![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe results of yesterday's general election in British Columbia. Briefly, everyone expected the NDP to replace the unpopular Liberal minority government of Christy Clark. Instead, the electorate returned the Liberals with a majority.
CBC's report "How did Christy Clark pull off a B.C. election upset?" summarizes the whole affair nicely.
Better leadership on the part of Clark than that displayed by NDP leader Adrian Dix, the success of negative campaigning and advertising, the NDP's opposition to pipeline expansion, low voter turnout, and others have been produced as explanations. For ThreeHundredEight.com's Éric Grenier, the title of his post-election post "Polling industry dealt major blow in B.C. election" summarizes his reaction.
CBC's report "How did Christy Clark pull off a B.C. election upset?" summarizes the whole affair nicely.
Anchor Tony Parsons opened the CBC election night special broadcast by declaring it would be "an exciting night of political drama." That it was, but the voters didn't follow the script.
The way Parsons posed the possible outcomes did give a hint of what was about to unfold. He started with, "We will see Christy Clark lead what would be one of the greatest political comebacks in B.C. election history, will that happen?"
Even as signs early in the night pointed to a Liberal majority, the journalists and analysts seemed to be in disbelief.
After all every published public opinion polls suggested that the NDP was ahead, the latest polls by an average of about 7.5 per cent. At one point, Adrian Dix had a 20-point lead in the polls.
In the end, the Liberals won 50 of the province's 85 seats, will govern for a fourth consecutive term and finished about five points ahead of the NDP in the popular vote.
Better leadership on the part of Clark than that displayed by NDP leader Adrian Dix, the success of negative campaigning and advertising, the NDP's opposition to pipeline expansion, low voter turnout, and others have been produced as explanations. For ThreeHundredEight.com's Éric Grenier, the title of his post-election post "Polling industry dealt major blow in B.C. election" summarizes his reaction.
In British Columbia, there was no indication of a late swing. If anything, there was a sign that Clark's momentum had reversed itself. The New Democrats were not an unknown quantity. There was polling being done as late as Monday. There was the experience of two pollsters with long and successful histories in British Columbia. There was the much-vaunted GOTV organization of the NDP. And yet all the polls said the New Democrats would win, and all the polls were wrong.
[. . .]
The forecasted ranges captured every vote and seat result with the exception of the NDP. Those ranges are designed to account for an Alberta-level event, but even so they were unable to predict that the New Democrats would under-perform in the popular vote to such a great degree. The ranges, implying that the polls should always be considered potentially spectacularly wrong, were apparently a good idea, but if ranges of this size need to be included in every election the usefulness of the forecasting model is virtually zero. In even a modestly close election, they will always span almost the entire spectrum since most ridings come into play at that point.
[. . .]
There is no question that seat projection models like mine work. They are an effective way to translate poll results into seats. This is not voodoo magic, it is a rather simple endeavour. The challenge is being the least possible amount of wrong, which is the best that forecasters can hope for. But the models are only as good as the available information.
I have to admit that my confidence in the quality of that information - polling - has been profoundly shaken. Alberta was an aberration, and there was some good reason as to why it occurred (which I now have doubts about). Quebec was only a minor flub, which can be attributed in part to superior Liberal organization (or can it?). But this is a complete disaster. There is no reason why this should have happened, which leads me to believe that the reason it happened is because the pollsters did a bad job.
It might not be their fault exactly. Perhaps it is no longer possible to consistently and repeatedly build a sample that is reflective of the population. Can online panels be reliably effective when they aren't national? Work will have to be done to determine why this is happening and how it can be avoided. I have no doubt that the pollsters will eventually tackle the new challenges that they face. The question is how long it will take and whether it can be done in a country like Canada.
