No lines today at my advance poll today, in and out in a couple minutes.
Here’s something interesting:
Hopefully this level of engagement keeps up every day of voting. A record turnout is exactly what we need
I’m reading through Reddit and some of the more conservative subs think this shows an overwhelming Conservative wave, they are sorely mistaken.
The Globe says more than 80% of eligible voters are planning to vote, and that this is the first Canadian election in years that is essentially between two parties.
They’re also starting up election-fixing conspiracy theories.
The biggest problem with the Long Ballot Committee nonsense in Poilievre’s riding is that we’re not going to know if he retains his seat until the next day.
As someone who lives, worked the polls, and finally counted ballots in PP’s riding last election (I’m sitting this election out) the length of the ballots make no difference (maybe the tally sheet is EVEN MORE outsized?).
The process is roughly this {redacted}
Here is the official procedure from elections Canada.
A long ballot shouldn’t add more counting time (in my estimate).
I haven’t scruitenered in years, but my understanding from the byelection in Toronto-St Paul’s last year, the physical handling of each ballot took significantly longer. The ballots for Carleton are 1M long, even worse than St. Paul’s was last year.
Now that you mention it, the ballots do need to be checked for two things, 1) a valid vote, and 2) verified that it doesn’t contain any other disqualifying marks.
While I assume that the dexterity to manipulate long ballots would be easier, verifying that the long ballot doesn’t contain extra disqualifying marks would be less easy; probably very tedious, but then again being an election official is mostly a very tedious job.
There’s even online training videos of the process.
Is there evidence, for each party, as to whether their supporters have low or high propensity to vote? This should tell us the effect of low or high turnout.
I can see it being a bit different this time because high turnout is presumably being driven by the U.S. threat to Canada’s national existence. But how that plays out is probably pure speculation.
That’s because he normally is calm and cogent. It’s only those who disagree with him who think that challenging them somehow makes him strident. And if his views are so bad, why did the liberals steal most of them for this election?
Other than the ones the liberals stole, of which the conservatives are still holding, which views are objectionable? I know most on the left think he’s the second coming of Trump/Hitler, but what views are you accusing the party of officially holding? I’m saying officially for a reason. If you go off into nutter territory, it can be done for all parties, so let’s stick to those reasonably likely to be implemented.
I don’t think most of PPs policies are objectionable. Some if his policies are okay (e.g. the libs did little about antisemitism or when Cattholic churches were burned). I don’t agree PP is similar to Trump. But many of his policies (strengthen the military) are too vague to mean much (though he is not unique in this regard).
I think it is a waste of time to do things in a way already considered unconstitutional when it would be relatively easy to avoid that, without using the notwithstanding clause which is a terrible federal precedent and worse with America about to go into constitutional crisis if Trump defies the courts.
Avoid talk of three strikes and mandatory minimums. Just make penalties tougher for serious crimes and fraud. Maybe write legislation that limits use of the Gladue rule, etc. to first time offenders, or moderates it. Make it so that a certain number of previous convictions increasingly counts as a factor in sentencing.
PPs weakness is not just his policies, many of which Carney borrowed. Apart from his personality, and mildly odd tangents on vaccines, the Ottawa protest, wokeness and cryptocurrency, his weaknesses might be:
- Seeming too close to Trump and Musk in terms of tone and being slow to challenge tariffs since some Conservatives like Trump
- Not making nice with Ford and the media
- Continuing to prioritize things like fentanyl and “tough on crime” which, though important, are not as critical as American relations
- Not succeeding at linking Carney to Trudeau after overconcentrating on Justin
- Not effectively attacking the Liberals on many scandals, proroguing parliament, the size of the civil service or huge deficits - obvious weak points - letting Carney mostly escape blame
- Only recently moderating his “attack mode”, possibly since his campaign did not take earlier private advice. Being publicly lambasted by Teneycke was a bad look and made it seem Ford prefers Carney
- All the parties are spending too much when fiscal restraint is needed. The Cons should be emphasizing this much more.
Most Canadians will vote Carney presuming him, rightly or wrongly, to be better at dealing with Trump.
According to Nanos NDP and Greens have made some gains since the 15th
Accompanying CTV article for infographic.
My assumption that this is due to the vigorous attacks and passionate advocacy Singh made during the two debates. But hard to know what’s real with one poll (Nanos tends to be solid thou), or, if real, if its a lasting effect.
{or maybe not} (I don’t have a full picture of the last rolling sample)
So there’s been a net shift of +0.6 for the non-Liberal, non-Conservative parties?
Well, what the polls shows is the NDP likely made some gains. That’s about the only statistically meaningful shift. 0.6 is nothing in one poll.
The likely overall result hasn’t changed in weeks.
Who really knows as they give a margin of error at 2.7%.
Globe and Mail-CTV/Nanos
Research tracking survey, April 16, 17
and 19, 2025, n=1,293, accurate 2.7
percentage points plus or minus, 19
times out of 20
But the numbers are what they are (just don’t forget those pesky error bars)
A Tory minority still remains a possibility. Well, a Tory majority is POSSIBLE, but they’d need something to happen to disrupt the race. Poilevre’s best shot was a huge debate victory but he didn’t get it.
What would be,well, crazy, would be if the Tories made enough of a comeback to just edge out the Liberals in a minority situation, like a 153-150 edge. What coalition deal might be struck?
If Carney got a minority… business as usual (like last session).
If PP eeked out a minority, they’d need to do a secret deal with the Bloc. I just think there is too much bad blood with Singh (he personally vowed never to help a PP minority too).
Now if both Singh loses his seat AND the Tories got a minority… it’d be possible that the NDP could prop up PP…, but I still don’t think likely. Its just 100% not a stable house.
T̶h̶e̶r̶e̶’d̶ b̶e̶ a̶ f̶e̶w̶ w̶e̶e̶k̶s̶ o̶f̶ P̶a̶r̶l̶i̶a̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ (̶I̶ t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶ 5̶?̶)̶ b̶e̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ t̶h̶e̶ n̶e̶x̶t̶ w̶r̶i̶t̶ c̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ b̶e̶ d̶r̶o̶p̶p̶e̶d̶, (not really certain about the rules around dissolving Parliament tbh), but it’d happen.
ETA: I assume (putting myself in PP’s shoes) that he would trigger an early election by pushing through wedge bill after wedge bill to goad the others to topple him. This way he could campaign the public for a majority (to get work done), and the other parties will be still broke from the last election.
Isn’t there a possibility of the opposition getting a chance to firm a government without another election in that scenario?
Say a conservative minority just fails at getting any help and can’t get a confidence vote to pass; I thought the Governor General could allow a coalition (say Liberal+NDP) to attempt to present bills etc and govern?
I imagine if that were to fail too, there would be another election. I just don’t think one would happen immediately because there are other arrangements that could work.