Regional gains and losses in #elxn43

How did the votes get distributed on election night? Nationwide, the Liberal vote share declined by 5.6% compared to 2015, while Conservative vote share increased by 2.5%.  NDP vote share decreased by 3.8%, while the Greens increased 3.1% (this is counter-narrative).  The Bloc increased 3% nationally, translating to a 13.2% boost in Québec, and the Peoples Party, new to the scene, carved out 1.6%.

How the parties rose and fell varied on a regional basis.  The Liberals went down in every region, in terms of popular vote.  However, their losses were lowest in vote-rich Ontario and Québec.  They suffered a decline in their popular vote by over 15% on the Prairies, where they only elected 5 seats in 2015.  They also suffered an 18% decline in the Atlantic, but because they were so dominant in 2015, they had a buffer which allowed them to retake 26 of 32 seats.

Screen Shot 2019-10-25 at 1.48.11 PM

Conservative gains were disproportionately higher in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where they already had a near dominant position.  Significant gains were made in B.C. (4 point increase) which allowed for a six seat gain.  A ten point gain in the Atlantic helped deliver four new seats but they were climbing out of a big hole and needed more in order to harvest bushels of seats.  In Central Canada, Conservative popular vote declined, down 1.8% in Ontario and 0.7% in Québec.  To get from opposition to government, you can’t give up ground in the two provinces that combine for 199 seats.

Therefore, for the Conservatives, seat gains were modest.  Of the 22 newly acquired ridings, seventeen were west of Ontario: seven in B.C., four in Alberta, six in Saskatchewan-Manitoba.  Of the remaining five pick-ups, four were in the Atlantic and three were in Ontario, offset by the loss of two seats in Québec.

Screen Shot 2019-10-25 at 1.48.48 PM

Liberal losses were spread fairly evenly.  They gave up 27 seats, compared to the 2015 election, but lost no more than six in any region (B.C. and Atlantic).  The key to victory was only losing a net of one seat in Ontario, where they had a very strong showing in 2015.  Their Québec losses were lower than what they gave up in the Atlantic.

The storyline as it relates to the Greens and the NDP is interesting.  Much was made of NDP momentum and the Greens blown opportunity.  And it’s true.

However, the NDP momentum was relative to their abysmal standing in the polls at the outset of the campaign.  When it was all said and done, the NDP lost a significant share of  its popular vote, based mainly on it being decimated in Québec.  It made no headway in Ontario, where its leader is originally from and previously elected in the Ontario legislature.  Wasn’t the business case for Jagmeet Singh that – to offset losses in Québec – he could win in the suburbs of Toronto and Vancouver and broaden the base in the rest of Canada?  Didn’t happen.  Outside Québec, Singh’s share of the vote (17.5%) was lower than Tom Mulcair’s (17.9%).

The Greens on the other hand can see some encouragement in the wake of a hollow election night.  Yes, they had a golden opportunity on Vancouver Island, which passed them by.  They did, however, make significant popular vote gains in B.C. and the Atlantic, far surpassing the NDP in New Brunswick and P.E.I.  While the NDP went down 3.8% nationwide, the Greens went up 3.1%.  Again, it was a disappointment based on expectations, but in the long-run, it is a step forward.

As these graphs show, there was really only one leader who excelled at regional math on election night: Yves-François Blanchet.

Trudeau Liberals win plurality with lowest ever popular vote

It’s not uncommon in Canada to have a party with the most seats have fewer votes than another party.  But the 2019 election will be the first time the governing party was elected with less than 34% of the popular vote.  Justin Trudeau’s 33.1% is the new low, falling beneath John A. Macdonald’s 34.8% from Canada’s first post-Confederation election in 1867.

Justin Trudeau’s minority win is much lower than other minority wins we have seen over the past sixty years.  Joe Clark’s government came to power in 1979 after winning a plurality of seats with 35.9% of the popular vote, over 4% lower than Pierre Trudeau’s Liberals.

Over under

Aside from Justin Trudeau and Joe Clark, other prime ministers and parties that had more seats, but fewer votes:

  • 1896 – Wilfred Laurier Liberals lost popular vote by 7 points to Charles Tupper’s Conservatives
  • 1926 – William Lyon MacKenzie King’s Liberals lost popular vote 43% to 45% for Arthur Meighen’s Conservatives
  • 1957 – John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservatives had 39% compared to Louis St. Laurent’s Liberals 41%

Then there is MacKenzie King who had fewer votes and fewer seats in 1925, but continued to govern thanks to the Progressives which held the balance of power.  That could have happened following October 21st had Scheer won more seats, but fallen short of a majority.

