on this forum), I can't recall a time I've been happier to be wrong. And whether or not you like her, Christy Clark carried the Liberals to victory. She's a terrific politician and deserves the lion's share of the credit for this astounding result. So, I think that that is Point 1: she radiated smarts, passion, and energy, and poor Adrian Dix looked like a dead fish in comparison, radiating no leadership ability and articulating a very fuzzy and ill-conceived platform. (Her own loss is not hard to understand; being leader and traveling all over the province, she was seldom in her own riding and was running against a strong NDP candidate. This is a minor blip. She'll run again in a safe Liberal riding and win.) So whether it should or not, charisma (or whatever you'd like to call it) was a major factor. Point 2: it's about the economy, stupid. Surprisingly, given their really poor poll numbers (like 20% down) about when the writ was dropped, Christy Clark and the Liberals were still able to convince the voters--correctly, in my opinion--that they would do the things necessary to exploit the province's ability to stay more economically healthy than would the NDP. Although the dippers will talk about the need for soul-searching (a cliche used by every party that loses an election; cf. US Republicans since November), it now appears that there were essentially only two things wrong with them in the minds of the voters: (a) their leader and (b) their platform. I suspect that the platform (run the province into the ground economically) will stay (and will continue to cause defeats at the hands of voters who remember the three economically-disastrous NDP regimes of the past), but I wouldn't be surprised to see Dix go.

In following the results on TV last night, I was surprised at how lacking in graciousness the NDP panel members were--particularly the one on the CBC coverage. The losers seem to be harping on two points, as though the populace really prefer them, but they were robbed of victory by (a) low voter turnout and (b) mean attack ads. As for voter turnout, the percentage of eligible voters was 52%. This is actually a 1% increase over 2009. The corresponding percentages of eligible voters actually voting in 2001 and 2005 were 55% and 58% respectively. So yesterday's turnout is not really out of line with that of recent BC elections. Further, although low voter turnout is unfortunate at all times, it cannot be seen as a reason for the NDP's dismal performance. Why would they think that had the turnout been higher, those extra votes would have gone their way?

We're also hearing a lot of talk about mean-spirited attack ads. (See the earlier link to sore loser, Bill Tieleman's piece.) To be honest, I didn't see the ads, but I understand that one theme the Liberals stressed in their ads was the poor financial management of previous NDP governments. Why should this be seen as an "attack ad"? What's wrong with reminding voters that voting the NDP into power is likely to result in serious economic woes not too far down the road? That's been the result of previous NDP governments. It's certainly not wrong to point out the shortcomings of the opposition as part of pointing out why the voters should vote for you. As I mentioned, I didn't see the ads, and if the Liberals crossed the line and got too personal, then that's not good, but merely pointing out that Adrian Dix would be a lousy premier doesn't seem out-of-line to me.

[sj-roc]

We're also hearing a lot of talk about mean-spirited attack ads. (See the earlier link to sore loser, Bill Tieleman's piece.) To be honest, I didn't see the ads, but I understand that one theme the Liberals stressed in their ads was the poor financial management of previous NDP governments. Why should this be seen as an "attack ad"? What's wrong with reminding voters that voting the NDP into power is likely to result in serious economic woes not too far down the road? That's been the result of previous NDP governments. It's certainly not wrong to point out the shortcomings of the opposition as part of pointing out why the voters should vote for you. As I mentioned, I didn't see the ads, and if the Liberals crossed the line and got too personal, then that's not good, but merely pointing out that Adrian Dix would be a lousy premier doesn't seem out-of-line to me.

I think this was one of the more notable "attack ads" from the Liberals, which was released in the last week of the campaign.

[video][/video]