Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
Vancouver South.
Burnaby-Douglas.
Nunavut.
Edmonton-Strathcona.
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar.
Kenora.
Kitchener-Waterloo.
Kitchener-Center.
Mississauga-Erindale.
Brampton-Springdale.
Oak Ridges-Markham.
Brome-Missisquoi*.
Ahuntsic*.
Haute-etc*.
Roberval-Lac-St-Jean.
Charolette Town.
Malpeque.
Egmont.
Saint John.
St. John's South-Mt. Pearl*.
New Westminister-Coquitlam.
Yukon.
Edmonton-Sherwood Park.
Elmwood-Transcona.
Sault Ste. Marie.
Guelph.
Mississauga-South.
Gatineau*.
Jeanne-Le Ber*.
Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier*.
Beauport-Limoilou.
Miramichi.
Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe.
West Nova.
South Shore-St. Margaret's.
Some places, like
York Center, almost made the second list, but not quite. These are the places I think of when I hear about elections -- I live in one of them, for the record, the singular orange speck in a blue sea.
Some of you are no doubt thinking "what is this." Others might be thinking "I see!" Most are most likely thinking "for fuck's sake Khar, shut the hell up for once and just tell us." I shall accede to your wishes!
The first list are those ridings which were 1000 votes or less from being another party. The second list is between 1 and 2 thousand. I know that this is not a great representation of how things are for "swing" ridings --
Yukon and
Nunavut, for example, have a difference between 5-10% from first to second parties. But I was too lazy to go back and do all 300+ ridings again.
I would consider the next election a run between the
Conservative minority and the
Conservative minority. Those with *s next to them are a bit irrelevant for the time being, before I go further, as they would not go to the Conservatives should the prevailing party lose them. 7/17 of the first set and 7/12 for the second set. On the basis of what Eyebrock mentioned, that the
NDP might siphon votes from the
Liberals, the majority of the blue ridings up there would be safe -- most of the blue ridings are contested by
Liberals. The rest of the blue ridings would likely become safer, with the potential exception of ones like
Beauport-Limoilou which could fall to the
Bloc in Quebec.
In other words, on that basis alone, where the
Liberals are weakened by the
NDP, we would see the
Conservative position strengthen from the above -- the amount of current blue up there would likely shrink, and some of those names might turn a different colour. Given the
Liberals have been tanking in the polls and the
Conservatives rising in them, I don't think that the
Liberals are doing all that great. Rumblings in the North about
Conservative support since 2008 might also bring some of those swing ridings into the group, even if there are not many. In one case, the
Conservatives are being run against by an
Independent, and in another an
Independent is being run against by the
Bloc.
I'll stop colour coding now. This information from
Canada Votes 2008 on the CBC (
WARNING: CONTAINS FLASH).
Hurley is right. They do have the most to lose, but I think they also have a little way to go to gain in a lot in the form of a majority in the House of Commons. There's a lot of incentives for them to go again, especially since Harper currently has popularity which exceeds what Cretien (and many other PMs) had for a lot of his (and their) massive majorities.
However, I think more is going on. As much as the Liberals would wish otherwise, we're currently running an election based largely on the economy (and other factors) and, hence, largely on the budget. Even, as hurley mentions, if they do hold some amount of ethical high ground (which, to be honest, I'd have to stress I'm personally not so sure on as the Liberals have a few questionable bits as well), people will vote on other things rather than ethics. Like Lemmy and andy, I don't think the scandals are getting much attention.
With this decision, the Liberals also lose their "we're not going for an election" kind of tone which I didn't really believe (I think they all want an election save possibly Layton at the moment), and they also have taken some hits in the media lately for the massive truancy problems within the Liberal ranks, including the leader himself. Originally I was going to say that Harper was acting a bit Trudeau-esque in pulling his own downfall (like in 1974) but now it seems like the Liberals have dropped that pretense and are in full swing.
To be honest, I would prefer a Harper minority. I would also prefer the NDP became Her Majesty's official opposition. Harper and Ignatieff both need to be replaced. In fact, I think most of the parties need a shake up, with the exception of the Green (since there seems to be no other viable candidates than May, looking at current events in that regard). While the Liberals have had a recent leader change, they are having the same, if not worse, stagnation which we are seeing in other parties, and I think tolerance of that stagnation is not helping any party at the moment. If there's one good thing, it's that at least one party is going to have to change in the upcoming elections.
I don't want a majority since I prefer the limits that the opposition provides. I do find the assertions that Harper is going to destroy Canada a little funny still (if he's doing it he's taking his time) and it does keep them accountable, even if the other parties prefer to scream about dictatorships in public and then deal with that same "dictatorship" in private.
The reason I want the Liberals in third party status is because they simply do not have the same cohesion and message they used to. I don't know what they stand for, and you can't run an election on the premise that you stand for little other than "taking down Harper." The electorate wants something from the Liberals, and other than promises from his tour and such, we haven't seen a ton on the topic from Ignatieff, and a lot of his messages seemed to go the same spots -- some place Harper has just been, or to places the Liberals are typically strong, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver (plus their surrounding areas).
They also don't have a Pearson, a Laurier, or even a Trudeau worth mentioning, and a lot of the party members I like have no interest in heading the party anymore. Most of the strong personalities are gone. The Liberals need time to rebuild, and being the official opposition has not afforded them the opportunity. They also need time to build a reputation and a strong stance on an issue which they stick with for a while, much like the NDP does... even if Layton has done some questionable things as well, he has a strong stance for many issues. Ignatieff, on the other hand, has not been good for his party. He's a smart guy, don't get me wrong -- but he doesn't translate well onto the political scene, and he has made a lot of unnecessary gaffs in his time as the leader of the Liberals. I don't think he's really gained the trust of the Liberal voters, like a lot of party figures do by working through the ranks.
I don't know who I will vote for next election, nor will I until I am in the voting booth. I don't think this riding will remain NDP as it is, even with the massive student vote, because I think the Conservatives are making a strong comeback in the area and their popularity has grown quite a bit. Overall, I don't really have a strong stance on much.
CKA Uber 