So, that’s where the Trudeau Liberal win on October 21st fits in the context of Canada’s electoral and parliamentary history.  It’s not a majority and it’s underwhelming in terms of popular support.  With the lowest popular vote since Confederation to form government, the Trudeau Liberals can reflect on how it approaches governing where two-thirds of the electorate voted for other parties.

Your Election Night yardstick

It could be a long night.  Results will be coming in rapid fire from Cape Breton to Cape Scott.  How to make sense of it all?

Here are five charts to help you follow along on election night.

Chart 1: 2015 federal elections results by region

Screen Shot 2019-10-21 at 7.27.25 AM.png

In 2015, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals took 184 of 338 seats – a majority is 170.  As the chart above shows, the Liberals swept the Atlantic and North (35 for 35), took a majority in Québec, two-thirds of Ontario, and a bigger slice than usual on the Prairies and B.C.

Chart 2: Conservative pathway to victory

Screen Shot 2019-10-21 at 7.38.12 AM

During the campaign, I wrote about the potential pathways to power for the Conservatives, based on historic examples from Diefenbaker to Harper.

Winning 160 seats is a ‘stretch goal’ tonight, and if Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives pull it off, it will likely be because they won three-quarter of the seats from B.C. to Manitoba, and took at least half of the seats in Ontario.

Chart 3: Liberal pathway to a majority

Screen Shot 2019-10-21 at 7.37.02 AM

No one is really talking about the prospect of a Liberal majority and appears quite unlikely unless there is a last minute surge.  I looked at the ways Liberals have won in the past. A minority may look like Paul Martin’s win in 2004, but if they come close to, or pull off a majority, it may look like this:

  • Hold support in Central Canada
  • Limit losses in Atlantic Canada and the West to about 12-15 seats

Chart 4: the ‘over-under line’

Slide1

No party has won a majority government with less than 38% of the popular vote.  It’s not impossible, but it hasn’t happened yet.

No party has won a plurality of seats in past 60 years with less than 35% of the vote.  Perhaps tonight is that night.

See What is the magic number for a majority in #Elxn43? and A deeper dive into the conditions for majority and minority governments.

Chart 5: the B.C. Battleground

Screen Shot 2019-10-06 at 9.26.43 PM

The first campaigns of Pierre Trudeau and Justin Trudeau were the high water marks for Liberals in British Columbia between 1968 and 2015.  During most of that time, the leading conservative party had the plurality of seats, with two NDP exceptions.  Will the Liberals be able to hold 2015 gains tonight? Will the Conservatives return to historic patterns? Will the NDP hold its own and surge to a plurality in B.C.? Will the Greens add to their current tally of two seats?  And what about JWR?

See two posts on the BC landscape:

Tune in tonight to Global BC’s election night coverage.  See you there.

Vegas for political nerds – where the ‘smart money’ is going in #elxn43

It’s Vegas for political nerds. It’s one thing to read the polls, listen to your gut, and have a prediction.  But what about putting hard-earned, cold cash on the line? That’s exactly what UBC’s Sauder School of Business offers with their Election Prediction Market.  You can invest up to $1000 to test your theories.

The prediction market has been taking place in one form or another since 1993.  Here’s why they do it:

The exclusive purposes for conducting the prediction markets are teaching and research. Participants learn first-hand about the operation of a financial futures market and, because they have an added incentive to do so, learn more about the political or economic events associated with the contracts. As a research project, our markets generate valuable data that provide insights into market and trader behaviour.

There are four markets where you can bet:

Popular Vote Share Market

This is my least favourite as the bettors slavishly follow the latest poll results.  Sometimes you will see some sentimental investing, but the results basically mirror poll aggregators.   The payoffs aren’t great unless the pollsters are very wrong.

As the chart below indicates, the betting lines have closely mirrored public opinion during the writ period.  In the past 7 days, the Liberals have traded at a high of 33.69% and the Conservatives peaked at 33.88%. The NDP fever crested at 18.98%, but miserly traders currently peg them at 17.54% (no more Jagmentum, says the market).

Screen Shot 2019-10-17 at 7.52.59 AM.png

Seat Share Market

This one is more interesting and has more volatility.  Right now, the market has the Liberals and Conservatives both at about 39 cents, based on 132 seats each in the House of Commons.  There is likely some betting upside for one of the parties.

The NDP are trading at 11 cents, which translates to 37 seats.  This seems high.  If only I knew how to short sell.  The Bloc Québécois comes in at 10 cents or 34 seats, while the Greens are a penny stock (1.25 cents), translating to 4 seats.  It’s depressing when an historic breakthrough is only trading for a penny!  They don’t even make pennies even more.

This market has seen the NDP move from a low of 7 cents to almost 12 cents in the past week, while the Liberals have dropped from 47 cents to 39 cents.

Screen Shot 2019-10-17 at 8.02.46 AM.png

Parliamentary Plurality Market

Now, here’s a place to make 2:1 on your bet.  Only one party can win a plurality so it’s feast or famine.  The Liberals have moved from 71 cents to 50 cents over the past week, while the Conservatives have moved up from 31 cents to 46 cents.

Screen Shot 2019-10-17 at 8.19.43 AM

With the Conservatives and Liberals both in the 50 cent range, that’s a tidy payoff if you get it right.

Majority Government Market

The market has moved away from a majority government during the writ period.  Now, “any other outcome”, ie. minority government, is trading over 76 cents.  Still, if you are convinced that is the likely outcome, it’s still giving you in the neighbourhood of a 30% return.

Screen Shot 2019-10-17 at 8.21.12 AM

A Liberal majority is trading at 12 cents and a Conservative majority is trading at 10 cents.  Wouldn’t it be nice to get an 8:1 or 10:1 return on your investment.

The market is moving all the time so be quick if you see an opportunity.

The OVERWHELMING CONSENSUS is that there will be a minority government. We know the Holy Trinity – public pollsters, pundits and political scientists – are never wrong and would never lead the market astray!

Uh, so this was the 2013 BC election prediction market:

Screen Shot 2015-10-14 at 11.32.35 AM

I can tell you there was a very sweet payoff.  More than 10:1.

The prediction market at least proves one eternal truth.  There is a sucker born every minute, 19 times out of 20.

Where does the NDP pathway lead?

Jaggernaut.  Jagmentum.  Jagmeet Singh has been the story of the campaign since the English-language debate – in English Canada – where the NDP, for most of its history, has won its seats.

Until 2011, the NDP’s political game plan was all about Canada outside Québec – the rest of Canada (ROC). It has only won multiple seats in Québec twice – the previous two elections.  Historically, NDP vote in ROC ran far ahead of its vote in Québec. But in 2011 and 2015, that equation changed, with NDP vote in ROC running behind the national number, because of NDP strength in Quebec.

Table 1: NDP popular vote and seat share (1997 to current poll estimates in 2019)

Screen Shot 2019-10-14 at 10.29.59 PM

Layton’s Quebec surge of 2011 did not translate the same way in ROC. Even at its peak in 2011, the NDP was only at 26% of the vote in ROC, which translated into the NDP winning only 19% of ROC seats, running well behind the Harper Conservatives. Happily for the NDP in that election, 59 seats of the 75 seats in Quebec went orange, more than doubling their best-ever seat count in a federal election.

In 2015, the NDP plummeted in ROC from 26% to 18% – a lower level than all four of Jack Layton’s elections between 2004-2011, and resulted in only 11% of the seats from ROC.  – half of those (14) were in British Columbia.  The remaining seats were in Alberta (1), Saskatchewan (3), Manitoba (2), and Ontario (8).  

Table 1: NDP by the numbers in Canada and ROC (1997-2015)

Screen Shot 2019-10-14 at 10.38.33 PM

Jagmentum?

Clearly, the NDP leader has been the recipient of well-deserved positive media coverage since the English debate, and he has campaigned well throughout the writ period.  How does it translate into seats?

In ROC, the NDP looks to be at or above where it finished the 2015 election under the leadership of Thomas Mulcair.  However, they will likely lose all or almost all of their 16 seats in Québec.  That’s a lot of seats to make up in ROC, especially when they are still a fair distance below the historic ROC highs of Jack Layton’s 2011 campaign (44 seats) and Ed Broadbent’s effort in 1988 (43 seats in ROC).  In other words, to come out even in this campaign with 2015 (which was a disappointment that caused the resignation of Mulcair), Singh will have to pull off a record performance in ROC.

Even if Singh’s NDP pushed it to Laytonesque levels (26% in ROC), the NDP would still be far behind the major parties.  As it sits right now, the NDP may be the fourth place party in the House of Commons behind the Bloc Québécois.

The more impactful consequence may be the NDP feasting on Liberal votes in suburban battlegrounds where the Conservatives stand to benefit.  NDPers can also rightly assert that their rise may come at the expense of Conservatives in other places, such as the BC Interior where two NDP incumbents face tough re-election battles.

The campaign momentum is surely a welcome reprieve from the doom many NDPers feared.   To their credit, the federal NDP has finally shaken off its extended phase of self-destruction and unsteady start of Mr. Singh. It was only four years plus a month ago that the NDP were on the very verge of power with Thomas Mulcair.  Now, here they are celebrating momentum that will deliver, what, 30 seats?   Singh’s comeback started with winning the Burnaby South by-election, and, now, the NDP has stabilized itself on a footing very consistent with its history, but a long way from what a 2015 pathway looked like: Quebec domination plus seats in all regions.

So, who is really cheering Jagmentum in the final week? Scheerly, you can figure that out.

Liberal pathways to victory

If the Big Red Machine rolls to victory on October 21st, how will it be done? Regional seat balances have been like whack-a-mole this election.  In this post, I look at examples of Liberal wins, and the regional coalitions they were based on, since the 1960s – and which of these scenarios Justin Trudeau’s Liberals might emulate this time.  (See my recent post on Conservative pathways to power).

Will it be:

  • Lester Pearson’s near miss in 1965
  • Pierre Trudeau’s close shave in 1972
  • Pierre Trudeau’s Central Canadian Special in 1980
  • Jean Chrétien’s ‘Ontario, baby!’ win in 1997 (a model he used three times), or
  • Paul Martin’s missing majority in 2004
  • Or a repeat of the all-in majority of 2015?

Pearson 1965: the near miss

Lester_Pearson_1957.jpg

He loved baseball but couldn’t hit the home run in 1965

Lester Pearson won a minority in 1963, defeating John Diefenbaker’s minority government that was elected in 1962.  The 1965 campaign was their fourth battle and Diefenbaker seemed out of gas.  Pearson recruited three star candidates in Québec by the names of Pelletier, Marchand, and Trudeau.  Despite boosting support there, Diefenbaker stubbornly clung to support in the rest of Canada (ROC), and rolled back Liberal support to some extent in the west and Atlantic Canada.  The math came up a little short with Pearson winning 49% of the seats (131 of 265).  Tommy Douglas’s NDP held the balance of power along with the Social Credit/ Créditistes.  Pearson won almost three-quarters of Québec, a majority in Ontario, but did poorly in the West.

Won big in Quebec, majority in Ontario, but lost badly in the west

PET’s close shave in 1972

Screen Shot 2019-10-12 at 2.02.07 PM.png

Land was Strong, but campaign wasn’t

Pierre Trudeau’s first win was in the height of Trudeaumania in 1968.  He won two-thirds of the seats in B.C. along with a strong showing in Central Canada.  By getting more out of the west, he had done what Pearson couldn’t do – win a majority.

The mood soured by 1972.  In the rematch with Progressive Conservative leader Robert Stanfield, Trudeau’s Liberals were very much on the back foot, and reduced to 38% of the vote and 109 seats in a Parliament of 265 members.  The Liberals sunk below thresholds that Pearson had won with in 1965, scraping by with a two-seat margin over the PC’s because of its strength in Québec where they won over half of their seats (56).

Won big in Québec, lost majority in Ontario and Atlantic, lost badly in the west

PET’s Central Canadian Special in 1980

Screen Shot 2019-10-12 at 2.20.33 PM.pngIn his fifth and final election campaign, Pierre Trudeau drove the Central Canadian Special right down the gut of Canada’s electoral map, winning a majority with 147 of 282 seats (52%).  He took 99% of the seats in Québec and a majority of seats (55%) in Ontario.  He had a little help from the Atlantic too, where  he had a better result (59%) than the previous two examples.  In the west, the Liberals were virtually extinguished, winning two seats in Manitoba.  Nuttin’ in BC, Alberta, or Saskatchewan.  Blanked in the North as well.

Dominated Québec, majorities Ontario and Atlantic, nowhere in the west

Jean Chrétien’s ‘Ontario, baby!’ in 1997 (and 1993 and 2000)

Screen Shot 2019-10-12 at 2.17.22 PM.png

“Ontario was really good to me, like really really really good”

In his first re-election campaign, Jean Chrétien’s Liberals took 155 of 301 seats for a majority.  It was not the mandate that Chrétien received in 1993 but it was still a majority.  No party has ever relied upon one region so thoroughly as the Liberals did in this campaign – Ontario – where they won 101 of 103 seats.  Ontario accounted for 65% of the Liberal Caucus.  This was due to a stubborn vote split where the PC’s and Reformers played chicken with the Liberals coming out on top.  Even the NDP couldn’t figure out how to steal some seats from the the wily Shawinigan fox in Ontario.  Unlike PET and the Central Canadian Special, Chrétien only won about one-third of the seats in Québec, and also failed to win a majority of seats in the Atlantic and the west, though he had a much stronger showing in the west and north than PET did in 1980.  Chrétien’s Ontario, baby! formula was entirely based on the opposition’s lack of unity.  Though it worked three times, it was not sustainable.

Dominated Ontario, got enough from Québec, Atlantic, and west to reach majority

Paul Martin’s missing majority in 2004

Screen Shot 2019-10-12 at 2.23.01 PM.png

And now the opposition gets organized?!

Paul Martin looked like an unstoppable force when he won the Liberal leadership in 2003 but he was bedevilled by lingering scandal from the decade-old Liberal government.  New Conservative leader Stephen Harper chipped away, as did new NDP leader Jack Layton.  The opposition was now much stronger than the Chrétien years.

Martin did better in the Atlantic and came in about the same in the west as Chrétien, but he could not replicate the Ontario dominance and fell a bit in Québec.  Losing 31 seats in Central Canada cost him the majority.  Under any other circumstance, winning 70% in Ontario would be a huge accomplishment but it wasn’t the 98% that Chrétien had, and he couldn’t make those seats up in other regions.

Strong majority in Ontario and Atlantic, weak in Québec and the west

Justin Trudeau’s all-in majority in 2015
Justin Trudeau’s majority in 2015 (54% of seats) was unlike these other examples.  It was much more balanced than his father’s majority in 1980 – not as dependent on Québec and much stronger in the west, winning almost 30% of the seats there (the most of any example discussed).  Justin won two-thirds of the seats in Ontario, half in Québec, and 100% in Atlantic Canada.  There were no glaring regional weaknesses.  Of all the examples, this was the most regionally representative.

Strong majority in Ontario, dominant in Atlantic, majority in Québec, competitive in west

Chart 1: Results from six Liberal wins (popular vote %, and seat %)

Screen Shot 2019-10-12 at 2.29.52 PM.png

What it means for Justin Trudeau, this time

Screen Shot 2019-10-13 at 1.19.16 PMThe examples discussed demonstrate that you can win by utterly dominating a large region, as PET did in 1980 and Chrétien did in 1993, 1997, and 2000.  However, if there’s not domination, there must be some regional balance.  Justin Trudeau’s pathway is regional balance.

It looks like it will be very difficult to replicate the regional strength he had in 2015.  Seats will be given up in the Atlantic.  The Bloc Québécois is a stronger contender this time making it difficult to hold 40 seats (not impossible).  The likely pathway to victory is a strong majority of seats in Ontario and Atlantic, bolstered by getting enough seats out of Québec and the west to win a plurality.  Without regional dominance, it depends on broad popular support, which works on a rising tide, but can be fatal when the tide goes out.  The Liberal 2019 position looks very similar to the regional shape of Paul Martin’s 2004 results.  It does not look like 1972 when PET nearly lost his first re-election bid.  Justin Trudeau is much stronger in ROC, but weaker in Québec than his father.  The final week will show if the Liberals can stay on a pathway to victory.  Like the Conservative pathway, it is not an easy one.

**

Table 1: Results from six Liberal wins

Screen Shot 2019-10-14 at 9.01.05 AM.png

 

BC’s photo finish: translating votes to seats

British Columbia will be fascinating to watch on election night. As advance polls open, there has been a struggle between the Liberals and Conservatives to emerge as a clear leader, while the NDP appear to be on the move post-debate.  The Greens maintain a strong presence on the Island that could be converted into a bushel of seats.

When you see these poll numbers bouncing around, how do they convert to seats?  I thought it would be ‘fun’ to play with numbers today.

Screen Shot 2019-10-11 at 5.11.30 PM.png

Four parties (and an independent) in the hunt for seats in BC. It’s that close, it seems.

In ‘BC Battleground’, I wrote about the key regions.  In particular, the Lower Mainland outer suburbs and Vancouver Island are very volatile.

A political sniffle can lead to an electoral coma for parties mired in three and four way battles.

When we forecast results, they are based mainly on the result of the last election, adjusted to potential 2019 scenarios.  When it’s all said and done, the seats normally follow a similar pattern.  The ranking of seats, party by party, doesn’t usually shift that much from election to election (a party’s best and worst seats tend to be consistent, such as the NDP in East Van, CPC in Peace River, or Liberals in Quadra). Over time, yes, coalitions shift and parties evolve, winning in places that are new, and losing in places that used to be strongholds.  That pattern usually takes a few cycles.

Assuming patterns are fairly consistent to 2015, we can look at how seat totals might play out based on popular vote.  This does not take into account special local factors.

Reminder that in 2015, the seat totals in BC were:

  • 17 Liberal
  • 14 NDP
  • 10 CPC
  • 1 Green

Scenario 1: Three-way tie, with Greens trailing in fourth

CPC Lib NDP Green
Vote% 26.5% 26.5% 26.5% 16.0%
Seats 12 13 16 1

Despite the three-way tie in popular vote, the NDP has an efficiency advantage, mainly based on winning, like they did in 2015, six of seven seats on the Island with about one-third of the vote.

Scenario 2: Top 2 CPC and Liberals, NDP third, with Greens trailing in fourth

In 2015, the Liberals won popular vote in BC by 5.5%.  This scenario has the CPC tying the Liberals, with NDP trailing by about same amount as 2015.

CPC Lib NDP Green
Vote% 28% 28% 23% 16.0%
Seats 14 14 12 2

Both Conservatives and Liberals vote breaks evenly into seats with NDP punching above its weight due to the Island.

Scenario 3: CPC lead over Liberals, NDP third, Greens trailing in fourth

If the Conservatives take a 4-point lead over the Liberals, the math starts to move.

CPC Lib NDP Green
Vote% 30.0% 26.0% 23% 16.0%
Seats 17 11 12 2

Seat pick ups increase in the outer suburbs of Vancouver for the Conservatives, levelling that region which the Liberals dominated in 2015.  The Liberals would hold most of their Vancouver-urban core seats.

Scenario 4: Liberals lead Conservatives, NDP third, Greens fourth

Scenario 3 is flipped to a Liberal 4-point lead, holding the NDP and Greens constant.

CPC Lib NDP Green
Vote% 26.0% 30.0% 23.0% 16.0%
Seats 10 17 13 2

Scenario 5: NDP falters, Greens rise

The previous four scenarios have the Green constant at 16%.  This scenario moves them to 20% and the NDP to 22%.

CPC Lib NDP Green
Vote% 27.0% 27.0% 22.0% 20.0%
Seats 14 14 10 4

The Island is very dynamic in terms of vote splits.  If the Greens rise over there (with 20% province-wide indicating a popular vote on the Island of over 35%), then NDP seats fall to the Greens, at least on the Lower Island.

Scenario 6:  One party blowout

It would take a 10%+ lead in the popular vote for any one party to grab 50% of the seats (21 seats).

Blue crush

CPC Lib NDP Green
Vote% 35.0% 24.0% 22.0% 15.0%
Seats 22 9 9 2

Big red machine

CPC Lib NDP Green
Vote% 24.0% 35.0% 22.0% 15.0%
Seats 5 23 12 2

Jagmentum

CPC Lib NDP Green
Vote% 24.0% 24.0% 33.0% 15.0%
Seats 9 11 21 2

Green armageddon

CPC Lib NDP Green
Vote% 15% 15% 15% 50%
Seats 0 0 0 42

I mean, isn’t Green armageddon just inevitable?  Who doesn’t want unicorns and rainbows?

Local factors

The seat modelling ignores that Paul Manly won the Nanaimo-Ladysmith by-election for the Greens, that the Conservatives fired their Burnaby-North Vancouver candidate, that the Liberals fired candidates in Victoria and Cowichan last election, thus lowering their base for this model.  It also does not account for a candidate by the name of Jody Wilson-Raybould.  So, yes, local factors can confound the model, but the model overall speaks truth.  Due to our system, the votes have to land somewhere. When you see fortunes rise and fall in the polls, the seats will follow.

It seems that close.  We’ll see which scenario prevails.